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.
I'm no expert on the topic. I was wondering if anyone from Soviet Russia could help us out and let us know whether it was necessary for domestic intelligence agencies to gain a warrant before wiretapping Russian citizens. It just seems like a fun thing to know.
We're a long way from 1776, people.
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
That was fiction. Get out while you still can.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
"Bush's eavesdropping program was explicitly anticipated in 1978, and made illegal by FISA. There might not have been fax machines, or e-mail, or the Internet, but the NSA did the exact same thing with telegrams" -- Project Shamrock
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Here's a blog related to this ACLU Vs NSA lawsuit.
And from that blog, there's a great site with all the documents which raise concern. There's a lot of info on there if you're really serious about reading up on what resources the ACLU is using to run this case.
My work here is dung.
You just beat me to it :) Echelon still exists, although it uses a legal loophole that prevents (not that effectively, it would seem) governments from spying directly on their citizens. Instead, the US government allows the UK to spy on US citizens, while the UK government allows the US to spy on the British. Then they swap reports. The result is essentially the same as spying on your own people, and covers all phone calls, faxes and email transmissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
An interesting point (which the article missed) is that people like Christopher Hitchens, ex-critics who have yet who have yet been defending Bush and the "regime change/WMD quest/freedom spreading/think of the children/over there, not here" war are joining the suit.
--MarkusQ
If you guessed Bush, 2004, and Gonzales, try again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore
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.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
This lawsuit has some really strange bedfellows.
First you have greenpeace which is afraid that its fellow members in ELF are bein listened in on.
Then you have Council on American-Islamic Relations who has said that terrorist suspects should have unlimited access to thier supporters back home.
There are plenty of worthwhile groups that looking into wiretapping and if it was legal, this lawsuit is not going to do anything. The only reason for the ACLU to do it is for the publicity; after all it is coming up to 1 year when they filed a suit saying that the US Government has no right to pick up and deport illegal aliens.
WH press secretary McClellan claimed the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches just as your post claims. However, what he was refering to was an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants. This resulted in McClellan saying today (of Gore) that, "I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds." Not only is your blanket statement wrong about the Clinton Administration engaging in similar activities as Bush Jr., but you are also incorrect in its scope. At the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed. However, your post fails to mention both and furthermore fails to mention that Clinton never circumvented FISA to search US Citizen's overseas phone calls. It's sad that you'd pedal the same misinformation that the White House feeds everyone instead of presenting the facts to educate your fellow Slashdotters. It's just as bad as Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, making the same false arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live" and Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." Chew on that.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=protest+zones
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
http://gaypatriot.net/2006/01/16/law-school-dropou t-accuses-president-of-breaking-the-law
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
>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!
Really, I'm getting tired of this crap.
What you quoted is not the same as the thing Bush did. While you can of course be of the opinion that it's also problematic, it's legally an entirely different matter.
So stop acting as if it were the same.
Really, I can't understand why some people are so desperate about defending this administrations conduct in this matter that they are resorting to simply lying.
At the time the statement you quoted above was made, physical searches did not, I repeat not violate FISA, because physical searches weren't covered by FISA at the time.
However, what Bush authorized, clearly is covered by FISA and illegal according to it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601170014
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
I always knew lawyers were terrorists.
- chrish
Yet another "but Clinton..." argument. Okay, I'll bite. You realize that Clinton went through the FISA court (which was established for just these situations), right? The only time that President Clinton authorized a search without warrant was for physical searches, which at the time was not covered by FISA. After legislation was passed to allow FISA to issue warrants for physical searches so FISA was established as the gatekeeper for domestic wiretapping. Here's what Clinton said:
"My attitude was that once the Congress had spoken on it and given us the tools that we needed, we used it," he said. "We used the law. We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it, because I thought it was a good -- I think in the country you always have to try to balance these things out, so that's what we did."
And yes, within the rules of FISA in the case of an emergency you can initiate a wiretap as long as you bring FISA into the loop within 72 hours. So this entire comparison of "Clinton did it too" is ludicrous. He used the tool that was setup for these exact circumstances. The real question you Bush loyalists should ask yourselves is if there was already an established procedure for acquiring a wiretap (even after the fact), why was it necessary for Bush to bypass FISA and use his 'executive privilege'.
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.
One of the benefits of filing Civil Liberty cases is the possibility to get your Legal Fees paid for by the government. As the case with the ACLU, the more cases they file the more likely their are to receive legal fees. They are fund with donations as well.
