Skip to comments.
New York federal judge rules NSA phone surveillance is legal
nbcnews.com ^
| December 27, 2013
| Hasani Gittens
Posted on 12/27/2013 9:25:40 AM PST by John W
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
1
posted on
12/27/2013 9:25:40 AM PST
by
John W
To: John W
2
posted on
12/27/2013 9:28:22 AM PST
by
Rapscallion
(Had enough? Let me know.)
To: Rapscallion
3
posted on
12/27/2013 9:29:25 AM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: John W
Yeah, it worked so well with the Boston Bombing. Why do I get the feeling this was a hand picked lib judge?
4
posted on
12/27/2013 9:30:17 AM PST
by
PilotDave
(No, really, you just can't make this stuff up!!!)
To: Rapscallion
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.
To: John W
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.
6
posted on
12/27/2013 9:31:18 AM PST
by
basil
(2ASisters.org)
To: John W
7
posted on
12/27/2013 9:31:54 AM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi)
To: John W
8
posted on
12/27/2013 9:32:02 AM PST
by
yldstrk
(My heroes have always been cowboys)
To: John W
leftist totalitarianism continues.
9
posted on
12/27/2013 9:32:52 AM PST
by
Chickensoup
(we didn't love freedom enough... Solzhenitsyn.)
To: castlegreyskull
Not just spying. They are passing information along to law enforcement who are lying to judges and defense attorneys about its source.
10
posted on
12/27/2013 9:33:10 AM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: John W
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?
11
posted on
12/27/2013 9:34:04 AM PST
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: John W
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. Laudable goal but completely irrelevant here. The issue is how does the policy jive or not with the Constitution.
To: driftdiver
Not just spying. They are passing information along to law enforcement who are lying to judges and defense attorneys about its source. Feral government.
There is only one thing you can do to stop a feral dog.
13
posted on
12/27/2013 9:35:22 AM PST
by
zeugma
(Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
To: Rapscallion
"Good decision."You deserve neither liberty or security.
14
posted on
12/27/2013 9:36:53 AM PST
by
Godebert
To: John W
Funny how they missed the Boston bombers and every other incident.
15
posted on
12/27/2013 9:39:05 AM PST
by
PghBaldy
(12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
To: John W
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.
16
posted on
12/27/2013 9:39:28 AM PST
by
JediJones
(The #1 Must-see Filibuster of the Year: TEXAS TED AND THE CONSERVATIVE CRUZ-ADE)
To: Rapscallion
17
posted on
12/27/2013 9:40:01 AM PST
by
Rennes Templar
(If you like your disease, you can keep it.)
To: John W
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.Enforcing our immigration laws would have also worked without the need to violate our right to privacy.
To: Labyrinthos
the gorlick wall would have negated this ruling. (and did)
19
posted on
12/27/2013 9:41:08 AM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Rapscallion
What the hell are you smoking?
20
posted on
12/27/2013 9:42:22 AM PST
by
sean327
(God created all men equal, then some become Marines!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson