Skip to comments.New York federal judge rules NSA phone surveillance is legal
Posted on 12/27/2013 9:25:40 AM PST by John W
A federal judge in New York has ruled that the National Security Agency's massive collection of American citizens' telephone records is both legal and useful.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley wrote in his opinion issued Friday that the program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaeda's terror network.
Pauley raised the specter of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and how the phone data-collection system could have helped investigators connect the dots before the attacks occurred.
Pauley's decision appears to conflict with a ruling earlier this month by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon, who granted a preliminary injunction against the collecting of phone records of two men who had challenged the program.
He said that the program likely violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...
Yeah, it worked so well with the Boston Bombing. Why do I get the feeling this was a hand picked lib judge?
So domestic spying being legal is a good decision? Seems like it violates the Bill of Rights. Therefore any decision that violates the Bill of Rights is a bad decision.
I call BS-—how would listening to all our phone calls have any effect at all on listening in on terrorists?
Do they have someone assigned to every one of us?
For the first time in my life, I no longer trust my government. We have been going downhill as far as privacy and freedom since at least the Carter years, and maybe before that.
Judge Pauley is a Clinton appointee - 1998
leftist totalitarianism continues.
Not just spying. They are passing information along to law enforcement who are lying to judges and defense attorneys about its source.
The standard on whether something might prevent a terrorist attack is not the standard on whether something is legal.
If we killed all Muslims found in the country that might prevent a terrorist attack too. Does that make it legal?
Laudable goal but completely irrelevant here. The issue is how does the policy jive or not with the Constitution.
There is only one thing you can do to stop a feral dog.
You deserve neither liberty or security.
Funny how they missed the Boston bombers and every other incident.
If this is okay then there’s no reason the government can’t require installation of video cameras in every household appliance you buy, store all the recordings in a big database, and claim they need them in order to have a computer program scan the videos for evidence of terrorism, bombmaking, facial recognition of terrorist suspects, etc.
Please post rationale.
Enforcing our immigration laws would have also worked without the need to violate our right to privacy.
the gorlick wall would have negated this ruling. (and did)
What the hell are you smoking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.