General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

157. Thank you. I looked quickly at the wiki of the case this morning.

Wed May 14, 2014, 12:28 PM

May 2014

I am too lazy (and hungry for lunch) right now to look again, but Ithink there was also a warrant as to that one individual. Not a FISA court warrant, either.

If I am correct about the warrent, that would mean that law enforcement had convinced a court that it had reasons to surveill that specific individual, the key words being "individual" and "reasons."

I know of no earthly reason for law enforcement to surveill me. And, if I know of no reason, there are no legit reasons. So surveilling me would be, well, unreasonable. Yet I am under constant surveillance.

And, I am still curious to know who claimed that this case disposed of the issue of the constitutionality of metadata collection and why a poster has the name and date of a 1979 case at their fingertips of a Wednesday morning.

BTW, I will take this opportunity to let you know that I appreciate your posts very much.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

220 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

'I Have Been to the Darkest Corners of Government, and What They Fear Is Light' [View all] Octafish May 2014 OP

K & R !!! WillyT May 2014 #1

The State Targets Dissenters Not Just 'Bad Guys' Octafish May 2014 #19

patriots, boys, patriots grasswire May 2014 #37

Best post evah! Vattel May 2014 #46

Excellent !!! - K & R !!! WillyT May 2014 #54

I'm thinking that there's a conundrum here.... BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #66

Because it's very different. Also, the USG is both buying AND selling our info in the marketplace. merrily May 2014 #85

that point you explained about our info in the marketplace BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #153

No, not completely one sided. merrily May 2014 #154

your explanation (including the previous one) was very good BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #171

What snark? merrily May 2014 #173

I thought you were being snarky to me-- BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #181

It was not intentional. In fact, I had edited my original version of that sentence merrily May 2014 #182

ok, good then. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #184

Good! merrily May 2014 #186

Actually, the Bill of Rights does not "give" us our rights. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #202

Yes, no and maybe. I stand by my statement, as it was phrased, in the context in which I made it. merrily Jun 2014 #215

And the person or entity to whom or which your information, your personal JDPriestly Jun 2014 #201

Oh, I know...that's more what I was thinking when I first posted, actually. BlancheSplanchnik Jun 2014 #216

To "the State," dissenters ARE the bad guys (and gals). merrily May 2014 #84

There is a USG preference for the American Right Le Taz Hot May 2014 #93

I think it's because most government and goverment defenders are the right. merrily May 2014 #95

There is the left and then there is the left. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #101

I agree that there is the left and then there is the left. (We need some new vocabulary words, but merrily May 2014 #105

K & R n/t Hotler May 2014 #150

Thanks for posting. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #200

Recommend! and...Here's Tom Englehardt's Introduction.. Also a Good Read KoKo May 2014 #2

Thanks for posting that. JDPriestly May 2014 #43

Thanks..and if you go to the link he has news reports to back up all of his statements KoKo May 2014 #50

Obama Directive Makes Mere Citing of Snowden Leaks Punishable Offense Octafish May 2014 #155

Glad to get here before the "Snowden is a traitor" folks. zeemike May 2014 #3

Oh come on now ...get with it. Peoples jobs depend on stripper polls. L0oniX May 2014 #6

Is this some kind of federal holiday that the anti-Snowden crowd is taking off? JDPriestly Jun 2014 #203

Dunno L0oniX Jun 2014 #211

Rather than protect the First Amendment, they attack the whistleblower and the reporter. Octafish May 2014 #69

I had never heard of him zeemike May 2014 #76

Me too. I was going to say that sound you hear is the security-state apologists heads exploding. nt silvershadow May 2014 #77

We shall know the truth, and the Truth will set us free Demeter May 2014 #4

K & R " What They Fear Is Light" indeed! L0oniX May 2014 #5

good read. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #7

indeed grasswire May 2014 #28

K&R pscot May 2014 #8

How can anyone not get that he is a hero of epic proporations, with a fearless heart of justice? DesertDiamond May 2014 #9

I have no idea. The fact that there are some "Snowden is a traitor" people Nay May 2014 #13

Because he also told China which of their systems we were spying on Recursion May 2014 #70

