5 1

POLL Supreme Court rules in favor of FBI in case involving surveillance of Muslim community in California

Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday sided with the FBI in a dispute over its efforts to stop from going forward a lawsuit brought by three Muslim men who argue the federal government targeted them and their Southern California community for surveillance based on their religion.

The court issued a unanimous decision addressing what it said was the narrow question of whether a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the state-secrets privilege, which was asserted by the federal government in its request that the men's claims be dismissed. The FBI argued disclosure of the information sought by the three men would harm national-security interests.

Does this open the door for a possible future sruveilance state in the U.S.?

  • 13 votes
  • 4 votes
  • 4 votes
snytiger6 9 Mar 5

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I hate wicked problems like this. Yes it does open the door to a surveillance state. And yet lets face it, extremist religious groups are acknowledged as being a source of terrorists.


I think religious org's should be watched (if we can't ban them). All of them but Islam is a violent one. Mohammed's New Testament, written after reaching Mecca, supersedes the part written before then and he was a bit angry. Christianity and Hindi obviously have their violent Sects. Even Buddhists sometimes venture into the bloody fray. Watch all of them. That should be an expected aspect of public religion.


We already have massive surveillance going on, both from the our government, China, and numerous private entities. As so much terrorism derives from the religiously motivated, surveillance should be part of bargain of being tax free. If they're really law abiding, they should look at it as outreach and shut the fuck up.


Soooo, you think all those satellites up there are for TV shows?
We were told, in 1973, as DOD Secret & higher-clearance employees at a nuclear submarine building facility, that the satellites Then could read your badge number from the 3"x5" ID on your lapel.
Do you think the sophistication of surveillance has Fallen since then?


I read the SCOTUS ruling. It’s very complicated but this surveillance door has been open for years.

Surveillance doors have been open for decades. The FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover surveilled Martin Luther King, Jr. Surveillance doors were open for Viet Nam War protesters.

WW One protestors were jailed, as were women who taught poor women how to avoid pregnancy. Ask 19th century labor union organizers if they were surveilled. During slavery, escapees iwere tracked. In the 1790s, criticizing the government was illegal.

It’s safe to say governments have always surveilled.

We actually pay them to have the ability to insure the public's safety before its privacy (which is not a constitutional Right).

@rainmanjr A privacy right was created, maybe by Douglas for the Connecticut condom case, because SCOTUS didn’t want to base rulings on the very open-ended Ninth Amendment.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:654072
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.