Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BuckeyeTexan

IMHO, assed backwards.

What safeguards are guaranteed?? I’ll bet ZERO.

I guess we’ll just have to trust ‘ol gov’t.

Some stalwarts of the People we got there...


3 posted on 02/26/2013 10:01:01 AM PST by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: i_robot73
"Some stalwarts of the People we got there..."

Agreed. The burden of proof should be on the government. The court should have requested the government to identify the safeguards in place to protect citizenry which should include some form of independent monitoring.

4 posted on 02/26/2013 10:05:51 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: i_robot73

While it seems so on its face, generally one cannot sue unless one demonstrates that harm/damage has occurred or such harm is imminent. Alito said in the majority opinion that this ruling is not intended to insulate the FISA expansion from judicial review. He essentially said, “Come back when you can prove that the government has intercepted your communications and we’ll hear the case.”


8 posted on 02/26/2013 10:22:01 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson