IIRC the NSA collected data. They didn't actually spy of you or I.

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

What are you even talking about? Muslims is your take away from this?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

We are ALL having our rights violated on this country.

If you find it helpful to parse the word all, have at it.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Because Snowden was smart enough to not go to jail you don't support him? Come on.

Are we having them violated in this way?

Clear Violation
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.co ... lates.html

No.

1. (Equal Protection) The original travel ban didn't use the word "Muslim" or "Islam". The new one uses the word "Islam" in an innocuous context in a section meant to fend off claims of improper animus.

2. (First Amendment) The government is not establishing a religion, nor is it preventing one from being practiced. This is nonsensical.

3. (Due Process) The due process guaranteed by the Fifth "attaches only when the federal government seeks to deny a liberty of property interest" (Knoetze v. US Dept. of State). Likewise, any non-citizen has no "inherent property right in an immigrant visa" (Azizi v. Thornburgh). Resident-alien status is a privilege extended by the collective sovereignty of the States granted by the Constitution to the United States, there is not a right to resident-alien status, nor a visa of any kind.

4. (Habeas Corpus) Immigration reform does not violate anyone's Habeas rights. It has nothing to do with the concept at all.

5. (Family Unification Rights) I don't think that's in the Constitution. I've read it a few times, never seen anything like it.

Shut up about this.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

You're sounding stupid. They didn't have to include Islam in the original since anyone with half a brain could infer it.

They targeted countries with predominantly Muslim populations but since they didn't include the word Muslim then they weren't targeting Muslims. Get a clue.

Plaintiffs argue that CIS has treated them differently from other immigrant groups because they work for religious, rather than secular, organizations in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs maintain that the Court must strictly scrutinize any law burdening the practice of religion and argue that the bar against concurrent filing is not narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Because this case involves Congress' plenary power to control immigration and naturalization, strict scrutiny is not appropriate. Masnauskas v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1067, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2005) (challenge to classification based on national origin subject to rational basis test).[4] "`Line-drawing' decisions made by Congress or the President in the context of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purposes." Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001). Under the rational relation test, courts presume that immigration statutes and regulations are constitutional. Masnauskas, 432 F.3d at 1071. The person challenging the governmental action has the burden of negating "every conceivable basis which might support it." Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320, 113 S. Ct. 2637, 125 L. Ed. 2d 257 (1993). Even if the legislative *1160 ends could be better achieved through different means, courts will accept the classification as long as it is rationally related to the government's purpose. Id.

Defendants argue that, for purposes of the Equal Protection analysis, the treatment of special immigrant religious workers should be compared only to the treatment of other beneficiaries of the fourth visa preference category. Even if that were true, defendants acknowledge that some non-religious beneficiaries of the fourth preference category are allowed to file concurrently while religious workers, special immigrant physicians, Iraqi/Afghani translators, and Panama Canal workers are not. Thus, even within the fourth preference category, religious workers are treated less favorably than others within that category.

For purposes of this motion, the Court assumes that special immigrant religious workers are treated differently than other similarly-situated aliens. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the bar against concurrent filing is rationally related to the agency's purpose of deterring fraud in an area where there are virtually no objective standards for determining a religious organization's need or for evaluating whether a particular applicant is qualified to fill an available position.

You sound like an idiot since court after court have already found it to be "unconstitutional". That is why there was a need to reword it in the first place.

No, they didn't. The hub-ub had to do with a temporary restraining order and an emergency appeal on a motion to stay the TRO. The claims were never decided on the merits.

You're a buffoon, roundly embarrassing yourself, once again. Just stop talking.

Also, a US District Court Judge in Massachusetts declined to extend a TRO issued by a court on the order precisely because, he ruled, the claims were unlikely to win on the merits.

Here you go: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a- ... fd89b00000

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

The more you commenting the more it becomes obvious that you nothing but a right wing apologist. You will excuse anything. Now the ban isn't a ban but a "restraining order".

