I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer.
Sources, please...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Other Tech Companies Sign Letter Backing Bills for Transparency in Government Surveillance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm interested in the systemic corruption in the judicial branch to which you refer.
Sources, please...
If the Supreme court came to a different conclusion from your conclusion (which I agree is sensible) then the wording is ambiguous isn't it?
Fair enough.
That is certainly ambiguous.
They were certainly found to be legal by the supreme court at one point - and another amendment had to be passed to get rid of them for good.
----------
I presume he's referring to the NSA's surveillance which is clearly unconstitutional as per the fourth amendment.
They don't try cases simply on wording. Since they have the last word, they can really make whatever decision they'd like.
I disagree. They're independent clauses.
True. There was also a lot of ambiguity in how the laws existed and how they were applied in that time period, which was what I meant.
UK perspective, some parts of it may be of interest:
"BBC HardTalk: Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - Chairman - Intelligence and Security Committee UK (15/10/13)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqkZN8dmflM
Rifkind makes some interesting points in relation to Snowden and press releases, along with some deeper perspective to global security issues in relation to the role of modern intelligence agencies.
"BBC HardTalk: Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP - Chairman - Intelligence and Security Committee UK (15/10/13)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqkZN8dmflM
Rifkind makes some interesting points in relation to Snowden and press releases, along with some deeper perspective to global security issues in relation to the role of modern intelligence agencies.