The Battle of the Judges: NY Judge Says NSA Metasearch Legal

[g5000]

As recorded in Little Acorn's topic two weeks ago, a judge for the Washington DC federal district ruled the NSA's data collection program was likely unconstitutional.

Today, another federal district judge (for the New York district) ruled the other way: N.Y. judge rules NSA phone surveillance is legal

A federal judge on Friday found that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records is legal and a valuable part of the nation's arsenal to counter the threat of terrorism.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaeda's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

Dunh-dunh-duuuuuuun!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Judge William Pauley needs to be sodomized with a splintered baton.

 

[g5000]

Judge William Pauley needs to be sodomized with a splintered baton.

Waterboarded. Because...you know...waterboarding isn't torture.

 

[g5000]

Next stop, the United States Supreme Court. This is going to be a profound ruling on the future direction of the country.

 

[g5000]

And now a history lesson:

Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[2] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[3]

The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who, using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes's publications attacking both government policies and the King himself. The most famous of these cases involved John Entick, whose home was forcibly entered by the King's Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax authorizing them “to make strict and diligent search for . . . the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers intitled, ‘The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380,’″ and seized printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in Entick v Carrington, argued before the Court of King's Bench in 1765. Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden ruled that both the search and the seizure was unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of all of Entick's papers—not just the criminal ones—and as the warrant lacked probable cause to even justify the search. By holding that "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave",[4] Entick established the English precedent that the executive is limited in intruding on private property by common law.[3]

2. Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
3. Kilman and Costello, pp. 1281–1282
4. Entick v Carrington, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291; 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (K. B. 1765)

Someone needs to explain to asshole Judge Pauley the whole reason we have a Fourth Amendment is because of general warrants. They were deliberately made unconstitutional by our Founders.

And before anyone says it, don't start ranting about Obama. This was started under Bush. USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215. Obama is merely carrying the baton handed to him.

We have been sold down the river by the pigs and the men (literary reference). This is a totally bipartisan ass fucking you are receiving. Face facts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Next stop, the United States Supreme Court. This is going to be a profound ruling on the future direction of the country.

And they can't be trusted to rule in favor of the Constitution. This country is gone.

 

[g5000]

Next stop, the United States Supreme Court. This is going to be a profound ruling on the future direction of the country.

And they can't be trusted to rule in favor of the Constitution. This country is gone.

I am not so sure.

I believe a big factor in the acceptance by politicians of this obvious violation of our liberties is because none of them want to be that guy who rolled back any part of the War On Terra™ right before the next domestic terrorist attack. They are too chickenshit to cut the Defense budget for this reason, and they are too chickenshit to put a halt to the police state we are growing.

All you have to do is look at the way Bush was excoriated for years for not preventing 9/11, or the way Obama is vilified for Benghazi, to understand the political cowardice of this age. They all march in lock step toward totalitarianism. This is a time ripe for demagogues. Just imagine what the hacks and rubes would do after a domestic terror attack to a politician who fought for our rights.

But our Founders had the brilliant insight to ensure our judicial branch was comprised of unelected, politically insulated judges appointed for life. So I would not assume they are subject to the same political winds.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The judge was entirely correct.

The SCOTUS will make the final call on this until and unless Congress and the Executive Branch work out some acceptable modifications. Maybe even if they do.

 

[francoHFW]

Obama has done nothing but add oversite to the program, btw...

''A US federal judge has ruled that mass government surveillance of the phone network is legal, a week after another court said the opposite.

New York District Judge William Pauley said the snooping was a "counter-punch" against al-Qaeda.

He said the National Security Agency (NSA) programme might even have prevented the 9/11 attacks.

Last week a Washington DC federal judge said the surveillance was "likely unconstitutional" and "Orwellian".

But in Friday's decision, Judge Pauley, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, said "the balance of equities and the public interest tilt firmly in favour of the Government's position".

In the conclusion to his 53-page ruling, he writes: "The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute."

He also notes: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit.

"Few think twice about it, even though it is far more intrusive than bulk telephony metadata collection.