Oh man, you're the gift-giving genius that keeps on giving, aren't you?

The "temporary restraining order" was issued by a US District Court enjoining the Executive branch and its agencies from enforcing the travel ban, after which a motion to stay the order was filed and denied, and an emergency appeal of that decision to deny a stay on the TRO was heard by the 9th Circuit.

The constitutional claims against the travel ban were never decided upon.

Also hilarious that you counter a US District Court Judge's opinion (which I linked), with another article from Politico.

Delete your account.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I already changed it jerk. Your whole debate on the merits cap is just part of idiotic procedure. It's a frivolous piece of bullshit that Trump thought he could get away with because after all "he is the President". The fact that he had to revise it is indicative of not being able to get away with it.

You're right, no more ruling on the merits. Now all District and Circuit court decisions will be given by Vocativ twitter poll. You're deranged and pitifully ignorant. Find something else to poorly research and flail at, because you're out of your element here.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

When will this be debated on its merits? I'm out of my element yet you are the fool that thinks this would be successful apparently.

You come on take potshots at people yet you are obviously biased to the point of lacking any sort of credibility. You are a mere hack.

Do you know how our court system works?

Well, first there is the trial court, then an appeals court, and then finally the Supreme Court.



You seemingly insist on embarrassing yourself. By all means, continue.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

As I stated before "debated on its merits" is simply part of judicial procedure.

"simply a part of judicial procedure"

Oh, it's "decided on the merits", ding dong.

That's enough endulgance of your idiocy for the night.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

You can't even spell "indulgence" even when provided with a damn spell check.

Did you have to Quora that? Ask Jeeves?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I never said there was an article.

Especially when the lights in the White House were turned off when Trump was declared winner.

Or the when he took more than a million acres of open land from a state that never voted for him.

You have a different definition for classy then I do.

It is patently hypocritical to ignore the violation of their rights yet complain about the rights violations committed against others. It seems as if it is perfectly OK in one instance and not OK in another.


I also have routinely seen the rights of African Americans violated by the implementation of blue light cameras for years. No one gives a shit about that either.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Huh?

Do you think the CIA doesn't use these tactics against Muslims?

As for blue light cameras it has nothing to do with this debate. Those in in public where about everyone already has zero expectations of privacy. This is about the next stage of surveillance.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I never said there was an article.

Especially when the lights in the White House were turned off when Trump was declared winner.

Or the when he took more than a million acres of open land from a state that never voted for him.

You have a different definition for classy then I do.

http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=104562&p=2641635&hilit=White+house#p2641635

So if there's no article, then did the white house thing happen or did you make it up?

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I forgot to commend you and LTG when you both spoke so eloquently about the first travel ban against Muslims that was instituted by the Obama administration.

When one of you has a moment, please link the topic for the rest of us.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

To be honest I didn't know about that. You are really out to lunch if you think I'm an Obama defender. I'm not. I have been extremely critical of him over the years. From Guantanamo to drones to his support of the overthrow of Quaddafi I criticize him. If you are looking for an Obama apologist it ain't me.

Now I will admit that I apologize for Hillary Clinton but much of that is due to what I perceive as unfairness. It is now her fault for giving us Trump. That is some of the biggest B.S. I think Ive ever heard. If only she would have lost we wouldn't have Trump. People voting for the idiot and repeatedly defending him are not accountable. Person that simply lost is responsible.


It's why I used the Hitler analogy earlier. People voted for Hitler. People voted for Trump. If people can't be accountable for who they vote for then they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Hitler is extreme and Trump isn't that but Trump won because he had a base of support that never wavered.

There are millions of people that believe in what this guy is spewing. Plain and simple.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I forgot to commend you and LTG when you both spoke so eloquently about the first travel ban against Muslims that was instituted by the Obama administration.

When one of you has a moment, please link the topic for the rest of us.