NSA Domestic Espionage On Americans And Others Finally Declared Illegal - "Unconstitutional" has to wait.

US Appeals Court Bravely Declares NSA Phone Spying Program Illegal, Cowardly Fails Ruling To End Or Declare Unconstitutional Now-Illegal Program

Constitution Briefly Pauses Its Slow Fade Into Irrelevance

(adapted from Reuters by RantBoy) - A U.S. spying program that collects data effectively spying on millions of Americans' phone calls is illegal, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, adding pressure on lawmakers to decide quickly whether to end or replace the program, which was intended to help fight terrorism and stifle dissent.

While stopping short of correctly declaring the program unconstitutional, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Congress did not authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans' phone records in bulk, a shocking decision founded on rationality rarely found in post-9/11 American politics or public policy.

The existence of the NSA's collection of "bulk telephony metadata" was first disclosed in 2013 by former NSA contractor and American hero Edward Snowden.

Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch said Section 215 of the Patriot Act governing the collection of records to “fight terrorism” did not authorize what he called the NSA's collection of a "staggering" amount of information, contrary to the hollow claims of the Bush and Obama apparatchik.

"Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans, [but it would have turned Nixon and McCarthy on like no stripper ever could.]" Lynch wrote in a 97-page decision. "We would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate, and expressed in unmistakable language. There is no evidence of such a debate."

The appeals court did not issue an order to stop the collection of data, noting that parts of the Patriot Act including Section 215 will expire on June 1. Lynch said it is for Congress to make clear whether it considers the NSA program permissible.  Appeals court representatives could not be reached by phone for comments regarding this significant oversight, but instead offered to meet in a secluded parking garage in rural Maryland.

Federal appeals courts in Washington, D.C. and California are also considering whether the domestic espionage is legal.

The U.S. Department of Justice had called the program necessary to protect national security and root out disloyal citizens who oppose such “innocuous programs” in the name of the 4^th Amendment and civil liberties.

Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said President Barack Obama has been clear he wants to end the existing NSA program, but would love to find some other way to collect data on citizen dissent and other un-American activities, and is encouraged by the "good progress" in Congress to find an alternative preserving its "essential capabilities" in the area of domestic espionage and surveillance of the American people.  “Congress must act now to preserve this capacity for tracking sedition and helping us find out who our internal enemies are, foreign or domestic.

The ACLU did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  A representative from the NSA told us that the ACLU expressed “smug self-congratulatory hugs and handshakes” at their corporate headquarters when news of the decision was handed down, “but you didn't hear it from me.  That room’s supposed to be closed to outsiders.”

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted 25-2 in favor of the USA Freedom Act, which would end the bulk collection of telephone data, and the bill is expected to pass the full House.  Staffers at Monticello worried briefly about the collected artifacts when Thomas Jefferson’s corpse paused spinning it his grave at the news and the site’s air-conditioning cut out.

A similar bill has been proposed in the Senate, with backing from some liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, but has faced resistance from senators including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Passage remains uncertain.  Staffers at Monticello breathed a sigh of relief as the AC kicked back on when Jefferson’s body resumed its role, keeping the precious artifacts cool.

COUNTER-PUNCH

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and presidential candidate, tweeted after the decision that "phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA's business! Pleased with the ruling this morning."

Another presidential candidate, Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, tweeted that "the NSA is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner."

All three legislators quickly retracted their tweets upon finding the heads of Kentucky Derby losers at their offices, adorned with private images pulled from their phones.

Thursday's decision overturned a December 2013 dismissal of the ACLU's lawsuit by U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan, who called the NSA program a government "counter-punch" to terrorism at home and abroad.  That Pauley’s wife immediately returned home after missing several days from work without first calling in was declared irrelevant.  Speculation as to the coincidental nature of these events continues.

Pauley had ruled 11 days after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C. said the "almost Orwellian" program might violate the Fourth Amendment.  Leon issued an injunction to block the program but put it on hold pending appeal.  That Leon's mother returned from a previously unannounced "vacation" to an unspecified location immediately following his placing the hold was also said to be "irrelevant." The federal appeals court in Washington heard oral arguments in November.

Thursday's decision did not resolve the ACLU's claim that the NSA program violated the bar against warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment.  It also failed to stop the sale of Bill of Rights Toilet Paper in the NSA gift shop or on its web site.

Lynch, though, did note the "seriousness" of the constitutional concerns over "the extent to which modern technology alters our traditional expectations of privacy."  An NSA spokesman countered that “Most Americans just don’t care about their on-line privacy.  See how they so promiscuously share their data with Facebook, Twitter, and marketers?  How’s that so different from what we’re doing?  Besides,” he concluded, “anyone who opposes this program hates America and is probably a terrorist.”

The case is American Civil Liberties Union et al v. Clapper et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-42.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Additional reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh,David Ingram and Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Frances Kerry, Noeleen Walder, Grant McCool)

Final Edit Courtesy RantBoy