 Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | reply to IowaCowboy
Re: US Supreme Court said by IowaCowboy:The Plaintiffs should try to appeal it to the US Supreme Court when they go into session on the first Monday in October.
I don't think it would do much good. If you read the actual ruling, the Circuit Court reversed the lower court decision primarily due to a recent SCOTUS ruling on similar wording in a different law.
It is also worth noting that this entire case boiled down to financial compensation for the warrant less spying, and not whether it was right or wrong. The court didn't say the Government was right, just that the plaintiffs aren't entitled to compensation under the sited law. |
|
|
|
| You have to love the manner in which the decision was made. Reading the decision I have to wonder how one can prove they were being under surveillance if it is illegal for anyone involved to reveal that someone or some organization was under surveillance. The "Sealed Document" was excluded from evidence for the plaintiffs in this case (the Feds shouldn't have furnished it).
I guess its okay to do domestic spying because one cannot prove it happened nor can one claim any damages because nothing can be accepted as evidence as it is all State secrets and if by chance one has such evidence they are committing a federal crime!
Whats next for America? |
|
Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | The same thing is happening at the ISP level. The national security letters from the FBI demand not only monitoring, but prohibit the company from disclosing it's existence, even in court. Its a nice little loophole for the Government. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to Twaddle
The sealed document was not excluded. It was specifically included on the remand. |
|