"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks." ''

BBC News - NSA surveillance lawful, judge rules

 

[francoHFW]

The RW should note that ''muslim commie America hater'' Dems seem to be pretty rational and patriotic on this, not jumping from one side to another following the whims of the Pub propaganda machine, with its mindless confrontation, no what Dems do...

 

[TemplarKormac]

As recorded in Little Acorn's topic two weeks ago, a judge for the Washington DC federal district ruled the NSA's data collection program was likely unconstitutional.

Today, another federal district judge (for the New York district) ruled the other way: N.Y. judge rules NSA phone surveillance is legal

A federal judge on Friday found that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records is legal and a valuable part of the nation's arsenal to counter the threat of terrorism.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley said in a written opinion that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaeda's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.

Dunh-dunh-duuuuuuun!

Aaand we're fucked.

 

[deltex1]

I lean in favor of the theory that if you're looking for a needle in a haystack, you have to have the haystack. Just treat the haystack with respect or spend 30 years in Jail.

 

[francoHFW]

11- Against all evidence...try some journalism sometime, against bs propaganda you're programmed with...

 

[Antares]

And now a history lesson:

Like many other areas of American law, the Fourth Amendment finds its roots in English legal doctrine. Sir Edward Coke, in Semayne's case (1604), famously stated: "The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose."[2] Semayne's Case acknowledged that the King did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings but recognized that government agents were permitted to conduct searches and seizures under certain conditions when their purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained.[3]

The 1760s saw a growth in the intensity of litigation against state officers, who, using general warrants, conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes's publications attacking both government policies and the King himself. The most famous of these cases involved John Entick, whose home was forcibly entered by the King's Messenger Nathan Carrington, along with others, pursuant to a warrant issued by George Montagu-Dunk, 2nd Earl of Halifax authorizing them “to make strict and diligent search for . . . the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers intitled, ‘The Monitor or British Freeholder, No 257, 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380,’″ and seized printed charts, pamphlets and other materials. Entick filed suit in Entick v Carrington, argued before the Court of King's Bench in 1765. Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden ruled that both the search and the seizure was unlawful, as the warrant authorized the seizure of all of Entick's papers—not just the criminal ones—and as the warrant lacked probable cause to even justify the search. By holding that "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour's close without his leave",[4] Entick established the English precedent that the executive is limited in intruding on private property by common law.[3]

2. Coke's Rep. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604)
3. Kilman and Costello, pp. 1281–1282
4. Entick v Carrington, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291; 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817 (K. B. 1765)

Someone needs to explain to asshole Judge Pauley the whole reason we have a Fourth Amendment is because of general warrants. They were deliberately made unconstitutional by our Founders.

And before anyone says it, don't start ranting about Obama. This was started under Bush. USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215. Obama is merely carrying the baton handed to him.

We have been sold down the river by the pigs and the men (literary reference). This is a totally bipartisan ass fucking you are receiving. Face facts.

Its been going on longer than that.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Judge William Pauley needs to be sodomized with a splintered baton.

Waterboarded. Because...you know...waterboarding isn't torture.

Torture or not, every terrorist should be waterboarded the day before they are publicly executed

 

[deltex1]

And before anyone says it, don't start ranting about Obama. This was started under Bush. USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215. Obama is merely carrying the baton handed to him.

>>>>>>>>>

Of course, Gertrude....we understand he is compelled to carry it...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It really is a shame that we've gotten to the point of relying on foulable judges to do the job congress was elected to do.

 

[deltex1]

Good move...this has nothing to do with politics.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And before anyone says it, don't start ranting about Obama. This was started under Bush. USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215. Obama is merely carrying the baton handed to him.

>>>>>>>>>

Of course, Gertrude....we understand he is compelled to carry it...

Obama is as bad or worse imo. He ran on stoping this type of shit and hes done NOTHING about it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And before anyone says it, don't start ranting about Obama. This was started under Bush. USA PATRIOT Act, Section 215. Obama is merely carrying the baton handed to him.

>>>>>>>>>

Of course, Gertrude....we understand he is compelled to carry it...

He's had four years to put an end to it. He certainly has no problem doing end runs around Congress for other stuff via Executive Order abuse.