Privacy class-action lawsuit filed against NSA, FBI and the US Presidency

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ama-nsa-today/

Rand Paul files suit regarding spying/snooping aganst American public by NSA

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) and Matt Kibbe, president of the conservative organizing group FreedomWorks, are filing a class action lawsuit against President Obama and other members of his administration over the National Security Agency's collection of phone metadata, a practice they believe violates the Fourth Amendment. In a YouTube video released Tuesday, Paul compared the government surveillance to the warrantless searches practiced by the British military prior to American independence.

"The lesson of the American Revolution was that this should never happen again, and yet the NSA's data collection program is the modern equivalent of this practice," Paul says. He later adds, "Paul Revere rode through the streets to tell us the British were coming, not the Americans are coming."

The lawsuit includes Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of National Security Agency Keith Alexander and FBI Director James Comey, as well as Obama, as defendants. Ken Cuccinelli, a former attorney general of Virginia who lost a gubernatorial bid in the state in the fall, is the lawsuit's lead counsel. In a statement released by RandPac, the main super PAC supporting the senator and his top issues, he said, "We have assembled a legal team and we expect to be opposed by the vast resources of the federal government, yet I am optimistic that we will prevail, because we are seeking to protect a cornerstone of the Constitution.”

Paul filed the lawsuit at 11 a.m. Wednesday as a private citizen at the D.C. District Court. At a news conference immediately after the filing, Paul, Cuccinelli and Kibbe took questions about the lawsuit, with Cuccinelli addressing the legal details of the case, and Paul framing the targeted legal question posed by the lawsuit -- what does the Fourth Amendment mean in 2014 -- with his larger policy concerns about the NSA, the Patriot Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Paul and Cuccinelli reiterated that the court case only sought to clarify the constitutional meaning of the Fourth Amendment -- a question they hope reaches the Supreme Court. As Paul said, "Ultimately,the Supreme Court will be arbiter of what the Fourth Amendment means." If larger questions about civil liberties emerge over the course of the case, despite its limited scope, however, Paul wouldn't object to that. "We need to be asking these questions ... whether we get to that in the court case I don’t know," he said.

During his political career as one of the most prominent libertarian politicians in office, Paul has made civil liberties one of his chief policy concerns. He is on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, as well as the Foreign Relations committee. FreedomWorks gave Paul a $5,ooo donation in 2012.

The lawsuit will also likely help Paul's reelection bid in 2016 — or a presidential bid if he decided to aim higher. All supporters who sign a petition supporting the NSA lawsuit will go to Paul's campaign database, as shown by reporting from Politico last month. When Paul was asked a question about 2016 during the news conference, he quickly brushed it off. "We’re talking about the court case, not politics," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union is also engaging the NSA through the courts.

“We agree that the NSA’s phone-records program is unconstitutional," said Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU's deputy legal director, in a statement. "Mass surveillance of this kind infringes not just on privacy rights but on the freedoms of speech and association as well. We’ve advanced these arguments in our own lawsuit against the NSA, and over the next few weeks we’ll make them to a federal appeals court.”

Excellent news, if there's any justice left then the NSA/Obama administration will lose the case.

Thoughts?

[Chippiewill]

Pointless posturing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Pointless posturing.

Politicians often speak against it, at least he's taking it to the courts.

Nevertheless, it's likely to fail in the courts as they're just as bent as the Congress.... but at least it'll highlight the issue for 2016.

[peteyt]

I don't know much about Rand and Ron paul but I did read an interesting article a while back where apparently Ron Paul who'd been a key believer in the free market and against the UN was trying to use the UN because his supporters set a domain up something like ronpaul.com and used it to promote him and wouldn't give it for free after his campaign.

I'm not sure if this is true or partly true but this comes back to a point I made a while back about candidates, presidents etc. They tend to say what people want to hear while it benefits them but there's nothing stopping them changing and bending rules when they later get into power e.g. I believe in freedom of speech/free market but you have a domain with my name and I want it so I'm going to try and force you to give it or I believe in privacy but terrorist acts are up so we will need to secretly keep tabs on everyone to protect our country.

Obviously I know it's near dam impossible to find someone who you will believe in 100 percent but myself I find it hard to believe or trust anyone in politics and the truth is I don't even think I'd trust myself if I was forced into the same position.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't know much about Rand and Ron paul but I did read an interesting article a while back where apparently Ron Paul who'd been a key believer in the free market and against the UN was trying to use the UN because his supporters set a domain up something like ronpaul.com and used it to promote him and wouldn't give it for free after his campaign.

I'm not sure if this is true or partly true but this comes back to a point I made a while back about candidates, presidents etc. They tend to say what people want to hear while it benefits them but there's nothing stopping them changing and bending rules when they later get into power e.g. I believe in freedom of speech/free market but you have a domain with my name and I want it so I'm going to try and force you to give it or I believe in privacy but terrorist acts are up so we will need to secretly keep tabs on everyone to protect our country.

Obviously I know it's near dam impossible to find someone who you will believe in 100 percent but myself I find it hard to believe or trust anyone in politics and the truth is I don't even think I'd trust myself if I was forced into the same position.

No, that's a grey area with libertarianism. Some within Libertarianism/Austrian Economics believes property rights and intellectual property rights extend to the internet (like with file sharing how music is illegal) whereas on the other side you have those who believe that music etc should be allowed to be shared on the internet, ie if I buy the Arctic Monkeys album then I should be able to send you it for free as it now belongs to me.

I myself don't know what to believe on that grey area within Libertarianism, but Ron Paul isn't a hypocrite as that's one of the few arguments within libertarian philosophy. As has been pointed out before, just look at the guy's voting record - it's 100% solid in principle.

[peteyt]

No, that's a grey area with libertarianism. Some within Libertarianism/Austrian Economics believes property rights and intellectual property rights extend to the internet (like with file sharing how music is illegal) whereas on the other side you have those who believe that music etc should be allowed to be shared on the internet, ie if I buy the Arctic Monkeys album then I should be able to send you it for free as it now belongs to me.

I myself don't know what to believe on that grey area within Libertarianism, but Ron Paul isn't a hypocrite as that's one of the few arguments within libertarian philosophy. As has been pointed out before, just look at the guy's voting record - it's 100% solid in principle.

But then he had no problem with the domain being used by his supporters while he was a candidate it was only when he stepped down that he decided he wanted to own the domain. While that might not affect his beliefs it doesn't look great when he's trying to force his own supporters to give him something they technically owned and funded themselves. If he was happy for them to own it during the campaign he should have technically let them keep it as otherwise that comes across as using them