> Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US.

The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.

The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.

Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.

One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.

while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.

You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.

Different courts have reached different conclusions on this matter. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court at one point. Until then, various three letter agencies will treat it as if it is legal and act as if they are immune from consequences of abuse (which they are, presently).

> and act as if they are immune from consequences of abuse (which they are, presently).

As are you and I. You can't be retroactively convicted of a crime if it was not against the law at the time.

There is more subtlety in this case. The NSA has interpreted the law in a specific way which justifies their activities. If the Supreme Court later determines that interpretation is invalid, they most definitely can be convicted of a crime. If the Supreme Court instead determines that their interpretation of the law was valid, but that the law itself was unconstitutional, then ex post facto protection would apply.

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

>No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Not sure what this is trying to prove, but it has been ruled long ago that metadata (the phonecall records your carrier generates on your behalf while you voluntarily use their service), which the NSA is collecting have never belonged to you and are legally available to be collected by a 3rd party.

That ruling applied to a very different situation than anything under discussion here. For one thing, the metadata was collected for only one subject, not 250 million at once.

The misinterpreted quotes from the Constitution above are trying to state that metadata that ATT generates about your call history somehow belongs to you and is not available to be collected by a 3rd party. This is incorrect.

> The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.

In other words, clearly, The Fourth Amendment does NOT protect anyone from NSA's violations.

A lot of unconstitutional practices are law in the US

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html

That page is about 95% bullshit. For example: the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. It doesn't prevent the government from simply monitoring religious and political groups that may be associated with illegal activity. That argument is ridiculous on its face: if the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of assembly, and gangs are assemblies of people, and monitoring is the same as restricting the freedom, does that mean the government can't monitor gangs? We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution.

There are not a "lot of unconstitutional practices" that are law in the U.S. There are a lot of people who read the words in the Bill of Rights extremely broadly and without historical or legal context, and then put up poorly-designed web pages about all the "unconstitutional" things they have discovered.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but "We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution" is not strong evidence. The Alien and Sedition Acts[0] were passed in 1798 and were signed by (Federalist) John Adams. The next (Democratic-Republican) president, Thomas Jefferson, opposed them enough to pardon people who had been convicted under them, but then proceeded to prosecute several of his critics under the Acts before they expired. So yeah, a surprisingly bad beginning for free speech in the US.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

So is torture. And we've got laws against laundering money for criminal enterprises.

If anything, the last 15 years has shown me that 'anything' is possible.

I wasn't aware of any Constitutional rights that I as a US citizen should feel like I should actually have. I just know that I can't complain about it or upset the people in power, or else I'll be killed, put in without cause or trial jail, or have my property confiscated.

> unconstitutional in the US

So is warrant-less wiretapping, but that didn't stop NSA.

The thing is the enforcement mechanism against unreasonable search is the state loses at court. If the state never brings a case they have more freedom. This is also the reason why the police need not advise you of your rights before interrogating you if they don't plan to charge you. If the feds bring unrelated cases based on these seizures I'm sure the admissibility of the evidence will be the main thing being argued in court.

It's just as likely that the questionably sourced information will be used to guide a parallel construction case.

Great, so you've read a blog and you learned a word. Good for you. There's still no civil opportunity to challenge government behavior in a vacuum. Article III Section 2 requires a "case or controversy."

You're trying to have it both ways. Maybe we shouldn't worry about parallel construction because it's harmless and would never send any of us to prison, and maybe we shouldn't worry about it because there's nothing we can do to stop a determined governmental bad actor, but you can't claim both, clearly contradictory, propositions in the same thread.

The point is that FBI cases go to court. You're not going to be prosecuted in a US court for something that was legal when you did it and illegal when it was found out.

My point once you start tolerating unconstitutional laws you undermine the whole purpose of the constitution. It must be the supreme law, or it's just another easily bypassed piece of legislation.

What about the behavior of the NSA and their guardians in Congress and the courts makes you think they give a flying fuck?

So is hauling Bradley Manning to a cell without due process and torturing him for years?

Whether you personally agree with the ethics of it, a person gives up several of their constitutional rights when they join the military.

A person has no constitutional rights, he has natural ones. In other words, a piece of paper does not grant anyone any rights, not even the right to extort people (ie. to tax them).

Call them whatever kind of rights you want, but when Manning and everyone else (myself included) signed up for the Army, we waived them.

What kind of things you can voluntarily, bindingly agree to is another matter. I just wanted to point out that the constitution has nothing to do with our rights as human beings, and can't remove or grant any. It's wrong to think about rights as something the government gives you - actually the government only violates them.

A total absence of government would be just as destructive to your natural rights as a government with too much power over its citizens. The government didn't grant you the rights, but in some situations its very capable of preserving them.

There are two main problems with the United States, the first is that too many of us are ready and willing to trade personal freedom for economic and physical safety. The second is that we allowed money to control politics.

People don't actually have natural rights, if you're using the common definition of "natural".

The only thing that's natural are the laws of nature, otherwise known as physics, and there is no law of physics that prevents me from torturing someone.

> The only thing that's natural are the laws of nature, otherwise known as physics, and there is no law of physics that prevents me from torturing someone.

Good thing I didn't imagine the idea of rights would physically prevent you from torturing someone. Basically, rights are an idea meant to help us in drawing boundaries between what's acceptable behaviour and what's not. But it's got nothing to do with the government, and everything to do with reason, logic, consistency and common sense. A government or a piece of paper can't grant any rights or take any away, and in fact, governments only violate our rights.

We live in such comfortable times indeed, when a person can actually believe that, absent government, he would have any rights at all.

We all grow up getting brainwashed to fear freedom, and that right there, is the fear talking.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh I do. You have no idea that your stance on this matter is rooted in brainwashing.

This is completely untrue and speaks to a complete misunderstanding of what rights are to begin with.