Where is your Soul?

Tinker

Et, tu, Brute? (Julius Caesar, 3.1.77). And so it is you too Republicans? That keep taken away my countryman's wealth, honor, and freedoms.

All in the name of being able to better protect our country's populachion social safety. And given the NSA the ability to secretly listen in, and look at, the American people privet conversations on their cell phones, and computers. To keep institutionalizing this Washington DC establishment Government corruption by setting aside the United States Constitution laws, for their own self serving reasons.

So it is you too who has been lying to me about what you said in taking the oath of office that I elected you into public office because you told me that you are a honorable man.

That I can trust you to solemnly swear:

                               ( Oaths of Office For Federal Officials)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
----------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wrong-ruling-on-nsa-data-collection/2013/12/19/494362ee-68ca-11e3-a0b9-249bbb34602c_story.html

The wrong ruling on NSA data collection

By Michael B. Mukasey, Steven G. Bradbury and David B. Rivkin Jr. December 20, 2013

Michael B. Mukasey was U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. Steven G. Bradbury was head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration and led the legal effort to obtain initial court approval for the NSA’s metadata collection. David B. Rivkin Jr. served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.
 

A federal judge’s ruling Monday that the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) bulk telephone metadata collection is “likely” unconstitutional is wrong on the law and the facts. It conflicts with the opinions of 15 other federal judges who have sat on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and approved the NSA’s metadata collection 35 times since 2006.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon has stayed his order to give the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit the opportunity to reach its own judgment. But in the post-Snowden, anti-NSA climate pervading Washington, there is reason for concern that this opinion will amplify the caterwaul of those seeking to dismantle vital U.S. counterterrorism capabilities.

The telephone metadata collected by the NSA consists of transactional business records revealing only which phone numbers have called which numbers, when and for how long. It includes no other subscriber information, and it doesn’t enable the government to listen to anyone’s calls. This database enables intelligence agencies to discover quickly whether any phone numbers of known foreign terrorists have been in contact with numbers in the United States, a vital input in counterterrorism investigations. It is informative even when it reveals a lack of contacts.

In Leon’s view, however, the Fourth Amendment prohibits Congress from authorizing the bulk metadata collection and the focused querying of those records, even where the president has determined its necessity and it is approved every 90 days by a federal judge. No case law remotely supports this breathtaking conclusion. Liberal use of exclamation marks is no substitute.
----------