SUPREME
COURT WILL DECIDE in JAN IF THE US IS or NOT A NEO-NAZI REGIME.
LA CORTE SUPREMA DECIDIRA EN ENERO SI LOS EU SON O NO
UN ESTADO NAZI
Subject matter: NSA SURVEILLANCE
Brief
introduction by Hugo Adan 12/28/13
TWO COURTS OF THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM EMITED TWO OPOSITE RULES
DOS CORTES DEL SISTEMA FEDERAL EMITIERON OPUESTAS
DECISIONES
It is EIHER
“THE US IS NOT AN ORWELLIAN SYSTEM” vs. “4TH AMENDMENT IS TOILET PAPER”.
The key questions are:
Is the controversial argument “Al Qaeda+ 9/11” valid to suppress the US Constitution and install an Orwellian neo-nazi system? For this argument to be valid requires to discard the hypothesis that Al Qaeda and Saudis’ sponsored 9/11 and that they got the aval of the US State agencies. (Is it true that in tower seven of NY there were implosion and also in the other 2 towers in addition to the plane-hit? Is it true that a plane full of Saudis left our country the day after 9/11 although clear prohibition to do so?). In other words, to make valid the argument of preventing 9/11 type of terrorism, the Supreme Court must rely on facts: that America had nothing to do with the Saudis terrorism in 9/11, nor with Bush-Saudis business inside the Carlyle group; not even with providing training, and arms to Sudis jihadist mercenaries sent to Syriain in current days. Respected reports said the opposite. The Court require new official investigation on these matters and also to re-open the official investigation of 9/11. While these investigations are pending, the suppression of any part of our magna LAW will be illegal. The Supreme Court cannot base their rule on “official lies” or wrong assumptions. The Supreme Court should wait until the pending investigations are done. Meanwhile, the Government should call a Referendum on this matter to explore the Nation opinion on NSA SURVEILLANCE.
.
The key questions are:
Is the controversial argument “Al Qaeda+ 9/11” valid to suppress the US Constitution and install an Orwellian neo-nazi system? For this argument to be valid requires to discard the hypothesis that Al Qaeda and Saudis’ sponsored 9/11 and that they got the aval of the US State agencies. (Is it true that in tower seven of NY there were implosion and also in the other 2 towers in addition to the plane-hit? Is it true that a plane full of Saudis left our country the day after 9/11 although clear prohibition to do so?). In other words, to make valid the argument of preventing 9/11 type of terrorism, the Supreme Court must rely on facts: that America had nothing to do with the Saudis terrorism in 9/11, nor with Bush-Saudis business inside the Carlyle group; not even with providing training, and arms to Sudis jihadist mercenaries sent to Syriain in current days. Respected reports said the opposite. The Court require new official investigation on these matters and also to re-open the official investigation of 9/11. While these investigations are pending, the suppression of any part of our magna LAW will be illegal. The Supreme Court cannot base their rule on “official lies” or wrong assumptions. The Supreme Court should wait until the pending investigations are done. Meanwhile, the Government should call a Referendum on this matter to explore the Nation opinion on NSA SURVEILLANCE.
What about the
nation, that is the other key question. Will our people continue tolerating the
nasty invasion of
Americans’ privacy
and the suppression of our constitutional freedoms? Do we really live in a “land of freedom” with NSA, Monsanto & Al
Qaeda deciding what is right for our life and health?. Will the Nation will have
a voice on these issues?. I guess we still have a democracy, so I’m sure the nation
will speak out clearly as Snowden and Manning did and stand up for our freedoms
and the 4th amendment. They do represent real America. NSA,
Monsanto, Al Qaeda are the reverse. These 3 monsters are killing American freedoms
inside and abroad, they are not empowering our State-Nation, they are
destroying it & converting us into enemies worldwide. The Supreme Court should
control them, not be controlled by them.
---------------
ONE COURT
SAID recently :
NSA MASS COLLECTION OF
PHONE DATA IS LEGAL
Source The
Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/27/judge-rules-nsa-phone-data-collection-legal Dragnet
program deemed 'controversial but lawful'
Vs. NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional,
federal judge rules (See below)
Here the neo-nazi, Orwellian rule recently released
NSA MASS COLLECTION
OF PHONE DATA IS LEGAL, FEDERAL JUDGE RULES
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/27/judge-rules-nsa-phone-data-collection-legal
A legal battle over
the scope of US government surveillance took a turn in favour of the National
Security Agency on Friday with a court opinion declaring that bulk collection
of telephone data does not violate the constitution.
The judgement, in a
case brought before a district court in New York by the American Civil
Liberties Union, directly contradicts the result of a similar
challenge in a Washington court last week which ruled the NSA's
bulk collection program was likely to prove unconstitutional and was
"almost Orwellian" in scale.
Friday's ruling makes
it more likely that the issue will be settled by the US supreme court, although
it may be overtaken by the decision of Barack Obama on whether to accept the
recommendations of a White House review panel to ban the NSA from directly
collecting such data.
But the ruling from
Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee to the Southern District of New York,
will provide important ammunition for those within the intelligence community
urging Obama to maintain the programme.
Judge Pauley said
privacy protections enshrined in the fourth amendment of the US constitution
needed to be balanced against a government need to maintain a database of
records to prevent future terrorist attacks. “The right to be free from
searches is fundamental but not absolute,” he said. “Whether the fourth
amendment protects bulk telephony metadata is ultimately a question of
reasonableness.”
Pauley argued that
al-Qaida's “bold jujitsu” strategy to marry seventh century ideology with
21st century technology made it imperative that government authorities be
allowed to push privacy boundaries.
“As the September 11
attacks demonstrate, the cost of missing such a threat can be horrific,” he wrote
in the ruling. “Technology allowed al-Qaida to operate decentralised and plot
international terrorist attacks remotely. The bulk telephony metadata
collection programme represents the government's counter-punch: connecting
fragmented and fleeting communications to re-construct and eliminate al-Qaida's
terror network.”
The ACLU case against
the NSA was dismissed primarily on the grounds that bulk collection was
authorised under existing laws allowing “relevant” data collection to be
authorised by secret US courts.
Judge Pauley took a
more sympathetic view of this relevance standard than many lawmakers in
Congress, although he acknowledged it was “problematic” that many were not
aware of how widely the law was being interpreted before disclosures by NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
“The ACLU argues that
the category at issue – all telephony metadata – is too broad and contains too
much irrelevant information. That argument has no traction here. Because
without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it is connecting
the pertinent ones,” said Pauley.
“There is no way for
the government to know which particle of telephony metadata will lead to useful
counterterrorism information ... Armed with all the metadata, NSA can draw
connections it might otherwise never be able to find. The collection is broad,
but the scope of counterterrorism investigations is unprecedented.”
The ACLU said it would
appeal the decision, starting in the New York circuit. “We are extremely
disappointed with this decision, which misinterprets the relevant statutes,
understates the privacy implications of the government’s surveillance and
misapplies a narrow and outdated precedent to read away core constitutional
protections,” said Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director.
“As another federal
judge and the President’s own review group concluded last week, the National
Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephony data constitutes a serious
invasion of Americans’ privacy. We intend to appeal and look forward to making
our case in the second circuit.”
Judge Pauley said his
ruling did not mean it was right to continue with the program, which he
acknowledged was a “blunt tool” that “imperils the civil liberties of
every citizen” if unchecked. “While robust discussions are under way
across the nation, in Congress, and at the White House, the question for this
court is whether the government's bulk telephony metadata program is lawful.
The court finds it is,” he wrote. “But the question of whether that program
should be conducted is for the other two coordinate branches of government to
decide.”
-----------
IN SPANISH
RECOLECCIÓN DE DATOS DE LA NSA ES LEGAL SEGÚN
CORTE DE EE.UU.
Una corte federal de Estados Unidos
determinó que la recolección
masiva de metadatos telefónicos por parte de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad (NSA) es legal. El fallo es la
respuesta a una demanda presentada por la American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU).
El
juez William Pauley dijo que el programa de la NSA "representa el
contragolpe del gobierno" a Al-Qaeda tras los ataques del 11 de septiembre
de 2001. La resolución entra en conflicto con otro fallo que indicó que el
programa era "probablemente inconstitucional", por lo que posiblemente el caso
llegará a la Corte Suprema próximamente.
