To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Chilling details. This case got through only because the plaintiffs managed to find rock-solid evidence of the wiretapping. Previous cases, including one that found the same as this four years ago, were tossed because no mechanism could force the government to admit to the wiretapping in the first place.
How creepy that Obama seems so happy walking in Bush’s footsteps on this – yes, he voted for FISA himself, but what about his goddam campaign promises? What about Gitmo, pursuing torturers, using federal court to give prisoners held indefinitely their day in court at last?
I don’t get it either, Gus. I mean, we all expected Bush to walk all over the constitution, but I don’t see how Obama has no problem with it either. What part of “change” does he not understand?
Obama is just a tanned Bush….
Oh no, Obama kept it intact instead of making any fundamental changes and now the courts have thrown it out completely. Boohoo. How will future administrations ever do the same thing again?
I don’t understand what you mean, Baconcat.
5 please don’t feed the trolls
@5: Obama did something stupid but didn’t pull a W, he just sulked away with his tail between his legs. I’d rather he be wrong and stay wrong rather than try to spin this into “right”.
How can you use evidence obtained without a warrant? While it might prevent an imminent attack, it would set a really bad precedent.
Of course administrations will do it, and will continue to do it, until Congress is willing to make it criminally prosecutable and a president is willing to sign off on that. Even then, it will happen, but will be forced to go so far underground that we’ll never know about it. Anyone who thinks every last president since Washington hasn’t been steaming open mail envelopes and basically Jack Bauering people is deluded.
What has to happen is a moral and legal stand. You can only outlaw things; you can’t stop people from actually breaking the law like the law was some mystical inhibiting field.
Oh, and expect this to be pushed back to the Supreme Court as a ruling.
One thought though: maybe that’s been Obama’s intention all along, to force a Supremes ruling outlawing it.
Definitely a victory for freedom, justice, and the American Way… but CHRIST this took them forever to get to.
I think @10 has it right. The plan has been for a Supreme Court decision on this matter all along. Takes the heat off of Obama.
@8,
I don’t think you can use it, but I doubt the NSA had evidence gathering in mind.