Slashdot Mirror
Two Groups File Domestic Spying Lawsuits
An anonymous reader writes "The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU both recently filed lawsuits, in New York and Detroit respectively, claiming that President Bush's electronic eavsdropping program is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers. From the article: 'The Detroit [ACLU] lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs' ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.'
Now, I'm sure there's much to be debated about whether or not the ACLU should be taking this action and suing the NSA. Frankly, I'm not sure if this lawsuit is called for or not. It could just be a waste of a government agency's time but the courts will throw it out if that is the case. I'm pretty sure it's not--I'm pretty sure this will be heard in a court of law but the ACLU just won't get anywhere.
..."
Now, I've heard a lot of talk among people of the ACLU being a crazy leftist organization that's terribly out of touch with reality. But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.
No one can argue, this group pushes back so hard against the government even when it comes to something like domestic spying on a relatively small part of the population. They put forth such an effort that I'm sure if any member of the government is about to make a decision about our rights they are probably thinking, "If I do this, the ACLU is going to be all over me in the press
And that's why I love the ACLU. Because I can sit on my fat ass and not have to worry about the government getting carried away.
My work here is dung.
How dare these two groups jeopardize national security by selfishly claiming they have rights!
note: the preceding comment was intended to be facetious
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Feels more like 1984 to me.
BTW, Europe is much the same like the US in this regard.
Demanding ISPs to tap internet-traffic. Privacy, what is that again?
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
I just do not get it. The Liberals will do anything to undermine Bush. Electronic wiretapping has been used by plenty of presidents for political gain throughout the years. Kennedy, Truman, etc all did it. Bush authorizes calls made from domestic phones to oversees phones from people with terrorist ties, and he gets racked over the coals. Thank GOD I am not a democrat. The democratic party is a waste.
Stop believing the media lie. It is not illegal, in fact, even president Clinton agreed that the president has such powers under constitutional law to do so. Both administrations, as well as independent review boards from both sides, all agree there is nothing illegal about this. The stupid left wing media just can't let it go, and americans are like sheep, they follow whereever the media leads.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
That doesn't make it right for the Bush administration to be doing it, it just means the ACLU is biased, which is pretty well known. Don't blame people for being upset at Bush, blame them for not being upset at anyone else who tried the same thing.
It's quite possible that with the Patriot Act, a lot of people have been paying more attention to these issues, and it's getting some national attention now, where it wasn't before.
What's sick is that republicans were probably all over Gore at the time, but are now defending Bush, and the reverse for democrats. That's hypocrisy.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
""All the way" is Slashdot's server's IP log being requisitioned by the government whereby, shortly after, you and all your family members and friends are nowhere to be found."
How do you we know that hasn't already happened?
Just look at the last election -- numerous incidents of registration interference by both parties. You know, there are countries where this shit doesn't happen. Where gerrymandering and election fraud don't take place. Where the government doesn't spy on its citizens without warrants, or run concentration camps in foreign countries. Where the public doesn't calmly accept a war based on what were proven to be lies. Where people aren't subjected to theocratic "abstinence education". Where school boards are all trying to have the theory of evolution removed from classrooms and replaced with "creation science".
Yes, Americans are sheep. And you sir are a prime example.
>A) The FISA court itself states that the actions of the NSA in this matter are legal
No, it does not. The FISA court has never said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal.
>B) If they are not, then you better get ready for lawsuits against Carter, Regan, and Clinton, as they acted in the exact same manner when they were in office.
No, they did not. They got the required warrants from the FISA court.
>You continued failed attemps to discredit Bush have always failed and will continue to fail.
What amazes me (not really) is people who are so blindly partisan that they will stand behind a man who is breaking actual laws and destroying the ideals of our country in the process. Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
They claim that the White House (&NSA) is not following the law. The existing secret (FISA) courts and regulations allow for wiretapping without a warrent application for 72 hours. The wiretapping is done without any courts. The claim is that that wiretapping must follow existing law and regulations, and is not.
I see no claim to rights here...
Move along folks, nothing to see
The Seond Amendment does not recognize an individual right. If you're going to insist that we strictly hew to the words of the First Amendment you must do the same for the Second. The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" must also have a meaning. The way I take it, the government has the duty to establish a "well regulated militia" and all members of that militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This clearly recognizes the possibility that individuals may be licensed before they purchase firearms and that gun ownership may be restricted based on position in the hierarchy of the militia.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Would a police state allow groups like The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to file such suits, much less exist?
What?
Now who's the one reciting talking points?
Repeat after me: Abramoff gave no money to Democrats. It is true that some of his clients, some Indian tribes -- indeed those bilked by Abramoff -- gave money to both Republicans and Democrats. One cannot directly link this money to Abramoff, however.... and in fact it would be foolish to do so.
Meanwhile, an FEC search of Abramoff's personal political donations show where his true loyalties exist.
As for the Clinton bit, please refer to what someone else has written further down in the threads. No need to repeat it here.
I agree partially with you on this, but would like to add a little more. Bush is only a part of the problem here. He's being used as the "puppet front man." Removing him from office would only be treating the symptoms, not the diesase. We need to take a real hard look at the people behind Bush (and behind many in Congress, of both parties) to get at the root of the problem.
I also agree that this has nothing to do with partisan politics or parties. This is about greed, and only greed. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
An article yesterday claimed that there was little gained from this widespread spying campaign. The overwhelmingly majority of these tips handed down from the NSA lead to innocent Americans.
The only thing that could possibly justify such an overreaching program is hard evidence that the program actually delivered information that prevented an attack. You would think that if such evidence existed the Bush administration would release it. However the most likely scenario is that no such evidence exists or it is so indirectly tied to the spying program there might be no real way to prove that this information alone actually resulted in a capture or arrest.
Also I mean real threats, not some whacko who is going to knock down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. Also a case where you can say, "Yes without the information from the NSA program we would have never have known". So far many suspects have already been identified through man-on-the-ground intelligence.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
What media lie? Please enlighten me about which of the following parts of the FISA wiretapping rules are optional, as Bush and you seem to believe?
A) Notify congress after its use.
B) Request a retroactive warrant from the FISA court within 72 hours of its use.
Bush announced that the NSA was beholden to no law and would do neither. In 2002 he publically complained that FISA court moved "too slow" and that he would continue to authorize the NSA to perform wiretaps without warrants. (despite the fact that the Republican congress had just pumped up the number of judges in the USA PATRIOT act, and could do so again at any time to make sure there were enough rubberstampers appointed by Bush in the room to keep the warrants coming at any pace desired)
As for part A, so far, a few congress people had been told in person, however no notification of the entire Congress was ever performed, and most of those left out of the loop agree that this does not meet the standard required by the FISA act.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Your comment "So long as that is true, it falls under the Executive's wartime authorities under the Constitution." is completely innaccurate. AT NO TIME does the Executive branch have the right to violate the Bill of Rights. Every constitutional expert has agreed on this point. The FISA act in NO WAY impedes an investigation, even going so far as allowing warrents to be obtained "after the fact". While I agree that there are threats to this country that must be addressed, I feel we should start looking a little closer to home for the real terrorist, people that would destroy this country to "save" it.
Your question is like asking 'Why didn't someone sue when the police bought their guns, instead of when they used them to shoot those innocent people?'.
It is perfectly legal to spy on random non-Americans, hence the NSA's actions during Echelon were legal. Delibrately letting other countries spy on Americans, as long as they turn the info over to us, is technically legal, although it shouldn't be, and by the time anyone found out about that they had stopped.(1)
Carnivore, OTOH, was (is?) perfectly legal, because it is merely the ability to wiretap email, which the government certainly has the right to build.
What they do not have, however, is the right to use it to spy on Americans without a warrant obtained via the courts. Which they are doing. (Although we're not certain if they'd doing it via 'Carnivore' or not.)
1) I think we need a law that says the executive branch much stop any spying by other governments it is aware of on Americans, or, if it cannot, at least alert the victims, unless the executive branch can come up with a damn good reason and present it to the courts. Maybe the standard should be slightly less than a warrant, but there should be some standard.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I'm sure there's more, of course, but I'll limit the list to your one post for now. If you'd like an extended version, I suggest starting with your thoughts on torture, secret prisons, and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
"Why wait until you have proof?"
In this era of "national security letters" and Guantanamo Bay, exactly how is the average citizen going to get any proof without being whisked away by the federal government to be held incommunicado indefinately?
Sigh. We seem to have a troll lurking here.
You know you're a Bush sycophant when you try to drag Bill Clinton -- who has been a private citizen for a few days short of five years -- into the flame war.
Did Clinton abuse the executive in similar ways? Maybe. But to his credit, he was never as bald-faced or as free-wheeling about presidential fiat as his successor.
PATRIOT, "extraordinary rendition", the deadly fiasco in Iraq, the WMDs.. shall I go on?
Look past the partisan bickering for once.
We're looking more and more like China, the world's largest Red State, every day: fewer rights for the individual, a wider gap between rich and poor, and a docile populace that values economic security (or, more accurately, the ability to consume) over real freedom. You would see that this is where America is heading, if you were paying attention.
Bitch about the ACLU's leanings if you want, but give them credit for standing up for your freedom from random surveillance.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
High treason is quite explicitly attempting to forcibly overthrow the government. While that might be the effect of the Bush administration, it would be very difficult to prove it as the aim (after all, they have much of the support of the people).
However, the way the system currently operates is that things do not come under scrutiny until a complaint is made unless there is specific oversight. In this particular instance, the administration explicitly did a run-around the oversight, got the justice department to support them, and congress has dragged its feet on the matter (namely, "democrats" are pissed but ineffectual, and "republicans" either blindly support Bush or want to try and handle things in a cordial manner out of the public eye to save face for the party with which their careers are connected).
So, what option is there if Americans are collectively affected by dubious shenanigans of government and their legislative representatives don't do anything? They sue. It forces the issue into the judicial branch (which can simply dismiss it, but at least it gets an airing).
I don't know which is more shameful, the sorry state of government today, or that so few people think there's a problem. It's sad.
So Clinton realized that he could never get a warrant, so he authorized the search and seizure of an American citizen without a warrant. OK... I got that.
But how is it a lack of respect for the law to wire tap phone calls that are being made to known terrorists?
It's not. It's perfectly legal, and if one President has the authority, then they all have the authority until Congress changes the law.
Do you know for a fact that the phone calls of American citizens were tapped without warrant?
No, you don't.
How many of the tapped phone conversations were from non-citizens residing in the United States?
You don't know.
Can you state that a phone call was tapped without warrant that had absolutely no connection with domestic or foreign terrorism?
No, you can't.
Until you can answer these questions with fact, then the argument is moot.
... elipses...
The Wire taps are ONLY on International phone calls, If tapping someone's phone who is calling Pakistan, is going to make me safer, DO IT. If they are innocent, then they have nothing to worry about.
This is how freedom dies. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I'm sure you won't mind if I personally listen in on all your conversations to make sure you're not a terrorist. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right?
Are we really concerned that a government screener is going to learn about our toilet habits by listening to a phone call then use that information to embarrass us?
No, we're concerned that the government sees clear to ignore laws that it feels are inconvenient.
Remember this is ONLY international phone calls.
I don't care if whoever it is is calling Osama bin Laden directly on his Friends and Family line. They need to get a goddamned warrant, or stop pretending that this is a nation of laws.
The ACLU needs to be disolved..
You need your head examined.
I don't think we have any danger of having "Too much freedom" or "Too weak a government" anytime soon, so I'll support anyone who wants to protect my freedoms or curb government abuses.
Occurs to me that congress cannot pass a law (at least not a constitutional law) restricting the powers granted to that branch by the constitution; of any other branch of government (the executive branch in this case) without a Constitutional ammendment. Seems to me that the FISA restricts the Presidents authority and responsibility for National Security, and Caommander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. I suppose this same "rule" might apply to posse comatatis.
;-)
So... I would assume the only challenge the ACLU (Detroit Muslim branch) might have, since they certainly will not have any evidence that anyone specific was violated, is that Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority, a pretty tough sell in the context of 9/11.
In addition, the Supreme Court has always leaned in the direction of the president on issues of National Security, in the overwhelming number of cases.
The result seems likely that Congress will get slapped down, and the FISA will be invalidated at least in the context of 9/11 kinds of asymmetric threats. I cannnot imagine that Bush will lose at the Supreme Court.
Last of all there certainly no criminal issue here, this is most certainly a constitutional issue. The criminal portion of the statute was intended to ensure that no rougue "agents" of the federal government; at far lower levels than the president acting in an executive capacity, used their access to information to violate the FISA statute.
It has been a long forgone (decades old) conclusion that NSA has been monitoring (LOOK UP ECHELON IN GOOGLE) international phone calls, and that they had the capability to go far beyond that. Why is it a surprise that at some point (9/11) they would decide to use the capability?
'Those who fail to learn from the past, are destined to relive it'
mdw
There is no doubt in my mind that history will not judge kindly the
... the list could easily go on for several more paragraphs
George W. Bush presidency, presuming, of course, that democracy and
the rule of law actually survives in the USA.
The recent revelations about this administration's illegal domestic
spying program puts J. Edgar Hoover's fascist "black-bag" and wire-
tapping program to shame, let alone the minor "bump in the road"
File-gate fiasco of the Clinton administration. That there is a
perfectly workable legal avenue for wiretapping under FISA regulations
only serves to emphasize this administration's total disdain for either
Congressional or Judicial oversight.
American democracy was not crushed by the falling Twin Towers on 9-11-2001.
Instead, it has been mortally wounded by the Bush administration's "death
by a thousand cuts". A Congress that was not so willfully AWOL from it's
Constitutional duties would already have brought forth articles of impeach-
ment against this tyrannical regime, but then Dubya is not William J.
Clinton.
Misappropriation of $750 Million earmarked by Congress for the war in
Afghanistan for the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; Corruption of USA
intelligence agencies to obtain false justification for the illegal
invasion of Iraq and the brutalization of it's citizens; Outright
fabrication and falsehoods perpetraited upon the Congress, the American
people, and the United Nations regarding the "imminent threat" that Iraq
posed; Unilateral abbrogation of the Geneva Accords without Congressional
approval; Failure to perform his duty as Commander-in-Chief to wage this
illegal war in a manner consistent with Western (and Christian) moral
values; Failure to provide timely and complete information to the Congress
as requested;
without much effort.
The biggest question in my mind is how the Dubya regime can simultaneously
justify the continued poorly managed war in Iraq, while failing to secure
the USA's borders, seaports, and air cargo against future terrorist tactics.
If any president in the last 150 years deserved impeachment and trial for
treason against this country, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights,
it is George W. Bush.
Something I find surprising is that most of the people I talk to who are adamant 2nd ammendment supporters are also strong supporters of the Bush administration and the domestic spying program. Obviously the Republican party is the party that fights gun control; but it seems to me that some of the "from my cold dead hands" folks are really not very analytical about things.
I'm sure that's true of the other side also; but it's just odd that somebody who feels their gun is their last line of defense against a corrupt government would so easily and quickly give up rights for which their gun was their stated last line of defense. Apparently those rights aren't as important as they like to say they are, or they would be more inclined to defend them.
The truth, it seems, is that they will probably never use their guns until somebody comes to actually take them away. All other rights they'll happily give up when somebody whispers the word "terrorist."
For all of the certainty and equanimity NRA hardcore types display, they seem quite fearful of the bogeyman.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Look, let's just cut the crap.
The Pres. took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S.A.
By his own admission, he is currently breaking the law.
The President does not respect the Constitution, and by extension, he doesn't respect the People of this great nation.
We need to get these radicals out of power. If ever there was a case for impeachment, now is that time.
A well armed citizenry is the best defence against despotism.
In Haiti, 90% of the population participated in rallies outside the presidential palace. Nothing happened. If they all had pistols...
We had the "million man march" Nothing happened.
We had "Bunker Hill" Something happened!
Politicians are sensitive to the wishes of armed citizens.
They are less sensitive to unarmed subjects.
They do not want to be sensitive to anything. I trust my neighbors with weapons. I believe in the essential goodness of free men. It is lack of freedom that causes evil.
But how is it a lack of respect for the law to wire tap phone calls that are being made to known terrorists?
Any phone calls being made by known terrorists would easily past the FISA court and could be done with a warrant. The only reason to illegally skip the FISA court is if they knew that they couldn't meet that standard of proof. They knew what they were doing was so wrong they didn't even attempt to get it into the PATRIOT Act which was barely scrutinized and passed overwhelmingly.
Do you know for a fact that the phone calls of American citizens were tapped without warrant?
The President has admitted that this and his only defense is bizzarre interpretations of the authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan and the principle that the president can do anything he wants if its in the name of national security. We know it happened, unless you're calling Bush a liar. We don't know what the scale was, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands. FBI agents have said there were thousands of tips from this program with not a single one panning out. (Definately not a case of known terrorists' phones being tapped) We don't know who was tapped. There's the strong possibility that reporters phones were tapped, possibly political opponents of the Bush adminstration. We just don't know, but we know that it was bad enough that they knew they couldn't get it passed a court that had never rejected a single warrant application until after this program had begun.
Liberals never tire of playing rope-a-dope. Well, it'd BE rope-a-dope, if they weren't doing it to themselves. Maybe there's another word for it.
How many times will we have to hear how George Bush has scheduled the world's destruction, only to learn the assertion is fabricated?
Remember how:
- Rove was going to be taken down, and Bush impeached over revealing a covert CIA agent? [Who wasn't covert, and hadn't been for 6 years]
- How the Conservatives were "cracking up", by wanting to withdraw Harriet Myers, yet it was actually a strengthening of the party's convictions (See also: Sam Alito)?
- About 20 lawsuits against Halliburton, Clinton's favorite tool and the only non-French company that makes CITIES, came to nothing?
- Rush Limbaugh was going to be jailed for taking prescription drugs, but the court found there was no evidence whatsoever, and the prosecutor was trying to take a fishing expedition?
- How tax cuts would "bankrupt the country", but it's growing at the safest, strongest rate without being in a boom? [Also done by JFK, Ronald Regan, George Bush 41- NOT done by Jimmy Carter who *raised* taxes, and we were miserable.]
- How almost every democratic congress-geezer moans about low military morale, but people are re-enlisting in numbers rivaled only by the second world war?
- How "no WMDs" were in Iraq, but the New York Times reported (5/22/04) that Bush was harming the Iraqis by hauling out 500T of yellowcake uranium, and 2T of enriched uranium from the streets of Baghdad?
- How Bush "went AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties in the vietnam era, but the papers were using Microsoft's font face?
- How we're supposed to believe that people are starving from the "worst economy", but $2B is surplus in the food stamp account? [Unemployment is at ~5%, probably as low as it can get]
- How Iraq will be "another Vietnam" but after 3 years less people have died there than the DoD admits to losing, if they'd stayed home? [~1200/year normally, should be 3600, but we've only lost 2200 or so]
- How Conservatives are always railed about "tax cuts for the rich", and every time it boosts the economy? ["The rich" own companies. Ever get a job from a single mother living in the projects? There IS a connection.]
How is it that people voting Democratic can keep believing the headlines and getting excited, and it's all for nothing, over and over again?
The allegations and the headlines they generate are rarely the same; it's what's called media bias. The wiretaps were on international phone traffic involving phone numbers attributed to terrorists or terrorist-support groups. It's been done before, and by some of the people claiming it's illegal (like Al Gore). Who doesn't WANT this?
Mark my words, and remember this at the ballot box: nothing will come of this. Get off the treadmill; think for yourself, research for yourself.
Fer cryin' out loud: you're on the internet!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Maybe things are done differently nowadays in Jesusland, but in Canada one of the best things we've imported from the US is this concept called "innocent until proven guilty." This means wiretaps must be backed up by at least some evidence, not merely presumed guilt. Increase the ability of the police to work secretly if need be; but balance it through increased accountability and oversight, not less. By wiretapping without even notifying FISC, the spies were cutting out legal oversight altogether, a dangerous challenge to the notion of rule of law and government by Constitution.
Moreover, the damage done by these wiretaps goes beyond the erosion of privacy (an erosion which impacts all American citizens, by the way, not just 'evildoers.') To justify the violations, President Bush has essentially argued that his role as Commander in Chief during a time of war gives him the authority to override the legal limits on the behavior of his administration. Considering the fact that the War of Terror can last indefinitely, this line of reasoning translates roughly into "L'etate, c'est moi"
Procrastination Man strikes again!
You are correct... I did mistakenly use "known" when I should have used "suspected." Thank you for correcting me.
The difference between a suspected terrorist and a known terrorist can only be truly known after surveillance... or after bombs tear down a few buildings, train stations, embassies, etc.
... elipses...