Clapper acknowledged the risks inherent in publicly discussing details about the phone records program but said he wanted to correct the "misleading impression" created by the article that disclosed its existence. "I believe it is important for the American people to understand the limits of this targeted counterterrorism program and the principles that govern its use."Convenience is utterly immaterial.
...
The NSA collects the phone data in broad swaths, Clapper said, because collecting it a narrow fashion would make it harder to identify terrorism-related communications. He said the information collected lets the government, over time, make connections about terrorist activities. He said the program doesn't let the U.S. listen to people's calls, but only includes information like call length and telephone numbers dialed.
The court also prohibits the government from indiscriminately rummaging through the phone data, which he said can only be queried when there are specific facts to back up a reasonable suspicion of an association with a foreign terrorist group.
The 4th Amendment protects from seizure without a warrant describing particularly what is being seized and the probable cause upon which the seizure is taking place.
It is immaterial whether or not the seized data is then sifted through, that is, searched, with or without said authorization of the court.
The seizure en-masse of data pertaining to the actions of persons not suspected of terrorism or other lawful reasons for the government to acquire and use said data is flatly unlawful as it violates The Constitution, irrespective of what pretense Mr. Douchenozzle Clapper may wish to try to arrogate to himself.
Likewise, the seizure of data from internet portals and providers, irrespective of how it is done, is unlawful if it takes place in the United States and is not supported by legal process permitted under the 4th Amendment.
Whether the data is at the time or subsequently searched is again immaterial.
James Sensenbrenner, the author of the Patriot Act, has acknowledged that The Patriot act never encompassed such a set of actions.
That's because it can't authorize such a set of actions, nor can FISA.
Programs that operate outside of the United States are arguably legal. However, to the extent that the data is seized in the United States or is between persons in the United States, then under the 4th Amendment a warrant must be issued BEFORE the seizure takes place.
Whether and/or when the data is searched is immaterial to the legality of seizing it; the 4th Amendment prohibitsboth suspicionless search and seizure.
Since by definition blanket seizure of records and data such as has now been disclosed to a nearly-exclusive extent seizes information from persons not under investigation for criminal activity and thus no probable cause exists there is no defense available to the NSA or anyone else for this activity.
I can stop nearly all gang shootings, for example, if I can enter anyone's home at any time and seize all firearms that I find there. This is blatantly unconstitutional, however, because there is no probable cause for me to seize anything in this case because I have no reason to suspect that the item being sought and seized is intended for, being used for or about to be used for an unlawful purpose.
The exact same situation exists here and it is utterly immaterial if it is convenient for the government to have all of this data "stockpiled" in the event that probable cause may later arise; the seizure of data that has taken place is not permitted under the 4th Amendment without a warrant describing particularly what is to be seized and describing the actual probable cause of criminal activity associated with the transmission and use of said data prior to the seizure.
This is blatantly unlawful activity and must be met with immediate removal from office and indictment of everyone involved, along with impeachment of The President who is damn well-aware of what is being done as the articles have disclosed that the President's "Daily Briefing" have increasingly relied upon and cited these unlawful programs.
No Government has a right to expect or demand compliance with the law by the citizens when it violates the highest law in the land on a daily basis as a matter of routine.
The United States Government no longer has any claim to legitimacy under our Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment