General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRonald Goldfarb: Without Edward Snowden, Our System Could Have Failed
from TIME:
Without Edward Snowden, Our System Could Have Failed
Ronald Goldfarb May 8, 2015
Ronald Goldfarb is a veteran Washington, DC attorney, literary agent and author of After Snowden: Privacy, Secrecy, and Security in the Information Age. He served in the Justice Department in the Robert F. Kennedy administration.
The tripartite nature of American government is on display. Congress is contemplating extending the Patriot Act, allowing it to expire, or reforming it by June 1. A federal court yesterday concluded that the controversial s.215 of the Patriot Act allowing secret meta data gathering of phone records by the government was illegal. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not specifically rule that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, though critics of the Act will certainly see the suggestion in this opinion.
In a 97-page unanimous opinion in a case entitled ACLU v. Clapper, et. al., the prestigious 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City reversed an earlier trial court ruling, and held that s. 215s bulk telephone data program is subject to judicial review. In the core of this opinion, Judge Gerard Lynch wrote that the program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized. The opinion discussed the history of the earlier Church Committee hearings about historic abusive surveillance practices of intelligence agencies, and the evolution of the FISA Act (1978) allowing secret ex parte proceedings, and the Patriot Act now under review in Congress.
The court decision dealt with the meta data practices of Verizon performed at the governments order, and revealed by The Guardian with information leaked by Edward Snowden. The order applies to other service providers, as well, by implication.
The government argued that any complaint about its practices had to be made to the FISA court. The 2nd Circuit concluded that its judicial review was appropriate. And I would note that this court was far more judicial than the ex parte, secret hearings conducted by FISA courts. ......................(more)
http://time.com/3851823/without-edward-snowden-our-system-could-have-failed/
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Yes, yes it was. It wasn't a non-issue because FISA exists. It wasn't legal because Bush was out of office.
It was.
ILLEGAL.
Whistleblowers are not traitors. Traitors hurt their own people. Those would be the ones exposed by whistleblowing, not the ones making the exposure possible.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Although I will say they've been preeetttyyy quiet since this broke last week - only those who never played a DU attorney online have been trying to defend this as not really illegal.
marmar
(77,091 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)thrown down by a poster on this subject, but without any understanding of what it meant.
Delivered very authoritatively, of course, as proof it was ridiculous to even contemplate NSA might be breaking the law. Because FISA means nothing is illegal hahahahaha!"
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Please proceed.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The persons throwing down a lot of general FISA law for the proposition it was impossible for the NSA to have broken the law -- and those people will remain nameless, Steven -- did not understand what they were reading.
Those persons should not have just chucked 25 column inches of case law at every criticism of the NSA and called it a day.
They should have listened to others instead of arguing for a result they wanted without investigating the basis for the conclusions they had reached.
In short, everyone who made arguments in regards to the various NSA stories, Snowden, Greenwald, etc., along the lines of "There is 'nothing to see here,' or "FISA made all this legal in the 1970s" were flatly, factually, completely wrong.
Which is okay. People can be wrong. Doesn't make them bad people. But they should listen, Steven, when presented with information demonstrating their hoped-for conclusion to be wrong.
And they should especially maybe not try to argue from the basis of a lawyer's understanding of the law, when their understanding is actually that of a non-lawyer.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and it's unanimous.
And if you make even the slightest attempt to understand why those rulings all went that way, it makes sense.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I give you the benefit of the doubt for believing you found law to back up what you seemed to view as support for the President, but none of your case law said what you suggested it did. Neither the President nor anyone else has unfettered authority to spy on American citizens outside of Fourth Amendment requirements.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)until questioned. And when questions are only answered with questions or not at all, that is all we need to know about such cites of 'case law'.
There is the law of the land, which btw, was consistently ignored by the legal eagles trying to defend the indefensible.
Thankfully a court has now ruled what most actual Constitutional Attorneys and citizens who do not share Bush's view of the Constitution, which airc, was that it was a 'quaint document', and take the US Constitution seriously as should every elected official and member of the armed forces, since that is the only oath that they are required to take, 'to defend and protect the Constitution of the US'. Airc, those pro NSA spying legal eagles were asked about that oath of office. I don't recall much in the way of a response.
Massive spying on the american people is a crime.
Now let's hope that before too long we see some prosecutions and a real return to the rule of law.
Edward Snowden IS a hero. As are all those before him who tried to warn this country about these gross violations of their rights.
Like Ellsberg they will all go down in history as such, with their detractors not looking so great from history's pov.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)hootinholler
(26,449 posts)The money quote is:
But Snowald!