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.'

11 of 770 comments (clear)

  1. Why I Love the ACLU by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why I Love the ACLU by EllisDees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Unless of course, it's the ability to carry out prayer or other religioius expression during meetings or on government property. Then the ACLU is indeed forcing government (courts) to take your rights away.

      You have every right to pray on your own property, or anyone else's property who is cool with it. What you don't have the right to do is force everyone else to support your religion, so either government supports each religion equally, or not at all.

      >Before I'm called some evil Christian, I am a pagan and ACLU does concern me, alot.

      It doesn't even concern me alittle.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    2. Re:Why I Love the ACLU by tpgp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      My goodness. It seems you are suggesting the (us) government is not getting carried away, while they are, in fact, already carried all the way.
      Oh, after reading about other governments present and past, the U.S. government is by no means "all the way."

      Well - as long as you're happy with the new US motto:

      America: still more rights then North Korea
      --
      My pics.
    3. Re:Why I Love the ACLU by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty.

      There is already a powerful organization dedicated to protecting that particular civil liberty, so why should the ACLU waste resources doing the same?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    4. Re:Why I Love the ACLU by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "All the way" is Slashdot's server's IP log being requisitioned by the government whereby,

      They, a) can already do this, /. would be barred by law from telling anyone, thanks to the PATRIOT act, and b) probably don't need to 'requisition' anything thanks to the NSA. They've only admitted to scanning email, but scanning traffic on port 80 looking for a POST is a trivial addition.

      shortly after, you and all your family members and friends are nowhere to be found.

      They have, indeed, asserted the right to lock people up without charging them with anything, without access to a lawyer, and without telling anyone.

      Basically, the different between now and the world you describe is they haven't chosen to do that to you. They do, indeed, claim they have the right.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Why I Love the ACLU by 2short · · Score: 4, Insightful



      The ACLU has sued to defend your right to pray on public property in addition to to my right to not be compelled to pray. I won't call you an evil Christian; your religion clearly has nothing to do with your being an ignorant twit.

      "Now then, where the F was the ACLU when the Clinton Admin was conducting physical searches without warrants?"

      They were in court, suing to stop them; where were you?

      "if the thought that ~36 authorizations of international phone calls"
        It's 36 authorizations, not 36 calls. It is, as far as I can tell, a stupefyingly huge number of calls.

      This is about listening to American citizens calls in cases where you don't think you could convince a judge who you apointed, that has top-secret clearance, who can issue warrants retroactively, who has refused to issue such warrants a couple times out of hundreds of requests. In cases where the administration doesn't think that guy is going to agree the wiretaps are justified, Bush is claiming the authority to just do it anyway, with no review from the judicial branch, and in direct contradiction of the legislative branch. The arguments he uses to claim this authority apply equally to ANYTHING he want's to do. This case is about whether the President may appoint himself King, or whether we still have a constitutional government.

  2. Re:Its Interesting by RobinH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Sheep by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Americans ARE like sheep. They are totally willing to give up essential liberties to gain some imaginary security. The fact that you bothered to bring up Clinton demonstrates that you are just a close-minded partisan. Of course Clinton was just as bad -- democrats and republicans have become indistinguishable. They both do exactly the same fascist crap.

    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.

  4. Re:George Bush and your cohorts... by EllisDees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >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!
  5. You might be a Bush sycophant if: by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • ... you talk about "wartime authorities under the Constitution" without mentioning that the Constitution only gives the power to declare war to Congress, who have not done so.

    • ... you think that wiretaps which would be a felony when done by private citizens aren't even "unreasonable" when done by the government.

    • ... you haven't questioned the premise that the unwarranted wiretaps are listening to known al-Qaeda members, even though such wiretaps surely would not have been among the ~0.1% of warrants that FISA has denied.

    • ... you think that the way to solve inadequate attention to the intelligence we can obtain legally is to bury future intelligence in every phone call we can get away with intercepting illegally, fixing an "inability to put the dots together" by splilling a bottle of ink on the page.

    • ... you think that civil libertarians don't realize that terrorism is a threat, or you falsely pretend to think so to score rhetorical points.

    • ... you do think that terrorism is a threat worth suspending the Bill of Rights for, but you don't realize just how much more the USA was threatened when the Bill of Rights was written.

    • ... you think the Bill of Rights is something to be suspended by executive fiat rather than the democratic amendment process in the Constitution.

    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.
  6. Troll, troll, troll your boat... by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.