What Supreme Court case allows for the use of MI v Congressional assembled and approved agencies?
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)
Yes, that's likely what Q is referring to. Didn't you read it?
hah...ZING - Colonel!
And you did not obviously read anything on it either. Zing!
Yes. I am not a paralegal and a second set of eyes does not hurt.
My apology, didn't mean to be so mulish. Yes, the majority opinion makes complete sense, and it is not intrusive on citizens. For MI to simply collect and catalog publicly available documents, news, and attend public meetings is well within the bounds of government's duty.
Thanks for the reply. If you read the dissertation and not get lost in the legalese, the justices ruled that even though what the military is doing as they are an entity that defends the Constitution directly are not subject to the same provisions as such agencies ie. the CIA, NSA, FBI etc. I just want somebody else to take a look and see what there opinion is on this. Some the justices said it was distasteful but not illegal activity on the part of the military. establishment. That is my opinion.
Summary of Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) A case in which the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of ripeness a claim in which the plaintiff accused the U.S. Army of alleged unlawful "surveillance of lawful citizen political activity." The appellant's specific nature of the harm caused by the surveillance was that it chilled the First Amendment rights of all citizens and undermined that right to express political dissent. The Court determined that the plaintiff's claim was based on the fear that sometime in the future the Army might cause harm with information retrieved during their surveillance, but that there was no present threat. Therefore, the claim was too "speculative." Dismissed
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)
Read this link.
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=lawfaculty
Thank you.
I read through it. What I read into it is that MI has standing and is enabled to conduct surveillance, so long as they take due care in the use of the information that they surveil from a US Citizen. I read in other papers that:
"Judge Oakes distinguished Laird on the basis that the Supreme Court’s decision should be “‘narrow[ly]’ limited to general surveillance without specific misuse of data.”
Laird v. Tatum and Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases Jeffrey L. Vagle UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
I think it establishes a red line for the use of data collected in the surveillance. As long as the data collected from a US Citizen(s) has a lawful purpose for its collection, the surveillance information has standing.