El
juez Pauley reconoció que el caso era controvertido, pero legal. "Aunque
están ocurriendo robustas discusiones en la nación, en el Congreso y en la Casa
Blanca, la duda para esta corte era si el programa de recolección masiva de
datos de telefonía es legal. La corte encuentra que sí lo es", señala el
fallo. "Pero la duda de si el programa debe mantenerse debe ser
decidida por las otras dos ramas del gobierno", agregó.
ACLU
aseguró que apelará la decisión. "Estamos muy decepcionados con este
fallo, que malinterpreta los estatutos relevantes, resta importancia a las
consecuencias para la privacidad de la vigilancia del gobierno y aplica mal una
estrecha y desactualizada firma de leer las protecciones clave de la
constitución", afirmó el director legal de ACLU, Jameel Jaffer.
-------------
ONE WEEK BEFORE COURT RULE: THE US IS NOT A NEO-NAZI REGIMEN.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules
• Dragnet 'likely' in breach of fourth amendment
• Judge describes scope of program as 'Orwellian'
• Ruling relates to collection of Americans' metadata
• Read the full ruling here
• Judge describes scope of program as 'Orwellian'
• Ruling relates to collection of Americans' metadata
• Read the full ruling here
NSA PHONE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FEDERAL JUDGE
RULES
By Spencer Ackerman and
Dan Roberts
Theguardian.com,
Monday 16 December 2013
A federal judge in Washington
ruled on Monday that the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records by the
National Security Agency is likely to violate the US constitution, in the most
significant legal setback for the agency since the publication of the first
surveillance disclosures by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Judge Richard Leon declared
that the mass collection of metadata probably violates the fourth amendment,
which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and was "almost
Orwellian" in its scope. In a judgment replete with literary swipes
against the NSA, he said James Madison, the architect of the US constitution,
would be "aghast" at the scope of the agency’s collection of
Americans' communications data.
The ruling, by the US district
court for the District of Columbia, is a blow to the Obama administration, and
sets up a legal battle that will drag on for months, almost certainly destined
to end up in the supreme court. It was welcomed by campaigners pressing to rein
in the NSA, and by Snowden, who issued a rare public statement saying it had
vindicated his disclosures. It is also likely to influence other legal
challenges to the NSA, currently working their way through federal courts.
The case was brought by Larry
Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist
killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011. His son worked
for the NSA and carried out support work for Navy Seal Team Six, the elite
force that killed Osama bin Laden.
In Monday’s ruling, the judge
concluded that the pair's constitutional challenge was likely to be successful.
In what was the only comfort to the NSA in a stinging judgment, Leon put the
ruling on hold, pending an appeal by the government.
Leon expressed doubt about the
central rationale for the program cited by the NSA: that it is necessary for
preventing terrorist attacks. “The government does not cite a single case
in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an
imminent terrorist attack,” he wrote.
“Given the limited record
before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of
evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the
NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious
doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of
conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of
terrorism.”
Leon’s opinion contained stern
and repeated warnings that he was inclined to rule that the metadata collection
performed by the NSA – and defended vigorously by the NSA director Keith
Alexander on CBS on Sunday night – was unconstitutional.
“Plaintiffs have a substantial
likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s
interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the
NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth
amendment,” he wrote.
Leon
said that the mass collection of phone metadata, revealed by the Guardian in June, was
"indiscriminate" and "arbitrary" in its
scope. "The almost-Orwellian technology that enables the government
to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United
States is unlike anything that could have been conceived in 1979," he
wrote, referring to the year in which the US supreme court ruled on a fourth
amendment case upon which the NSA now relies to justify the bulk records
program.
------------------
------------------
RELATED
ARTICLE
JUDGE FALLS FOR THE BIG LIE ABOUT NSA SPYING http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/big-lie.html
Posted on December
28, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
2 GOOD CHRISTMAS’EVE articles IN: http://www.washingtonsblog.com
Albert Einstein: “A Foolish Faith In Authority Is The Worst
Enemy Of The Truth” http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/einstein-foolish-faith-authority-worst-enemy-truth.html
----------
TPP STOP THE ANTI-AMERICAN POWER GRAB TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IS “CORPORATIST POWER GRAB”,
said Bloomberg. Posted
on December 24, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
=========
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario