Government Lawyers Appeal Ruling That Threatens NSA Phone Surveillance Program
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON Government lawyers are asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington to overturn a federal judges ruling that threatens the National Security Agencys practice of collecting every Americans telephone records every day.
The Justice Department filed its notice of appeal Friday. Meanwhile, Larry Klayman, the opposing lawyer who spearheaded the case against the NSA said he will ask the appeals court to refer the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled last month that the NSA phone records program was likely unconstitutional, so the governments appeal was expected. In a separate case, a district judge in New York last month upheld the NSA program as lawful. The ACLU, which lost that case, said this week it will appeal that case.
Read more: http://www.660news.com/2014/01/03/government-lawyers-appeal-ruling-that-threatens-nsa-phone-surveillance-program/
KoKo
(84,711 posts)What else can one say.
villager
(26,001 posts)Alas.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)..."How's that hopey, changey thing workin' out for you?"
But where it comes to [font color="darkred" face= "comic sans ms" size="3"]Spys R Us[/font] she pretty much nailed it.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)What dimension of chess is this?
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)He can't control the spooks any more than Kennedy could. If he earnestly tries to, he knows he could end up like JFK.
Here we are, five years in, and there are still people claiming "Obama is powerless" because "they" will "get" him "just like" <insert name of dead politician here.>
The fact is that, if Obama wanted to, he could scuttle all of this with the stroke of a pen. But he doesn't want to. He isn't the person you think he is or want him to be. Sorry. We have five years of actions (as opposed to wonderful speeches) with which to draw accurate conclusions.
christx30
(6,241 posts)can just look at the indefinate detention provisions of NDAA. He could have vetoed it and forced those interested parties in Congress to override his veto. He didn't do that. He signed it and included signing statements saying, basically, "Trust me. I won't use this. Wink." It was later declared unconstitutional by a Federal judge. He could have let it go, if he was actually against it. Instead, he fought to get that ruling reversed by the same judge.
It shows where his opinion on the issue lies.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)REAL "Change" ... meh, not so much.