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
On some issues, such as the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), they argue and stretch the meaning beyond the clear wording (i.e. States are not "Congress," so the prohibition does not apply to State establishment of religion, although most states have similar Constitutional prohibitions).
actually, the prohibition does apply to the states, thanks to the 14th amendment.
In other matters, such as the Second Amendment, they argue against civil liberties in opposition to the clear wording and intent ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), by arguing it somehow doesn't recognize an individual right.
which is consistent with decades of SCOTUS decisions. it aint a winner, and the ACLU knows it.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Yes, this refers to a civil lawsuit. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts in the United States have no power other than to decide the cases and controversies brought before them. They cannot go out and pick cases they want to hear. The only entity with the power to bring criminal charges against Bush and Gonzales is, you guessed it, run by Bush and Gonzales. Congress could always start impeachment proceedings, but then again, it's controlled by Republicans, so the chances of that happening unless they try to retroactively impeach Clinton again are pretty slim.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
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)
Being that I have known quite a few people who have interned for Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the linked alarmist article has very little evidence to support its claims. I encourage people to read every word and then look for comprehensive proof in the cited sources. Furthermore, it's hard to believe that CAIR, after having regular meetings with some of the top-most senators/representatives in the nation would be called "Islamofascist" or a "terrorist" organization by any stretch of the imagination.
First of all, this case will be thrown out for lack of standing. The ACLU is arguing that a hypothetical harm may have occurred. There's no evidence that Hitchens, Diamond, or anyone else was actually subject to an intercept - and furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation. No doubt the Pakistanis, Saudis, Iranians, etc, don't give two shits about who they wiretap - any conversations taking place in such a regime are very likely to have been tapped on the other end.
The other reason why this whole affair is deeply idiotic is that everyone's going off half-cocked over a series of hypothetical situations. Nobody outside the NSA, a few members of Congress, and some in the Administration know the true depth and scale of this program. What Russell Tice described sounds much more like Echelon, which has been in operation for somewhere around a decade. What we have been told is that this program only applies in scenarios where one end of the communication is foreign. So long as that is true, it falls under the Executive's wartime authorities under the Constitution. Remember, Congress was briefed on this program. Congress has the right to terminate the program by simply cutting the NSA's budget and the Administration couldn't do much to stop them.
Here's the other big problem: the Fourth Amendment prevents "unreasonable" searched and seizures without "probable cause." Exactly what is "unreasonable" about these intercepts - if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation - regardless if the other end is in Kandahar or Kansas.
We're facing an enemy that has already planted sleeper cells within the United States and has the avowed objective of killing as many Americans as they can. After 9/11 there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we didn't "put the dots together" - and now once the government finally tries to do just that, there's even more wailing and gnashing of teeth. The 9/11 Commission Report specifically singled out FISA as being inefficient and simply too slow to provide actionable intelligence. The 72 hour exemption means that unless the FISA Court could provide a warrant within that time period, the government would have to stop at hour 73 even if that means losing valuable intelligence.
There's nothing wrong with a strong stand on civil liberties. However, civil libertarians aren't going to be taken seriously until they realize that there is a threat out there, and our law enforcement and military need tools that can prevent an attack like 9/11 - or something worse. They have to realize that for the majority of Americans, the idea that the government might intercept their conversations if they're talking to someone abroad suspected of being an al-Qaeda associate isn't a particularly big worry for them. Going about half-cocked and crying wolf over and over again isn't persuasive - if anything it's only going to cement the idea in many American's heads that groups like the ACLU are altogether unconcerned with protecting this nation against another terrorist attack.
... and other no-bid contracts. Once a week, the Washington Post lists all of the federal contracts awarded the previous week, and almost invariably, KBR is listed as getting at least one more $10M contract (sometimes up to five in one week). IIRC, prior to this administration assuming power, KBR had no federal contracts. I'm sure that Cheney's "deferred compensation" has absolutely nothing to do with this.
s/one of//;
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Would a police state allow groups like The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to file such suits, much less exist?"
Why of course it would, just to keep up the illusion that it was serving the people.
Sorry, but that was a dumb question and it's easy to fit some element of paranoia/classical conspiracy theory into pretty much anything...
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
I have long agreed with Jonah Goldberg on many things but his take on this is spot-on...
0 601131109.asp
"It reminds me of the ongoing case of the vapors contracted by much of the media and by other critics of President Bush's program of spying on "certain Americans." That's how Dan Abrams of MSNBC, for one, refers to a handful of people who are allegedly on al Qaeda's speed dial and have been in contact with terrorists overseas: "certain Americans."
"Gosh," the average viewer might say, "I'm a certain American!"
If one paid only casual attention to the news these days, one would get the sense that Bush has a big stack of phone books in the Oval Office, and he and Dick Cheney spend their days thumbing through them to find "certain Americans" to wiretap.
"Joe Smith?" says Cheney, rubbing his hands together as if over a fine meal. "Man, he's gotta qualify as a certain American. Let's listen to his conversation with his wife."
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
Now I'm beginning to think this is just the latest in anti-Bush hype. The New York Times, which launched this "scandal," remains at journalistic DEFCON 1, releasing a stream of articles, editorials, and Op-Ed articles as if the nation were up in arms over what some hotter heads believe to be an impeachable offense. (A writer for Newsweek.com raises the possibility that the NSA wiretapping is a prelude to right-wing death squads in the U.S.) James Risen, the reporter who uncovered the spying program and has a book on the "secret history" of Bush's antiterrorism efforts, sounds like he's already cleared space on his mantle for his Pulitzer, Profile in Courage, and Nobel prizes."
The rest of the article - and it is a great one - is availible here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg20
It did not fall under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because, at the time, there were no stipulations for physical searches only electronic. Secondly, Ames himself chose not to pursue having any evidence thrown out based on the issue of warrents as you seem to be claiming. Here is the Criminal Complaint form from Ames' Case. I'm going to highlight some important areas:
"Paragraph 11: As a result of information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, searches authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, trash covers, and other investigation which is detailed herein, I believe AMES has traveled abroad to meet surreptitiously with KGB/SVRR."
So they had what was necessary to aquire the evidence.
Here is a link to and specifically Section 2.5:
"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."
They had probable cause which allowed them to go warrentless. The next three instances, again pulled from the Ames Criminal Complaint form referenced above, we see that FISA was used throughout the investigation.
"Paragraph 18: Based on information acquired in an electronic surveillance of AMES' personal computer and software within his residence, which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on or about October 9, 1993, along with other information obtained through electronic surveillance and other means, I believe "B" refers to Bogota, Colombia. From electronically stored documents located in AMES' personal computer, "North" has been identified as a signal site used by the SVRR to contact AMES, and "Pipe" is a dead drop used by the SVRR to pass messages, instructions, and cash to AMES. In this message, AMES indicated he could not be contacted from the 13th through l9th of September. I have been advised by CIA officials and learned through electronic surveillance that AMES traveled to Turkey on official business on or about September 13 and returned to the U.S. on or about September 17, 1993.
Paragraph 28: Based on several factors, including but not limited to the following, I believe AMES signaled his assent to the November meeting in Bogota by placing a chalk mark at the mailbox, "SS Smile", on or about October 13, 1993:
a. First, on or about October 12, 1993, FBI Special Agents monitored, by means of electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a discussion between AMES and his wife ROSARIO AMES, substantially as follows:
Paragraph 48: Based on information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, I believe AMES also owns two condominium apartments and a farm in Colombia. The condominiums are in Bogota and Cartagena; the farm is referred to as the "Guajira.""
As you can see, FISA was involved and the case itself never came down to contesting the gathering the evidence. So you see, everything was in order and our government was able to find a spy on our soil without gross violations of our Constitutional rights.
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.
It's really very simple. The ACLU did actually take a stand against ECHELON at the time. They setup a website to collect information on ECHELON in August of 1999 - http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15059prs1999111 6.html
... Well ... it's lawsuit time. The ACLU is about as partizan as you can get.
/. But it doesn't make this any less true.
But did they file suit against Clinton? Heck no, Clinton was a Democrat president. The ACLU is a partizan organization and will not go after Clinton.
And now that a very small subset of the eavesdropping that Clinton's Administration instituted with Echelon is being done by a GOP administration
Don't believe me? They even took down all the info at www.echelonwatch.org because now that the ACLU is sueing the W administration, it must cover up the fact that something MUCH worse was going on in the Clinton Administration. You can still check out the info at www.echelonwatch.org by using the wayback machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
So yes, if you tend to be to the left of the aisle, you love the ACLU, but if you are a centrist or lean to the right, the ACLU can be seen for what it really is - The legal arm of the DNC.
I have no doubt I'll be modded down because of the extreme left leanings of
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
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?
Tinfoil hats are 2 for 1 at Costco today.
So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?
You have to look at the history of the FISA laws. FISA was born from Supreme Court decisions in the 70s. The decisions bascially said that warrantless domestic surveillence was not constitutional, but warrantless taps of foreign powers/agents was fine. The FISA law setup the FISA court and warrant process for domestic electronic surveillance as it related to national security (note: non-domestic activities are generally all allowed under the Constitution). The Clinton Administration realized that the FISA law did not address physical searches. They felt that domestic physical searches should be permitted similar to electronic surveillance. However at that time the FISA law had no mechanism for physical searches, so they simply could not get a FISA warrant. It wasn't possible. The FISA court did not have the authority to do that in 1993. The only options the Clinton Administration had was to either get a traditional warrant, which would have tipped Ames off to the investigation and blown the whole thing, or not get a warrant and deal with it after the fact, which is what they did.
The Clinton Administration supported changing the FISA law to include physical searches and require FISA warrants for domestic national security searches. I see no such respect of the law from the Bush Administration. The mechanisms are all in place for what they want to do, and they are simply being ignored. This is unacceptable.
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.
This has nothing to do with Bush. Indeed, if Clinton was still in power and doing it, liberals would be yelling harder. We've never, ever, shrunk from treating people who claim to be on our side with tougher standards than we treat our open opponents, and we've lost a fair few elections because of that.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
"What's with "owning a gun" such a high civil liberty?"
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government has no repsonsibility to protect private citizens.
Read that again.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS.
Don't believe me? Read about it here.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050329.html
None of the other rights matter if you can't protect your life.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I find it intensely interesting that people will defend the warrantless search and seizure of an American citizen by the Clinton administration, yet will villify the recording of phone conversations of people who have known links to terrorist organizations.
Ames was a CIA agent. When you sign up to be a CIA agent, you give them permission to search your home any time they want. If a cop shows up at your door without a warrant, and you say "please come in and search the place," it's a legal search. It's basically the same thing when you sign up for the CIA.
And have you been keeping up with the news? The American citizens with "known links to terrorist organizations" who have been spied on without warrants, in violation of the constitution, have mostly been found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. The leads that the NSA gave to the FBI were almost all a waste of the FBI's time.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
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.
One thing that should be taken into account: the military is made up of people. Sure, there are a lot of sheep, hardasses, and other such members. But there are good people too.
There are also a lot of people who are, frankly, pissed off at the government. Pissed off that they've been taken from a duty that was supposedly in-country only, and shipped off to fight in a war elsewhere. Pissed off that when their stint was over, they're still stuck in another country, getting shot at, watching friends die, and fighting in that war. The are seperated from their wives, children, and family.
They're pissed off, and... trained in the use of weapons ranging from machine-guns to sniper-rifles to demolitions.
Personally, I don't think it will be a civilian that takes the first big mark against the government. I think it will be one of their own poorly-treated military personnel.
It is well known by now that the modern interpretation of the Constitution deems any warrantless search of US citizens unreasonable, and therefore illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. Concerns about the implications this may have for intelligence gathering have been addressed by FISA. So far, the only defense of the domestic spying program has hinged on the President's ability to interpret the Constitution as he pleases - clearly an indefensible position.
Given that the President has confessed to the act (if not the crime) of warrantless domestic spying, the only thing left to do is apply the due process set forth in the Constitution and let Justice be served. A lawsuit is a fine thing to have, but it doesn't address the issue that concerns so many US citizens. A message needs to be sent to this administration (and all future administrations) that they are not above the law and specifically that warrantless domestic spying will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately for us, it is understandably difficult to impeach a president from your own party. This particular congress has been especially lax in its duty to keep the president in check. The only realistic way to achieve Justice would be to start voting in congresspeople with the backbone to stand up for their constituents against a misguided administration.
We don't need a lawsuit; we need Justice.
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!
Your entire post is one long stream of unsubstantiated bullshit.
- 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]
There was never a possibility of impeachment, what with both houses of congress being solidly in Bush's pocket.
BUT! Had the exact same situation occured when Clinton was in office, impeachment proceedings would be well underway.. and you know it.
- 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)?
Hmmm.. Bush shows an utter and complete failure of judgement in selecting a nominee, is forced by public outrage (mostly on the right) to perfom a "do-over", and this somehow makes Bush a strong leader we should rally around? We hear all the time about him being a "man of his convictions" and "not interested in what the polls say, only what is right" and all that bullshit.. but when he shows that he is ONLY interested in his public approval and not willing to stand up for his choice on principle... that makes him a good leader?
- About 20 lawsuits against Halliburton, Clinton's favorite tool and the only non-French company that makes CITIES, came to nothing?
Investigating and prosecuting these lawsuits was the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. Hmmm... wonder which person and party is at the top of that branch?
- 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?
Uh... the court did NOT find there was no evidence "whatsoever". In fact, Limbaugh admitted to becoming addicted to prescription pain medicine. How can that be construed as "no evidence whatsoever"? True, he was not prosecuted... but to claim there was no evidence of his addiction to pain medication? You really have to have drunk the koolaid to go there...
- 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.]
Check the deficit and debt numbers lately? Tax cuts were supposed to increase the revenue and lower the deficit, eventually leading to surplus and a lowering of the debt. Did that happen? Or has the deficit increased and the debt balooned under this President and his "smaller government" congress? Did you believe the lies that the Republicans were for "smaller government"? The largest NON-MILITARY increase in spending in the country's history has occured under a GOP President and GOP-controlled congress. Never again should a Republican be allowed to say that his party is the party of "small government".
- 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?
Man.. you just make up stuff as you go along, don't you? There is a current recruitment crisis going on, as another poster already pointed out and provided a link. All four branches are well below their recruitment goals. You need to read more.
- 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?
Your president and your party leaders, who have admitted that WMDs weren't found, disagree with you. Are you calling Bush a liar when he admitted that intelligence mistakes were made and that no WMDs were found?
- How Bush "went AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties in the vietnam era, but the papers were using Microsoft's font face?
Whether he went AWOL is immaterial... until morons like yourself compare
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
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!
Most of the discussion of inherent presidential authority occurred before FISA. FISA was implemented in order to reign in the abuse of government surveillance which had taken place for decades.
If the president has an inherent authority to violate FISA, then the FISA court itself is unconstitutional and should be disbanded. Methinks that is not the case and will not happen.
Here's some good reading for those interested in this topic:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
There was no purpose for the Bush administration to bypass the FISA court. Clinton had some justification, since the FISA court did not oversee physical searches, but Bush had no justification whatsoever. He had the option of obtaining warrants up to 72 hours after the fact. He claims this wasn't fast enough. This is a very difficult story to believe.
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...
Fair enough, though automatically distrusting a source (an error I realise most of us, including myself, are prone to) is not neccessarily a good way to filter information.
However, just to let you know the claim that army re-enlistment is at an all time high is unfounded, a link you might trust more: Fox News on Re-enlistment- A different spin, but the same numbers.
As for the first one (the Rove investigation)Fox take on Leak Probes-Yes, I realise they barely touch it, though they do acknowledge (near the end of the article)the widely-reported statement of the special prosecutor(Fitzgerald)that the investigation would be ongoing and focus on the office of Karl Rove.
Really, man- the tactic of burying a story and then using the cry of "It's the liberal media making a big deal of nothing!!" will only work for so long. (Or not at all, in the case of those who bother to look around a little).
And for the record, the Dems suck bigtime, too- the only diffference being that they're not (currently) in a position to demolish the constitution as the Repubs seem to be striving to.
Isn't it high time we quit relying on 30 second sound bites and special interest influenced media to decide the political future of this country?
Two quotes from Alexander Hamilton that relate:
If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws -- the first growing out of the last... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government
And,
I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be.
I guess it just goes to show that there was a time when decent men sought political power- I just think it's been a long time gone...
"What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the constant beeping of my bullshit detector..."
Says who?
"But why should we care even if we do wire tap such people?"
How do you know? How do we know that they are only tapping dangerous people? How do we know they won't use it against their political and ideological enemies? It has happened before, why not again? The fact that the country is so hysterical over terrorism makes the temptation for abuse that much greater; because people are less likely to question what is going on.
When they don't get a warrant from a court there is no oversight. We don't know who they are wiretapping and why. That's the issue. Though you may not believe me, I would say the same thing if Democrats did it (I'm registered Independent).
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You do realize that this is isn't aimed at rival Presidential candidates, but at people in direct contact with terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States, right?
If the program is so secret, how exactly do you know this?
I think that's the sticking point for many people: "Trust us, we're from the government" hasn't set well with most Americans since the days of king George. If you trust them, that's fine for you. But what about the many people (of both parties) who explicitly don't trust that the government (or more to the point, politicians) will just do the right thing with no need for oversight?
--MarkusQ