And This Matters To You Why? - Seems Irrelevant To Others - Further Where Is The Proof? cantbeserious May 2014 #86

As the poster himself said, making it about "Snowden bad" or "Greenwald bad" merrily May 2014 #87

Yes - The Cognitive Dissonance In Left Leaning Authoritarians Is Surely Debilitating cantbeserious May 2014 #88

The left lionized Ellsberg for revealing info that happened to embarrass a Democratic President. merrily May 2014 #90

This *did* hit the fan during the Bush administration. Does nobody else remember 2005? Recursion May 2014 #92

Are you saying th left all supportive of Bush at that time? Is that your point about my post? merrily May 2014 #103

I'm saying comparing illegal to legal surveillance is apples and oranges Recursion May 2014 #115

No, you did not say that at all, or that's what I would have responded to. merrily May 2014 #117

Congress can pass any law it wants, at which point the sanctioned activity is "legal" Recursion May 2014 #118

No, that is "merely wrong." Violations of the Constitution do not become legal when Congress merrily May 2014 #119

So, I see you completely avoided my question Recursion May 2014 #120

I had already answered your question. BTW, how many of my questions and point have you avoided merrily May 2014 #122

There it is again Recursion May 2014 #124

Well, now you've resorted to pretending I said things I never said. Know another word for that? merrily May 2014 #125

Umm.. no, it's exactly what you said Recursion May 2014 #126

Nope. I never said it. I did say that you already had my answer on Tice. merrily May 2014 #127

Ignorance is bliss for trolling behavior. Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #121

Yes, thank you. I know. merrily May 2014 #123

No. Congress did not make all of what the NSA is doing legal. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #206

He did not show us documents. That made the difference. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #205

There will be no difference in reaction from the real left. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #98

Wait for the "No True Scotsman" replies. merrily May 2014 #106

I decided to get involved with my local Democrat party Le Taz Hot May 2014 #109

Yes. merrily May 2014 #111

We get here through different paths. Le Taz Hot May 2014 #113

Here is where I MAY being going next: merrily May 2014 #128

Oh, sorry, this is a link to the post where I began merrily May 2014 #129

Glad to see you are supporting Elizabeth Warren. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #207

Why does what matter to me? Proof of what? Recursion May 2014 #91

Do you mean the South China Morning Post? Is this the interview you're referencing? merrily May 2014 #108

All Allegations - No Proof Provided - Sound And Fury Signifying Nothing cantbeserious May 2014 #139

We should see a link soon. merrily May 2014 #112

I guess we won't be seeing that link after all. merrily May 2014 #130

Do you seriously think that China and Russia did not know which of their systems JDPriestly Jun 2014 #204

Because at least some of this happened under Obama's watch. alarimer May 2014 #183

No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are... alterfurz May 2014 #10

That is a great quote by William Blum. Octafish May 2014 #51

And no matter how much of an establishment apologist you are, merrily May 2014 #110

I hope Comrade Snowden or Rand Paul has a leading role.... nt Cryptoad May 2014 #11

In violating our Constitutional rights? Paul, possibly. Snowden, no. merrily May 2014 #114

How come Snowdens Dossier doesn't even match Historic NY May 2014 #12

That's one thing I want to know, too. Octafish May 2014 #14

Yes, that's what I, too, thought the issue was. merrily May 2014 #132

For one, NSA vs CIA employment. Octafish May 2014 #149

Snowden has what H2O Man May 2014 #34

Yeah, I was wondering that too (nt) Recursion May 2014 #80

The discrepancies between bios are the issue, not the Constitution? merrily May 2014 #131

He is/was a spy. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #208

Hardly... Historic NY Jun 2014 #210

"That meant the NSA was secretly and indiscriminately collecting the telephone records yodermon May 2014 #15

Legality is only one issue Distant Quasar May 2014 #17

The case cited by the poster does not dispose of the legality issue as to what is going on now. merrily May 2014 #134

The applicability of Smith v. Maryland to the NSA's blanket surveillance activities is questionable. Maedhros May 2014 #36

Agreed. Distinguishable on the facts. Very distinguishable. JDPriestly May 2014 #45

exactly Vattel May 2014 #74

Agree, but I would say it's much more than problematic. merrily May 2014 #135

I found this article helpful: Maedhros May 2014 #156

Thank you. I looked quickly at the wiki of the case this morning. merrily May 2014 #157

Thank you for the words of support. Maedhros May 2014 #162

You are most welcome (as are your posts). merrily May 2014 #164

P.S. I really don't want the SCOTUS to get its hands on this. merrily May 2014 #165

Court opinions on whether something is legal or not Vattel May 2014 #48

You do understand that the court is there literally for the purpose of interpreting the law... right TroglodyteScholar May 2014 #62

That is the usual misunderstanding. Vattel May 2014 #63

Interpretations can change, of course TroglodyteScholar May 2014 #64

Trog, you are right. Case law can overturn statute law. Marbury v. Madison, 1803. Manifestor_of_Light May 2014 #67

To be fair, you have to admit that you are moving the goal posts a bit Vattel May 2014 #73

Don't conflate a court interpreting a statute--which Congress can overrule by enacting a new law-- merrily May 2014 #159

I didn't conflate those two things, did I? Vattel May 2014 #167

Your post sure seemed to conflate them. merrily May 2014 #175

hmmm, weird Vattel May 2014 #179

PS merrily May 2014 #163

Nothing you say here is incorrect nor does it contradict what I said. So we agree! Vattel May 2014 #166

None of my posts to you were incorrect. merrily May 2014 #176

Google "Gov. George Wallace denied a Supreme Court decision was the law of the land." merrily May 2014 #158

Here I am afraid you are incorrect. Vattel May 2014 #168

In what respect, Vattel? merrily May 2014 #174

The point is kind of pedantic, but even when a court does overturn an earlier decision Vattel May 2014 #180

Yes, it does. Unless and until Plessy was overturned, it was the law of the land. merrily May 2014 #185

You are quite right that in the case of common law, judges make law and and change law. Vattel May 2014 #189

Please read my post again. I never said that judges amended the constitution. merrily May 2014 #194

Please read my post again. I never said that you did say that. Vattel May 2014 #195

Not in those exact words, but that was the implication, given that the subject was whether judges merrily May 2014 #198

Sorry, that case is easily distinguished. merrily May 2014 #133

FYI: At least one federal court judge has said the NSA collection of date is merrily May 2014 #143

There is no court decision holding that the government has the authority JDPriestly Jun 2014 #209

K & R!!!!!! n/t Holly_Hobby May 2014 #16

Highly recommend. n/t Jefferson23 May 2014 #18

Glenn Greenwald just revealed that NSA is intercepting packages Stainless May 2014 #20

So no spying? No wiretaps? No investigations? What a perfect world you must live in. randome May 2014 #21

Our Constitution is a contract entered into by representatives of the people of the US. JDPriestly May 2014 #29

Once more: are American citizens the targets or not? randome May 2014 #39

If you read the article in the OP, then you know the answer. JDPriestly May 2014 #47

Oh, the metadata again. randome May 2014 #49

The Social Security Administration does not compile and analyze your data with huge JDPriestly May 2014 #60

If the laws need to be updated, I don't have a problem with that. Why would I? randome May 2014 #104

A couple of other whistleblowers tried to warn us without bringing out the huge array of JDPriestly May 2014 #172

So many things backasswards LiberalLovinLug May 2014 #30

I am afraid of nothing. randome May 2014 #41

That must be why you think the Constitution is 'old and outmoded.' Octafish May 2014 #58

+100 nt Mojorabbit May 2014 #78

Which still avoids answering, let alone, asking, the question of whom the NSA monitors. randome May 2014 #96

Exactly. It's modified legally only by amendment. Let someone put a modification to a vote. merrily May 2014 #137

Wow. Marr May 2014 #152

Truth to ones allies? LiberalLovinLug May 2014 #160

'Allies' as in liberal thinkers of DU. Not 'allies' as in international espionage. randome May 2014 #161

No they'll never end spying, its been going on since mankind first days LiberalLovinLug May 2014 #191

We do have public oversight of the NSA. Not enough, admittedly. randome May 2014 #192

Freeedom is not possible... nikto May 2014 #40

Once more: are the actions of the NSA directed at American citizens or not? randome May 2014 #42

How is it that you know the answer as to whether the NSA's actions are directed at American JDPriestly May 2014 #53

I don't know the answer, although I have my inclinations. randome May 2014 #99

You have just made my argument. JDPriestly May 2014 #177

Why play games? YES. Octafish May 2014 #55

And was this info from the NSA provided as a consequence of international monitoring? randome May 2014 #100

So why continue to spew the company line when you're both shown wrong? Octafish May 2014 #147

There is no 'company line' for me. randome May 2014 #148

+1000000 The denial is beyond absurd at this point. woo me with science May 2014 #187

Wow nikto May 2014 #61

The way to rid the Bill of Rights of the Fourth Amendment (and others) is merrily May 2014 #82

Not sure why this needs to continue to be stated. randome May 2014 #94

It does when government is involved. merrily May 2014 #97

Sorry, I made the wrong point. randome May 2014 #116

Assuming you are correct, and I don't yet know of a reason to assume that, merrily May 2014 #136

A fair point but if we start mandating that our laws apply to the world... randome May 2014 #142

"If we start mandating?" The Constitution was ratified in 1789. merrily May 2014 #146

Well, at least bringing up that point out of nowhere spared you from the Constitutional issues. merrily May 2014 #107

The NSA was not supposed to turn its powers on the citizens of the United States. Octafish May 2014 #24

New business for IT folks -- debugging NSA spyware. ancianita May 2014 #33

K N R DirkGently May 2014 #22

Thanks for posting. JEB May 2014 #23

This should answer the question as to whether Snowden was a patsy. JDPriestly May 2014 #25

Well, the question was whether Greenwald was a patsy (or at least dupe) Recursion May 2014 #71

Many here at the "Underground" fear the same thing villager May 2014 #26

Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast May 2014 #27

Naive, self-serving. moondust May 2014 #31

I think we are gonna see a lot more unsettling relevations Ichingcarpenter May 2014 #32

"Organized crime." JDPriestly May 2014 #56

Seeing how CIA has done business with NAZIs, Mafia, and Wall Street, yes. Octafish May 2014 #59

Yes. I know about Gehlen. I will have to read Blowback. Somehow I missed it. Thanks. JDPriestly May 2014 #75

K&R#80 n/t bobthedrummer May 2014 #35

Hating Snowden=Hating freedom=hating privacy=hating AMERICA nikto May 2014 #38

Sunlight = Democracy Agony May 2014 #44

Absolutely! Octafish May 2014 #72

The US is a republic, but sunlight is necessary for that as well. merrily May 2014 #138

NO ONE IS GONNA BUY YOUR BOOK GLENNY Capt. Obvious May 2014 #52

He's a poopiehead!!! QC May 2014 #57

nanabooboo merrily May 2014 #83

actually, I am.... mike_c May 2014 #178

. MohRokTah May 2014 #65

Rec 840high May 2014 #68

Gratias, Amatorem Veritatis. DeSwiss May 2014 #79

Whut?! No "transparency"?!?! blkmusclmachine May 2014 #81

To Greenwald's and Snowden's detractors and propaganists Le Taz Hot May 2014 #89

Agree. Disturbing to watch. djean111 May 2014 #102

And puzzling. merrily May 2014 #140

"I say, you are traitors to this country and to it's citizens" ProSense May 2014 #144

It's so cheesy, it makes my teeth hurt. randome May 2014 #145

+10000 I wish I could rec this post. It should be on the top of every forum. woo me with science May 2014 #169

Göbbels 101 Octafish May 2014 #190

^^^this^^^ ...and for those making K&R notes - K & R L0oniX Jun 2014 #212

Let there be light. merrily May 2014 #141

K&R. Great interview on Democracy Now yesterday. Overseas May 2014 #151

This thread was worth logging in to rec. Thank you, Octafish. woo me with science May 2014 #170

K & R Quantess May 2014 #188

Kick n/t bobthedrummer May 2014 #193

This deserves to stay on top. nt woo me with science May 2014 #196

kick woo me with science May 2014 #197

kick woo me with science May 2014 #199

punt L0oniX Jun 2014 #213

kick L0oniX Jun 2014 #214

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #217

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #218

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #219

kick woo me with science Jun 2014 #220