backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by Stuka.. on Oct 14 at 3:45 PM


  (Source: Reuters)
SCOTUS, presidential nominees appear united: sometimes due process is just not convenient

In a ruling that has a deep impact on domestic surveillance in the short term, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opted not to review a controversial U.S. federal circuit appeals court decision which upheld legal immunity provisions for telecoms who wiretap at the behest of the federal government.

I. President, Romney Unanimous in Support for Warrantless Wiretaps

Removing immunity would essentially leave telecoms unlikely to comply with warrantless requests, as they could be penalized in court by citizen lawsuits for following warrantelss data demands.  The basis of U.S. criminal law for centuries has been cornered on obtaining warrants to investigate persons of interest.  But over the past several decades, both parties have increasingly argued that due process is inconvenient and at times a threat to national security.

The two parties worked hand in hand to grant cooperating telecoms immunity from lawsuits via "Protect America Act" of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-55S. 1927).

Both Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney support throwing out due process (warrants) in cases where national security is viewed to be at risk -- a policy first put in place by Republican President George W. Bush (with bipartisan support from America's two ruling parties) in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Bush and Obama
President Obama and his predecessor President Bush agree on many things, including that the federal government should be granted unregulated spying on its citizens.
[Image Source: WhiteHouse.gov]

Mr. Romney expressed a viewpoint narrowly in line with President Obama's plugging warrantless wiretaps in a recent interview (see below), stating, "If it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we are gonna go, because we are going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a sec, we have civil liberties to worry about', but don't forget... the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."


In a statement on the SCOTUS ruling, President Obama marched in lock-step with his political rival, with his press office writing [PDF]:

Electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the nation's telecommunication system.

If litigation were allowed to proceed against those who allegedly assisted in such activities, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future, and the possible reduction in intelligence that might result is simply unacceptable for the safety of our nation.

The SCOTUS did not explain why it made its decision to punt in this case.  The only evidence that it made the decision at all is a note in the case docket stating the case will not be heard.

That silent nod to the prevailing sentiment on The Hill is a win for America's two ruling parties, who are unanimous in their belief that the right to "be kept alive" (by the government) mandates spying on citizens without due process now and then.

II. Opponents Continue to Fight on

Of course civil liberties advocacies like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and a handful of politicians like Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) disagree.  

He argues that the American political system has been hijacked by zealots, commenting, "The PATRIOT Act was written many, many years before 9/11, [the attacks simply provided] an opportunity for some people to do what they wanted to do..."

"Democracy isn't all that healthy in this country because if you're in a third party... you don't get in the debates... And if you ever come to the conclusion -- heaven forbid -- that the two parties aren't all that different, then what is left really?"

Ron Paul
Ron Paul is one of the few politicians to support keeping due process, even in the face of the nebulous "terrorist" threat.  [Image Source: NBC]

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl concurs, adding:

By passing the retroactive immunity for the telecoms' complicity in the warrantless wiretapping program, Congress abdicated its duty to the American people.  It is disappointing that... [the courts] endorsed the rights of telecommunications companies over those over their customers.

But in the current political climate voices like the EFF and Rep. Paul's are mere whispers in a sea of shouts of support.  Without saying a word, the punt by America's most powerful federal court in effect adds one of the loudest voices yet in support of warrantless wiretaps, although it leaves the door open for later revision, should America's political climate drastically change.

Source: The SCOTUS



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Ron Paul
By godshatter on 10/12/2012 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
I supported Ron Paul on this, although I don't agree with a lot of what he has as a platform. But since he's not going to be on the ballot, I suggest checking out Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. He is right in line with Paul on this and similar topics, and the rest of his platform is easier to swallow, imho.

The issue of civil liberties is the main issue I'm using to decide who to vote for.


RE: Ron Paul
By mattclary on 10/12/2012 4:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
Let's be realistic a moment. One of these two jokers is going to be president, and I do NOT think they both suck as bad as the other, one distinctly sucks more.

Voting libertarian is a wasted vote and is not "sending a message". The only way to change the way things work is from the inside as Ron Paul has striven to do.


RE: Ron Paul
By ClownPuncher on 10/12/2012 4:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
There are no wasted votes.


RE: Ron Paul
By godshatter on 10/12/2012 4:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
Voting for the best candidate I can find is not wasting my vote. I can't help it if the plurality of people out there vote culturally rather than by selecting the best candidate.


RE: Ron Paul
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2012 5:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
Okay great. Now back in the real world, you're wasting a vote.

Let us be clear. Every vote for Johnson or Paul, is a vote for Obama.

I understand that Romney is far far from being a "Libertarian", but Liberal Socialist Democrats are even farther. So I just don't understand why you third partier's year after year feel compelled to help Democrats get in office.

Last time I checked, Johnson wasn't the candidate. He's not on the podium facing Obama in debates. He has, literally, NO chance on Earth. You can tell yourself you aren't wasting your vote, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.


RE: Ron Paul
By godshatter on 10/12/2012 5:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no more wasting my vote voting for the Libertarian party candidate than a Democrat is voting for Obama in a typically Red state. I don't want either Obama or Romney in office, so why vote for either one?


RE: Ron Paul
By Reclaimer77 on 10/12/2012 5:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't want either Obama or Romney in office, so why vote for either one?


So right there you are admitting that, essentially, you're throwing your vote away, as a matter of principle.

I respect your principles, but just call it what it is.

The "lesser of two evils" is a reality we've all had to deal with for some time now. Sorry I know it sucks, but time to deal with it. What you're doing is a waste, in the most literal sense.


RE: Ron Paul
By Stuka on 10/14/2012 3:45:16 PM , Rating: 3
You're an idiot. The "lesser of two evils" is an ideology dreamt up by spineless losers who are too afraid to stand out from the crowd. You're a prisoner to your pathology. It's not necessarily your fault, it's human nature, unless you recognize it and choose not to act. Unfortunately, throughout history humans have sought to react as little as possible, regardless of what is going on around them. As long as your life remains unchanged, you will never strive to improve the status quo. You will "religiously" vote red up until the very last second when you realize that it affects you.

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

People should vote for who's best for the job, not who they think will win. If your Aunt Ada is awesome, write her name in. If people don't think for themselves, why even vote at all?


RE: Ron Paul
By croc on 10/13/2012 11:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Let us be clear. Every vote for Johnson or Paul, is a vote for Obama.

What??? I used to think that there might be SOME sense between your ears, but now I have to wonder. Did it ever occur to you that "Every vote for Johnson or Paul" might be a vote for Romney? However, using any logic at all, any vote for anyone is just that - a vote for whoever that vote is for.

I think that what you are trying to say is if someone votes for someone that is not 'your guy' then they wasted their vote. Even if 'their guy' wins, they wasted their vote because 'your guy' lost. Am I right?


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki