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.
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.
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
>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!
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'.
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.
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.
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