Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues AT&T Over NSA Wiretapping
Omega1045 writes "Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency execute illegal warrant-less wiretaps against American citizens.
From the article: 'The lawsuits alleges that AT&T Corp. has opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, thereby disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers, including the lawsuit's class members.'"
thousands confused...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
EFF is my BFF.
This will definitely be an interesting story to follow. This will put companies on the defensive for complying with any illegal acts by the government. Some say you can't sue the government, but you sure as hell can sue the people who comply with illegal acts. Why didn't I think about that angle? I just assumed they tapped the communications in some way that circumvented the companies...
So it's local calls too, not just international ?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What would have happened to AT&T if they had not complied with the demands of government agencies?
"What'd they say?"
"Said they're gonna sue AT&T."
"Why?"
"Dunno, probably because AT&T let's us wiretap illegally."
"What're they saying now?"
"Something about their line is probably even now being bugged."
"Harsh!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
EFF Sues AT&T Over NSA Wiretapping
OMG!
Nice to see someone finally starting some backlash for the tapping, even if it's not against the government.
In other news, Cory better be careful or he may get another mean letter calling him names and threatenin' all legal-like.
Uh, no. Congress did not grant this power explicitly. Congress allowed military action. And from what I've heard, they are spinning this to mean that domestic wiretaps are okay. Here's the problem:
They already have the power to do these things without a warrant so long as they go back and get the warrant within 72 hours. This gives them the ability to act on a lead immediately without the hassle of waiting on a judge. They don't want to do even THAT much -- they want whatever they are doing to be SECRET and to be UNACCOUNTABLE for it. Ultimately, I believe we will find that it is going well beyond communications where one side is 'al qaeda' and the other side is in the U.S. I think if we get to see what they are REALLY doing, we'll find investigations against anti-war and anti-Bush organizations and their members.
Maybe they haven't yet perfected undersea cable interception.
Where are those laser guided sharks when you need them?
Aren't you supposed to be preparing for your speech tonight?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You cant just ignore something and hope it goes away, they are fighting the good fight within the system .. and are losing some ground, but I dont see anyone else trying as hard.
I think they see some of the kooky things the ACLU goes after and makes the news doing and thinks, why not us? But it (the EFF) apparently hasn't noticed that they don't have the huge base of support the ACLU has, that will continue contributing large sums no matter what.
Just so I understand, are you saying suing to protect our rights and freedoms diminishes our rights and freedoms?
Isn't like the packed supreme court would side on the side of the people and not the executive!
Do nothing. Roll over. Keep quiet. Don't stick your neck out. Hunker down. Give up. Deal with it. Surrender. Comply.
Is that what you'd recommend in the face of arrogance and tyranny?
.. get better when nobody bothers to object?
When has that ever happened?
Laws against warrantless spying on US citizens exist for a reason. History demonstrates that when the government has this power, they don't just use it on terrorists. First they use it on terrorists, but then they use it on drug dealers. Next come child pornographers. After that, conventional pornographers. Then, "radical" artists and dissidents.
Before long, they're spying on the modern-day heirs to the radical legacy of Martin Luther King and John Lennon.
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is good men do nothing.
I'd rather they kept plugging away, regardless of losses. If there's one less soldier on your side, it's all the more likely the other side will prevail.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I was going to mod you down as flamebait but thought it'd be better to ask you to simply provide proof of the same? Why exactly is suing a company that clearly did something illegal wrong or bad? And why dont we get a list of cases that they've won vs lost beyond your opinion and how they have played a part in reducing our freedoms?
There is no polite way to respond to your ignorance.
... and then they built the supercollider.
The text of the EFF lawsuit requests damages of $100 per day for each day the violation occurred or $10,000 (whichever is greater) be paid to each class member. Sure beats getting a coupon for $10 off our next purchase of a bill of rights.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
. . . maybe that should have been modded "Informer."
Probable Cause?
From what I can remember my trooper friend saying. "If it's visible by the Post Man, I don't need a warrant." Meaning if some idiot decides to grow weed on the coffee table in front of the picture window, the police can knock the door down and arrest everyone, without a warrant.
Doesn't this procedure fall under probable cause? They had cause to believe these imagrants, who weren't even US Citizens, had ties to terrorism. Isn't that enough?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a lawyer or anything. You can tell by my spelling.
Shut up, George. And tell your little friends Dicky and Donnie to quit ringing my doorbell. Damn kids.
It's a valid assertion. "I was just following orders," has long been regarded as no defense. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
You are kidding, right? I mean, are you just trolling or are you serious? I am not even going to provide a link. Just go to Google News a enter "NSA Wiretapping". There is a ton of information that US Citizens were the subject of wiretaps, sans warrant. Man, I am a conservative, and even I think that your statement is like saying, "There Earth is flat. Where has anyone said it is round?"
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
How about directly linking to the article, rather than bouncing through a portal full of ads?
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
Seems like BoingBoing.com is trolling for hits with several recent articles. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but I'd wish the Slashdot editors to prefer primary content to secondary sources being framed within ad bars on all sides....
"The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
I tend to agree with you. The proper forum for this is impeachment. The president has committed felonies. This is not my opionion but the opinion of virtually every legal scholar who has spoken out on this matter.
The problem is what recourse do you have when you have a congress who values party loyalty above the constituion of the unites states? I certainly don't think the courts are an option in this case since they have been packed with republicans all the way up and down the chain. I certainly don't expect any of those nominees to have more of a loyalty to the constitution then the congress does.
Yes the EFF will lose this case, no I don't know what the alternative is. It seems like we are SOL on this one. Even if the congress changes parties in the next election it will be too late and nothing will be done (not that there is a whole lot of difference between them in the first place).
evil is as evil does
Uh, no right back at ya. The Congress issued the Authorization for the Use of Force, which states:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons
This is an explicit authorization under the War Powers Act, ie a declaration of war against Al Qaeda, and empowers the President to use the full extent of his Constitutional War Powers as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
Surveilance of foreign communications to intercept enemy intelligence is, and always has been, an inherent aspect of waging war, and so is within the President's inherent Constitutional power.
As to the 72 hour provision - first of all, Congress does not have the power to limit the President's inherent Constitutional powers. Second, the AUMF is a later expression of sovereign will by the Congress, and supercedes FISA. Third, even though wiretaps are allowed for 72 hours without a warrant, the standard for approval by the Attorney General is the same standard required to get a warrant - in other words, there is no "get out of warrant free card" in FISA. Fourth, FISA's provisions were meant to cover surveiling of known foreign agents in known locations for purposes of observation, not detection. The "domestic spying" (which is a complete misnomer, btw) is for the purpose of uncovering foreign agents within the US when known terrorists abroad attempt to communicate with parties within the US.
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is good men do nothing.
Ironically, all that is necessary for good to fail is for good men to be ignorant.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
You don't write for The Register do you?
+1 Inciteful
not
They have been spying on the Quakers, for fuck's sake. You know - the Protestant sect best known for militant PACIFICISM?!??
This is the litmus test for true American Patriotism. If you aren't outraged, you aren't a patriot. At best, you are a nationalist.
Just like a citizen who is not guilty of any crimes should welcome the friendly government agent asking for his papers, if AT&T is innocent they should welcome this. If they have not been breaking laws by complying with the NSA, then they have nothing to fear. Should AT&T attempt to fight this, it must be because they are definitely guilty of violating laws.
So you assume that the wiretaps were/are illegal. Although that
is far from an established fact. I mean, the NYT said so, it must
be true...
Brett
The only people who say this do NOT have any credibility. The President has not done anything wrong. It is his job to protect and serve the people. Please do not interpret your opinions with facts.
Just say "I'm a sex bomb". Your call will be recorded -> keyword match. Then you can pass any message you want to the governement, at least someone will be listening.
This is freedom vs. police state. If your party is for the latter, fuck off.
The Alternative is called picking your battles. The EFF is taking a Hail Mary pass approach to it's lawsuits. Sure taking on AT&T looks great and gets you a lot of press but you're just not going to win unless they make a huge tactical error.
Instead you take a page from the *IAA Big Book o' Lawsuits. Go after the bottom of the food chain (Grokster anyone?). Find cases where smaller independant or regional telecoms/isps have given up data, and go after them, building precedent to use for later cases.
It's kind of sad. I once had a Biz Law class and when the prof (JD) asked the class if the folks who are arrested for "terrorism" deserve due process, the only people who raised their hands were the Naturalized citizens and me - born 'N raised AMerican - Fuck Yeah! The prof asked the few who raised their hands what their background was - that's how we knew they were naturalized. Sad.
A huge part of making war in a modern context is signals intelligence (SIGINT). An army or a nation can grok how best to defend themselves against their enemies if they know what their enemies are planning.
I think the major issue facing the population of the US is a difference in mindset. President Bush and those who agree with him see the current world situation as one of war - the radical Islamists have stated their enmity openly and declared war on us. Thus, any actions that would be appropriate in a time of war are appropriate now. Those who disagree with Bush see the problem of Islamist terrorism as primarily a law enforcement matter, meaning that actions that would be reasonable in a time of war are not viewed as reasonable by this set.
I, personally, fall on the President's side. I believe the Islamo-fascists when they say they want to kill me and my entire family, neighbors, friends and coworkers simply because we're kaffirs living in Dar al Harb. I want the President taking the necessary step of surveiling our active stated enemies in order to have a shot at preventing the nutcases from taking another 9/11-esque shot at me and mine.
I don't see how it can be any other way, given the state of the world.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
The president was granted this power by congress and congress knew all along about it.
.Guess who?
k /print/1/displaymode/1098/
Nonsense. Congress knew nothing about it. The wiretaps were "authorized" by the Office of Legal Council, an arm of the Justice Department full of appointed judges, appointed by. .
Nor was there a lot of agreement within the OLC about the legality of the wiretaps:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newswee
These are the same people who said that just because we signed the Geneva Convention doesn't mean we're bound by it, but can still bitch about anyone else not obeying it, because it's the law.
I've not seen that anywhere.
Really?
http://www.rense.com/general69/legit.htm
Well, now you have.
KFG
..will the EFF squeeze out of AT&T, if they win?
What are the damages? Did anyone lose their livelihoods because of this? Or even a nickel?
What are the class members going to claim?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Here's the problem:
They already have the power to do these things without a warrant so long as they go back and get the warrant within 72 hours. This gives them the ability to act on a lead immediately without the hassle of waiting on a judge. They don't want to do even THAT much -- they want whatever they are doing to be SECRET and to be UNACCOUNTABLE for it. Ultimately, I believe we will find that it is going well beyond communications where one side is 'al qaeda' and the other side is in the U.S. I think if we get to see what they are REALLY doing, we'll find investigations against anti-war and anti-Bush organizations and their members.
This absolutely on the spot! I have not seen any major news outlet utter this simple bit of insight. The only thing you keep hearing from Bush's press secretary is that the wiretapping is "targeted". BS. I won't believe it until there is some proof that is it targeted. Oh, but the administration can't provide any proof can they, because they never got any warrents to begin with! We have checks and balances in our governent for a reason Mr. President!
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
Where is the guarantee that these wiretaps will protect and serve the people? The war on terrorism will fail just like the war on drugs failed. Yet we continue to throw good money after bad, and are oh so willing to burn the Constitution in the process. The terrorists have already won.
When the result is a loss, yes it does. It sets legal precedent which will be cited in future cases.
The only people who say this do NOT have any credibility
:)
i suggest that you read - in particular - before putting your own credibility on the line again. thank you.
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
From what I've read, there isn't much real knowledge of the NSA program. There is quite a bit of speculation though. We do not know if it was US Citizens, it may only be US Persons, or people simply living in the US and are not citizens. We do no know if it is real taps, or simple data mining. Data mining as in connecting the dots between known enemy phone numbers and connected calls inside the US. Since the administration apparently still used the FISA court in some cases, some have speculated that once enough dots were connected FISA would have to get involved so that calls could be monitored and recorded. Then again, why would it be illegal for the Commander in Chief to order taps on known enemies on the battlefield (the US is part of the battlefield)?
For a history of how the US government dealt with communication during wars, read up on Ben Franklin on the NSA web site. Interesting reading.
That clinches it... I have thought about contributing before, but this clinches it. I'm going to join.
you had me at #!
Maybe you're a Republican, but you're not being conservative here. I'm a Republican also, but I really do not see this as 'clearly a party politics issue.'
If the government is violating Americans' guaranteed Civil Rights, then us Americans should know about it. The government is not above the law in the US..
Nowhere in the article is the President or any political party mentioned. I don't see how anyone could make the connection that this is 'pissing on the NSA' or anything but the EFF fighting against ILLEGAL wiretaps.
With your posting as an anonymous coward and stating that you're a Republican stating you're for civil rights while ranting against the EFF for fighting for those civil rights with baseless connections, it seems more likely that you're just someone who is trying to portray Republicans as idiots. So therefore, you're a super-liberal doing nothing but pissing on Republicans. Okay, so my connection was as baseless as yours.. but it is for illustrative purposes.
Either you're the type of Republican that makes Republicans look bad, or you're the non-Republican acting like said Republican.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
uh... my first link, and my second link disapeard when i clicked submit instead of preview.... sorry. :\
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
They plugged /. on PBS: News Hour with Jim Lehrer the other night when discussing the NY Times bringing their site down for a couple days.
Man, their spokesperson really needs a make-over, too! It was Goth meets Suzy Orman!
It's not at all clear that AT&T has done something illegal, if for no other reason than if they had, this lawsuit would not be necessary. The whole point of a lawsuit, after all, is to try to prove that somebody did something illegal. In fact, if the EFF loses this case, it will establish a precedent that what AT&T did is not illegal.
/. account, I hope that the EFF does lose this suit, thus bolstering Bush's case for Executive freedom of action in military matters during wartime (subject to initial Legislative approval, of course).
But even beyond that, the matter is highly controversial and hotly debated. There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime. There's the question of whether or not the definition of "military operations" includes intelligence-gathering operations conducted by the Executive. There's the question of the wisdom of arbitrarily curbing the Executive's constituional authority, which would make it more difficult for the Executive to fulfill its constitutional responsiblities.
And these are just a few of the more interesting (to me) questions of principle. There's also the practical questions: how much of what's being said about this issue is FUD from partisans, extremists, the media-industrial complex, etc.
Then there's the technical questions: You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up? Hope that number doesn't reach an active cell planning to smuggle an Iranian suitcase nuke across the Mexican border? Or do you say, I'm Executive, the Constitution gives me the responsibility to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to protect the country in time of war, and Congress has told me this is a time of war, so tap that fucker and let's see what's up?
Now, I admit that the responsible answer to that question depends a lot on the answers to the preceding questions. My point is that there is no consensus on the preceding questions, and therefore it's not at all obvious that AT&T did anything illegal.
There's nothing wrong with suing a company allegedly did something "obviously illegal". There is a problem with suing a company that did something not obviously illegal, and losing the suit. The problem is that this sets a precedent whereby the not obviously illegal act becomes obviously legal. This would be the oppsite of a Good Thing.
Personally, having forgotten to get fitted for a tinfoil beanie when I signed up for my
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
From one of the deep-linked pages:I'm all for letting companies collect necessary customer information but there's just something about a database that large which really makes me doubt that it's used solely for business-related purposes. There's nothing which an oppressive government regime enjoys more than a database which contains so much information that, at any time of any day, they could probably massage the database into providing damning evidence against anyone.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
This arguement is common and dangerous. Not only do unlimited wiretaps destroy our privacy they destroy our anonymity. Free speech means I can communicate over any medium and say anything I want. Including criticism of the current government. In the private sphere of my house I cannot be prosecuted for ANYTHING I say. But these days, the Patriot Act and other dubious pieces of legislation allow the government to hold me without cause, brand me a terrorist and destroy my life. AT&T is now making that even easier, I'm not sure the best way of protecting your people and a way of life lies in destroying that which makes it free. I'm sure the American Revolution would never have happened if gov't had known about it.
All your database are belong to us
Yeah!!!!
Impeach Bush!!!
Then Cheney becomes president.....
As amusing as it would be to see a puppetmaster thrown into the national spotlight, I'd rather just stick with Bush for the remainder of his term than let a man wholy consumed by evil take the reins.
What exactly is the process of having the wiretaps executed by AT&T? Is the EFF expecting AT&T to determine if the taps are legal or if the warrants are valid? Shouldn't that be a judge's job or is there some standard procedure AT&T neglected to follow?
Not trolling here, this is a serious question.
Slashdot: news from nerds.
Then you haven't read a single article on the subject, obviously if it were international calls only, there would not be a Constitutional issue.
The president was granted this power by congress and congress knew all along about it.
This is a nice talking point, but utter bullshit.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Good to see that you care so much for the Constitution.
Why am I answering such an obvious troll?
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
There's been plenty of debate on that already. The concensus - at least, amongst those actualy qualified to examine the controversy - has been that the president did nothing illegal. Even Wikipedia , which has a tendency to be left-leaning, states that "an actual evaluation of FISA reveals that the President does have the legal authority to order electronic surveillance without court order, even on conversations taking place between folks inside of the US and folks outside of the US".
Even if by some miracle you could show that what the government did was illegal, how does suing AT&T help? If the government DID do something illegal, then AT&T was a victim of fraud. If the government didn't do anything illegal, then neither did AT&T. Either way, the lawsuit is frivolous.
The Constitution does not allow for warrantless searches. Read the fourth amendment, it is pretty clear. This means that the president does not have the power to order them and the congress does not have the power to permit them.
A blog about stuff.
It worries you not at all, you don't see anything wrong, with setting a legal precedent which says that for all practical purposes... we might as well conduct ourselves as a nation at war from now until the end of the world? In my opinion there's something seriously wrong with a nation which needs to declare indefinite war on an indefinite for to justify actions which amount to little more than blatant paranoia.
There is always going to be some fringe group someplace which, given half the chance, will start spewing hate speech. Many of them can be found in low-income communities right here in the US. I'd much prefer that we investigate why these people feel oppressed, used, and underpriveleged rather than tracking them like animals just waiting for the excuse to spring on them.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
terming the wiretaps as illegal is not rooted in any law
nor any court decision but the opinion of the author.
personally, I am favor the NSA spying on enemies. every
president since Geo. Washington has spied on the enemies of
this country. but I suspect the enemy the writer sees is
our elected president, not the guys trying to kill us.
Ok, so I didn't comment when slashdot linked to the troll at the Register who likes to berate the EFF with false claims that we lose all the time, but since they are simply not true, it would be nice if people would check into that before repeating them, ok? This poster seems to claim there was some sort of big recent loss by the EFF, which is similar in pattern to the troll articles that cited lost cases that were not by the EFF to support the strange idea the EFF loses all the time. (There was a recent loss in case case personally brought and funded by John Gilmore, an EFF board member, in which the EFF itself had no involvement, and I presume that's what's being alluded to here.)
Bad enough I'm feeding the troll here, but please, don't repeat the trolls, that gets them really excited.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
EFF Legal Victories
http://www.eff.org/legal/victories/
Obviously use of FISA wasn't feasible when your intention was to scan through ALL traffic, be it voice or internet data, looking for keywords. Even a FISA judge would never authorize that, hence the need for an executive order. I personally think the administration is intentionally trying to misdirect people into thinking that a) only voice calls were tapped and b) only calls between select people inside the US to select people outside the US were monitored. Of course, this was all done in the name of National Security, so any objection or disclosure would be treasonous!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
If the best way the president can come up with to protect us from people who feel screwed over by his business buddies (remembering, of course, that we once had very favorable ties with many of the top terrorists) is to place us in a permanent state of war then, honestly, I don't want his protection. He's not my president. He's broken his Oath of Office. Maybe you can rationalize it to your satisfaction but, until we know honestly why those people are so pissed (and no, this isn't just about religion), it'll never be explained to my satisfaction.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Short answer, no.
Long answer, even if you have cause, *to wiretap, you need a warrant*. A warrant which is really, really easy to get, can be obtained after the wiretap is done in most cases.
This is the reason why even right-wing folks are having a hard time swallowing this whopper. The only reason that makes sense to anyone for doing this type of work in a secret program without asking for judicial approval is that they're doing something fundamentally wrong, like spying on domestic citizens without discrimination, i.e. no ( reasonably, possible ) probable cause. Most likely, they're casting the net really, really wide... I'm not sure we should buy the "only calls originating outside the U.S." statement, but even in that case, uh, are they monitoring *all* calls from outside the U.S. ? That wouldn't fall under the guidelines, sorry... but it might be possible to get a huge number of warrants every day for all of the calls you actually monitored. The only issue is that it *could* get out that you're doing that ( FISA lets us know how many such warrants are issued ), people would complain that you're wasting resources/invading privacy, and terrorists would stop making phone calls into the U.S., defeating the program. Really, though, if they weren't doing something wrong, it wouldn't be secret, it's that simple. Also, think about it for a minute : if it was something G.W. thought Congress ( and the public ) would approve of, he could get the autorization needed, right ?
If the issue is really calls originating from outside the U.S., and the current law leaves the legality of tapping those calls when they connect in the states in doubt, how hard would it be for some PATRIOT rider to explicitly authorize that? Somehow, I and plenty of other critical thinking people don't believe that's the reason this program is secret and avoids the judicial review rubber-stamp process we've set up.
The whole "probable cause" thing AFAIK ( IANAL, either ) is a slippery-slope type argument along the lines of "any reasonable judge anywhere would give you a warrant ( given the obvious evidence), so you can act as if you have one in this case"... but I've only ever heard of it applied in cases of searches where clear evidence is present ( though the definition of "clear" has been getting lower and lower ), and in cases where it's abused, the searching law officer can open themselves up to charges or, more often, end up with evidence being thrown out as a result of unlawful search ( again, this happens less and less ).
My best guess ( without knowing how the secret program operated ) is that they're randomly intercepting any and all foreign-routed calls ( and maybe others ), in such a way that even the most pro-government judge would hesitate to authorize so many unfocused, unfounded wiretaps, and for whatever reason, they decided that asking Congress for permission to do what they wanted either wasn't needed or wouldn't work. They're claiming it's not needed, but they might only be right with Alito on the supreme court... which I guess does make this whole thing a bit of a moot point. It's not like the administration is going to be punished for doing *anything* wrong, no matter what it is, now...
I have a problem with the "friendly government" requiring me to have proper identifcation papers on my person at all times, so that their agent may ask me for them at his convenience. It is not a matter of guilt or innocence, but one of a budding police state.
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -- Winston Churchill
The "If you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" position is completely correct, but you would be foolish to apply this maxim to any living person. Everyone does things wrong, everyone has something to hide, and everyone is a criminal. It's time that we recognized this in our public discourse instead of pretending.
seems to me this whole national security thing has been tried before. and when it was it had disasterous effects and brought down an entire goverment. sure is funny how history repeats itself, but gee its only been twenty years or so since communist russia fell..........
Would anonymous electronic wire-tapping be seen as ok? For example you can have a computer sniff out the data, but require a warrant to humanly read the content and see who is associated with that data.
I don't appreciate my rights being trampled on, but I do prefer a proper discussion about an issue, rather than a knee jerk reaction.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
This is a class-action lawsuit, on behalf of all AT&T customers in the US, not just the EFF. So it doesn't matter whether EFF's traffic was tapped or not.
You, my friend, just fell for a troll or at least a very sarcastic comment. This is the argument commonly given by many of the defenders of the administration. "If you are innocent then you should have no problem with the gov't going through everything you say/do/own whenever they feel like it". Anyone with a functional brain cell knows that this argument is bogus, but some idiots swear by it.
How is the EFF going to establish that it has the standing necessary to bring this suit? That seems to be the central Catch-22 in this story; it's plainly illegal, but the only way to take the NSA to court is to prove you were monitored, but the people who were monitored are secret, which means you can't take them to court, which means it must not be illegal. How do we establish standing when the victims are secret?
Ok, here's a challenge. Write a summary of the entire article using only three letter actonyms, punctuation symbols and mathematical notation.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up?
You do some legwork - find out who owns that phone line. See if they have any other connections that makes them suspicious and if they do, then you've got your probable cause. If they don't - then you've probably got bigger fish to fry. It isn't like fatherland security has a bunch of agents sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for new leads to pop up.
They've already got information overload, a couple of orders of magnitude more information per agent than they had before 9/11 - and they obviously did not have enough agents then because all the clues they needed to prevent 9/11 were already recorded and filed. Tapping even more phonelines isn't going to make the investigators more efficient - its going to make them waste even more time on pointless "leads."
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nowhere within the delegated powers does it say the president can violate
the 4th amendment. There is zippo, zero, nada authority to do so.
If we go with your rationalization, we are in a war with no clear enemy, no clear objective, no clear ending. This means we are effectively in a perpetual war. It also means that every president is effectively above the law until the war ends. As much as I detest Hilary Clinton, I hope to god she becomes president just to watch all the neo-cons squirm as she abuses the powers they have given bush.
Even if we assume that this :
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" is his justification, guess what?
Congress HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to give the president the power to suspend the 4th amendment.
The only way either Congress or Bush can do so is to amend the constitution to allow it.
Regarding your last point :
"I want the President taking the necessary step of surveiling our active stated enemies in order to have a shot at preventing the nutcases from taking another 9/11-esque shot at me and mine. I don't see how it can be any other way, given the state of the world."
Simple, stop poking our nose in other countries business. I bet you that Americans would react violently if the chinese had replaced our government with a new one (after they supervised the elections). Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because our government is playing empire in someone elses land.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Sadly, this has nothing to do with "wrong" or "illegal". Lawsuits are in civil court, which does not decide cases based on the actions being illegal or not. It is up to the judge or jury to determine if the plaintiff has been wronged and to determine a judgement (generally financial) that will address the wrongdoing.
So the first question is, how much is the EFF suing for and how much do you think they could get in a class action lawsuit? Would $5 and a coupon for some free phone service help you?
List them and cite some of the "virtually every legal scholar(s) who has spoken out on this matter".
You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line.
Your example is bogus. Contact of a known terrorist? Of course that's probable cause.
I'm Executive, the Constitution gives me the responsibility to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to protect the country in time of war
This is also bogus. It gives the responsibility to protect the country, but as far as the _power_, "whatever I can and whatever I need to do" is way off the mark. The President is still bound by the Constitution that their powers come from, and also by the laws Congress passes (as long as those are constitutional).
Why do people always look to place blame internally? If you think that we can end terrorism by appeasment, then you are wrong. Failed with Hitler, and it will fail again. The only way to stop it is to remove them completely from the face of the Earth. Country by country, terrorist by terrorist.
I for one am glad that the majority of the losses in the war on terror have a) not been on American soil and b) not been our boys.
Maybe you're right, we should invite all of them irrational terrorists to a big meeting and see if we can 'pound' out a resolution.
Let me tell you two reasons to fear the side-stepping of FISA courts both dealing with the already scary nature of the secret courts. The first is that of about 19,000 applications for permission to wiretap from 1979-2004 only four have ever been rejected by the court. Obviously, in legitimate cases of security issues, the FISA court doesn't stand much in the way.
The second reason is that according to 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1805(f)(2), the Attorney General has up to 72 hours after starting wiretapping to get approval. If they get a legitimate hot tip, then they can start tapping immediately and get approval afterwards. If not approved, then the evidence can't be used in court but as mentioned above only 4 applications have ever been rejected.
Given that FISA extremely rarely rejects requests put before it and that you don't have to get permission before you can start, there are only two reasons possible why Bush doesn't want to go to the court.
Lastly, the President was NOT authorized by Congress to do this under any legitimate interpretation. He was given authority to use force against terrorists. He was not given authority to wipe his rear end with the 4th and 6th Amendments like he claims he is. If it even were possible for Congress to authorize this, then there are effectively no limits on what powers he may assume.
Incidentally, regardless of your stance for or against abortion, the limits of executive power is the number one reason to give a damn about Judge Alito. The man is a fascist who does not accept any reasonable limits on executive power and police power. Just look at two of his rulings. (1 2) (But hey, we can always rely on the media to cover the important stuff like his equivocation on abortion and the padding of his resume with an elitist, racist group, right?)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The administration is being extremely sneaky with their words. You have to realize that there are at least 3 seperate sets of actions being discussed:
Notice how they describe this as 'terrorism survelience'. They say, they want to know when 'al-Qaida' calls. The problem is, from a constitutional perspective, the only way they can claim that 'al-Qaida' is calling is if the call originates from the US penal system.
What they really seem to be doing is monitoring calls from: "Might be al-Qaida" to "Less likely to be al-Qaida".
The gotcha is, everybody in the USA fits somewhere in this range, AND they have discarded all the legislative and judical safeguards.
Don't worry. As long as you can rat out 3 other 'terrorists' when they come for you, you will get off easy...
Miles
Taking a view of who wins and loses these lawsuits is a very myopic view, IMO. In the end, it is not who wins and looses but the precidents that are established, and these are often far more moderate than a simple loss might suggest.
For example, how many here actually went out and read the Supreme Court's opinion in the Grokster case? I did. And I was struck by how this was a real victory for the technology industry for two reasons:
1) The Supreme Court refused to revisit the Betamax precident.
2) The Supreme Court only allowed one to look for liability based on active inducement, so while this might not protect Grokster, Kazaa, etc who build their business models around the premise that people are going to violate copyrights, it does protect BitTorrent and others who build their business models arround legal uses of the technology. IMO, Betamax really wasn't intended to protect those who, in bad faith, actively encourage copyright infringement.
So while Grokster lost the appeal to the Supreme Court, the EFF did us all a service in helping to ensure that the previous precidents protecting our ability to invent new technologies and communiciations media continued to stand.
So you can't just look at raw numbers as to who the final judgements favored. You really have to read the opinions. The EFF is doing us all a great service in their representation. It is unfair to characterize them as harmful.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Yes it's flamebait... but it's insightful flamebait. Don't dismiss it too readily as partisan politics until you can seriously argue that most politicians in favor of invasive wiretaps aren't Republicans (I doubt anyone would make that case). The demographics of U.S. politics are partially responsible too - in the desire to appear more anti-terrorist, Bush takes drastic steps which may fight terrorism, but violate the U.S. Constitution (a cute ancillary benefit is that the executive branch gains significant power over legislative checks). Republicans in congress would be politically stupid to argue against his policies. The Democrats, in order to fight critics' allegations from the last elections that they are disorganized, are practically obligated to play the civil liberties card (and rightfully so, IMO) to appear unified.
All individuals in the United States that are current residential subscribers or customers of Defendants' telephone services or Internet services, or that were residential telephone or Internet subscribers or customers at any time after September 2001.
Remember, AT&T == SBC now as well, and they specifically name them in their lawsuit. SBC and AT&T provide long distance and internet access to tens of millions of people. Basically they are asking for dasmages of billions of dollars for every day this happened.
Such a judgement would basically bankrupt the company and leave the US's telecommunications infrastructure in a complete shambles.
I kind of wish folks would have more the attitude of "don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you!". But instead, there's too many folks all out to legislate morality, their belief system, and anything else that they think the Government should pass a law against. Instead of minding their own business, they want to tell others how and who to have sex with, or some such other nonsense.
Oh, and our tax system! Oooo, there's an abuse of Government there! So much for "due process" - Nope, you owe taxes, you don't pay, we take your propert! Good luck in winning in court.
"It is his job to protect and serve the people."
What?! Huh?! Wait, I missed this one.
The President takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States. No mention of the people.
Show me where it is the President's job to protect the people...
It's finally in the open that Shrub says he has UNLIMITED power to do what he wants and is above all other branches and beyond review. He literally thinks that he can A) do anything he wants including torture anyone for any reason B) he can pass any secret law he wants and C) we have not right to know about A) or B). Oh and D) he feels insulated enough to say "That's right I can do what I want, don't like it? Go fuck yourself."
20 years ago any of this would have been grounds for immediate removal from office. Now everyone is just content to let that fly. WTF? What bizzaro world am I living in?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
You know, I agree with this up to the point that there was an already existing method for obtaining authorization *after the fact*. By neglecting to take that step, it has offended even people like me who believe in executive power during times of crisis.
The existing methods were put in place to create a paper trail of what was being done, and it is clear that paper trail was an unwanted nuisance. *That* is what ticks me off, not that they follow up on leads. Nothing in the law would have prevented those wiretaps and there would be little heat if the president would simply follow established, auditable procedures.
The suit likewise is going after the idea that AT&T opened the networks up far beyond the requirements (and potentially legal bounds) of a normal, legal wiretap. I have no idea if they did or didn't do that.
Sig under construction since 1998.
"But even beyond that, the matter is highly controversial and hotly debated. There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime."
The matter is controversial, and there's no denying it's being hotly debated. The issues of law, however, are not so tenuous as you seem to think. Every argument that the White House has offered has been quite thoroughly refuted. About the simplest and clearest summary of these arguments can be found in Al Gore's speech on MLK day. And before anyone screams 'bias!': read the speech and weigh his statements on their merits. I'm not asking you to buy his conclusions, I'm asking you to consider his arguments and draw your own conclusions.
"You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line."
That almost certainly is probable cause, and because it's an espionage- and national security-related issue, the FISA court could readily be expected to issue a warrant for this.
In terms of spying on Americans, however, there must be a warrant. Article 4 of the constitution asserts this.
With regards to whatever 'War powers' the president might or might not have, he was explicitly denied the exercise of those powers in the US by Congress. When the White House asked the House to explicitly place US territory within the scope of the bill giving the president the right to use all means necessary, they refused. This is a matter of public record. It is therefore proven that Congress authorised no such program, and the warrant-less surveillance of individuals on US soil is illegal and unconstitutional.
Again, you're right to say that the issue of whether the president should conduct unwarranted surveillance on US soil is controversial and hotly debated. The issue of whether it is legal to do so today is not.
But back to the issue of whether AT&T is breaking the law - the details will have to come out before anyone can venture a reasoned opinion on this, I think. Even if AT&T's lawyers concluded that the unwarranted surveillance was illegal, they might still feel that the company had to comply with a US government order.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
"What can we, as individuals, really do? We honestly live in what appears to be the most well managed, well thought out, and well prepared oppressive regime in history."
Move to North Korea and if you ever get back, write me a report comparing the Bush administration with Kim Jong Il's regime.
Vote for Pedro
That's 8,796,093,022,208 bit X 300 OR 1,024 Gigabyte X 300 OR if you prefer 1,048,576 Megabyte X 300.
That's 307,200 Gigabytes(GIGS). I think they either don't know how to optimise their data or they have a hell of it.
Congress did not declare war, and last I checked, Al Qaeda is not a nation.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
I saw a cleverer "Your world. Delivered. To the NSA." somewhere today :-)
Go somewhere random
I don't which is sadder: his comment or the fact that he was modded to +5.
FISA is to be used when there isn't enough time to get a warrent. You still need to have enough evidence at the time you envoke it.
So you can't go looking for random information, find something incremenating, then say. we found something therefore we should get a warrent under FISA.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
+1 Informative. Why do the posts I really want to mod up always appear the day after my mod points expire?
OK, which is it?
- do you believe that the Muslim folks do not have the ability and/or willpower to do harm?
- do you believe there is only a small lunatic fringe group that really is responsible for mayhem and mostly Muslims are decent and peace-loving folk?
- do you believe we are powerless to stop them?
(a) Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Maybe not very many, but they have them. Iran clearly wants them. I would say there is certainly the possibility of great destruction if someone got the silly idea that they should actually use these nuclear weapons.
(b) Check out Gaza in the last week and Iran anytime in the last few months. Plenty of evidence that if there is just a lunatic fringe it either isn't that small or at least includes the folks in power.
Some people are always going to feel oppressed and underprivileged. Some people have been trying to cure that since the beginning of time. The answer is not either to bring everyone down to their level or to give them handouts to bring them up. Neither works well. It is a pretty common believe that a large percentage of these people do not want to be relieved of their "suffering", because if they did they might take constructive action to combat it. Instead, they wait for someone else to take responsibility and solve all their problems.
We are likely to always have oppressed and underprivileged people. The problem is when they think their solution is to bring everyone down to their level. Either through taxation or bombs.
First off, AT&T is not a citizen.
They should not have the rights of an individual.
Secondly, and whether you meant it this way or not, you are right because of my previous assertion. AT&T should have to put up with the "Show me your papers." mentality simply because they are not an individual citizen; yet they hold power over citizens, such as the ability to intercept their communications.
$100 per day of the offence... Well, there are those who say AT&T is an offence, but assuming they mean the wiretap saga over four years, that comes to $146,000 per class member. Of course, nobody is going to know how many class members there are, and I think there's a minimum requirement. If the courts "play safe" and assume a low number of class members (say, 10) the total cost to AT&T would probably be covered by them cutting back on office-space heating for a few weeks.
While the effort is to be applauded, the impact is not going to be terribly significant, even if the EFF win. As such, it won't deter anyone. Hell, given the size of the black budget, the NSA can probably fund the next ten year's worth of spying from the loose change in the glove compartment.
We need something effective, if we're to see something actually constructive done.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just filed a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the National Security Agency execute illegal warrant-less wiretaps against American citizens."
No one's actually proved in a court of law that the wiretaps are illegal yet.
Vote for Pedro
Talk a deep breath, and think before you post.
There were no warrants. That's the whole problem.
AT&T is expected to ask to see the court-issued warrant. Just like you would, when the police come to your door and ask to turn your house upside-down to protect everyone from terrorists.
Lies about crimes
Thats ok- I just doubled my usual yearly donation due to this lawsuit. I'm sure it'll cover your loss.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Vote
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Let me get this straight, you want a guarantee that a counter-terrorism project will succeed? Using that logic, you might as well dissolve all police departments because not only can't they provide a guarantee. Plus, since there is still crime in my community, we as a community are throwing our money away buy supporting the police department.
I hate the fact that they are wiretapping, but they are trying to do it with some level of intelligence. They are only tapping incoming calls from questionable location like say Syria, Afganistan and such. They only reason I support the Patriot Act is that it must be reup'ed every year not the normal practice.
During the times of war, historically the government has had to do such things. See Roosevelt & Lincoln as examples, and please don't say that we aren't in a time of war. Please remember what happened on 9-11. There are large groups of fanatics who are bent on destroying our way of life. They don't believe in freedom of choice. They believe in their own religion.
He said GOOD men.
Hey, I voted for this guy.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
'If you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is not completely correct. I'm doing nothing wrong, but I nevertheless worry about the government doing something wrong. Governments exists to increase their power -- at the expense of freedom. Therefore, government should be limited wherever and whenever possible.
They're not getting "laughed out of court", and your idea that our rights can be secured by not litigating an issue is rather puzzling to me. Korematsu lost, and so did Dred Scott, but those cases were certainly taken seriously, as was Gilmore v. Gomez.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think it's the only missing piece of a police state.
Americans have a right to search with warrant.. This should apply to your communications. Now if John Doe is calling Osama Bin Laden then there is ample reason to tap that communication.
The problem is that the government is searching call record databases to see if numbers are calling their list of known bad numbers. Which means they're looking at everyone's calls and not just a select few. Once they find numbers that are calling those known bad numbers they then start the wiretapping.
Now many people may know care that the government is looking through their call records seeing if you're calling the middle east or other places. If you dont make overseas calls then you're probably not being looked at, but it's possible they're still screening stateside calls to see if you're calling mosques or other suspected terrorist locations in the US.
whoosh. You'll need to jump higher to catch those over your head shots.
Congress did not declare war, and last I checked, Al Qaeda is not a nation
That's what the Authorization of the Use of Force pursuant to the War Powers Act is, exactly. And Congress authorized the use of all necessary force against all nations, organizations, or persons that perpetrated 9/11, and to further protect the national security of the US.
This is plain-language stuff. If you don't get it, you don't want to.
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
And what if the tap is in addition to the legwork?
What if they're striking a compromise between timely intel and information management, by tapping anything they find on a terrorists computer, until such time as the results of the legwork confirm that it's either a hot number or a cold one? That's certainly how I would do it, at least in part.
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego, and it turns out that the cell that did it was all on that Pakistani computer's rolodex? The President has to go before Congress and tell them that even though the Consitution makes him responsible for national security, and even though he had those phone numbers in his possession for over a year, he was waiting for due process to play out before he started tapping them. He could defend himself at his impeachment hearing by complaining about information overload.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
It happened in the USA right? Do you call that "foreign spying"...or have you quaffed so much coolaid you call it 'wiretaps for freedom and liberty'
No, actually it happened by data mining the stream of foreign calls coming into the United States, from known terrorists. That's surveillance of foreign powers or the agents of foreign powers. The targets are foreign powers, and those foreign powers are communicating to within the US, ie agents of foreign powers.
Well, I sort of agree.
I have no problem with the government surveilling our active stated enemies. I do have a problem with the President doing so.
The President is not the government.
This is one of my biggest concerns. As we've seen, the President has determined that various American organizations--organizations which, coincidentally, don't agree with his policies--are worthy of spying. No one had to go in front of a judge and say, "Hey, we want to spy on these guys because they're against the war in Iraq."
I want the rest of the government involved in these decisions. The information as to who is being spied upon should be available to all members of the House Special Intelligence Committee and the Senate's Committee on Intelligence. There should be judges involved in looking at the government's reasons for assuming that a group should be spied upon before allowing them to do so.
Again, the concept that the President alone shall decide who qualifies as an "enemy of the state" is a frightening thing.
...but i'm not sure what that could be. the nsa obviously asked for the records in secret and made at&t keep it a secret under threat. i'm not sure what at&t could have done? gone public and face criminal charges? i don't think anyone should be snooping warrantlessly on citizens, but what should at&t have done? if someone is holding a gun to MY head and asking for some data from my computer, i'm going to say take it and don't hurt me. at&t had no recourse precisely because it was a state secrets issue. google is defending their search data against government intrusion because it's all out in the open. if the government has already taken from google in secret, we just wouldn't know about it. when we find out, should we then sue google? i think the legal battle should focus on the government's illegal actions.
Also important. How is it that 20,000 requests can be made through FISA and only 5 were rejected? It would seem that any request made through FISA would be approved - if that's the case then why have FISA and how does this differ from warrant-less wiretaps?
The parent is mostly correct, but simply fails to note the main strength of our current "oppressive regime": It's extremely easy to live in. Whoever made up this system realized that the only people they actually need to oppress are those who want a new or different society. Everyone else can be left to their own devices.
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped, because the government was actually following the law?
This is pure genius because it utilizes such a simple, basic concept: accountability.
Every group or individual has an ethical responsibility to do no harm to others. If someone asks you to do something harmful to someone, and you choose to carry out their request, you are responsible, period.
Bravo to the EFF for this creative, yet totally legitimate, approach.
As a Microsoft employee, I already donate to the EFF year-round through the company's charitable giving campaign (and the part that really tickles me is that Microsoft matches whatever amount an employee contributes to any organization, so I'm getting Microsoft to help fund the EFF), but I may very well increase my donation amount during the next cycle. The EFF keeps fighting for the right positions when no one else is there to stand up and fight for them.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
It's the only way to conduct keywords search on communications.
Sure taking on AT&T looks great and gets you a lot of press
That's the most positive outcome they can have in almost any situation. The minimum purpose then, it to raise awareness of the issue and promote the EFF.
Go after the bottom of the food chain
How would they discover the illicit activity at the smaller telcos? Either way they get laughed at by the big telcos.
They want to fight the big guys, so let them! If anything it teaches them what it takes to win. This is a classic problem in sports. If an athlete does not play outside their comfort/skill set, they stand much less of a chance at getting better.
I think it's very safe to say the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing at ATT. Even in the legal department.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I dont think AT&T had a choice. if the feds come to your door you have to let them in. They are a regulated industry remember. The rules are different.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are at least two big problems for the EFF:
"Cases and Controversies." The american federal courts do not not deal in abstractions. You have to persuade a judge that you are the injured party or his legal representative. The bar to ill-defined class actions is set very high. It simply isn't enough to say that you represent "the people."
The EFF further has to prove that AT&T was not acting in good faith in responding to what it believed to have been a lawful request from the government.
This is not a particularly promising line of attack. It would be within his rights for a judge to question why AT&T was being brought into his court and not the NSA.
What if they're tapping less phone lines, but more of the important ones?
By definition, if they are important, then they've got probable cause. Else how do they know they are important?
Besides, what kind of a colossal fuckup would it be if someone did detonate an Iranian suitcase nuke in San Diego,
And what a colossal fuckup it would be if the information to stop 9/11 was already recorded by agents in the field, reported and filed on FBI computers but nobody noticed?
Oh yeah, it was.
You demonstrate a profound lack of understanding about how security works. It is impossible to follow up on every diddly little lead. There are not enough resources to cover everything. So you prioritize and work the leads with the highest probability of yielding results. To do otherwise is to ignore the obviously good leads in favor of chasing your tail. The leads that have high-probability of yielding results are, by definition, those for which there is probable cause.
You advocate ignoring good security principles in favor of something akin to throwing darts.
In which case you have roughly no security at all.
Sometimes you pursue one party to lay the groundwork to get to another party, in this case the NSA. Exposing AT&T's activities exposes the NSA's.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Do you seriously think the EFF doesn't have bigger fish to fry?
This is like the equivalent of going after Al Capone for tax evasion. Tax evasion gets you into his books. His books get you into his racketeering. His racketeering gets you into murders. Etc.
Going after AT&T for illegal wiretaps gets records of said wiretaps coming from the NSA, FBI, and (one hopes not, but who knows) the CIA. That gets you in the door to challenges against those agencies.
Please help metamoderate.
there is more to participation than just voting in the right people.
:-)
If you vote in very intelligent, wise people, and the only people that are talking to them are corporate lobbyists, then what do you expect to get out? Laws favoring corporations.
Participation starts with letters to congressmen and ends with a vote. Everything else needs to be done to support the letters
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This is an old debate, it just so happens that it is easily polarized through the two parties. This is of course, and election year for many congressmen though. I have a feeling the president will not have as much support in congress than we think. If you watched the Alito hearings (I watched everyday, the whole thing because Im a freak for constitutional law), most of the senators on the judiciary committee had some pointed questions about executive power and the wiretapping issues, on both sides of the isle. The beauty of the American system is that, even when you have one party in control of the executive and the legislative, the legislative still doesnt want to lose their power because next term you may have that democrat president with a unitary executive with loads of power!
The wiretaps were "authorized" by the Office of Legal Council, an arm of the Justice Department full of appointed judges, appointed by. . .Guess who?
Santa?
What do you call a person within the boarders of a country, not a citizen of the country, during the time of war, without any sort of uniform, receiving communication from the enemy? This is the type of person that 150 years ago would not be arrested by the police, and not tried by citizen courts. If you look at things this way, it is very easy to see why the administration went to Congress and informed them on what they were doing, and nothing was done. It would also explain why the administration believes they are doing the right thing, within the law.
and the courts know better anyway.
Obviously, the judgement even if they win would not be such that it puts them out of business. There are so many examples of this in recent history I'm surprised to see a comment like this.
-"asbestos settlement" on google will get you plenty of examples.
-"Exxon Valdez" is another one.
-"tobacco settlement"
Even if they got a big number, they tie the judgement up in court for decades, negotiate down the settlement or any one of a million other options.
Lastly, the "big number" that Media corps publish basically qwell citizen revolt. It looks like something is being done. Actual penalties are big fractions of the published numbers (1/2-1/10) minus other accounting maneuvers.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The whole point of a lawsuit, after all, is to try to prove that somebody did something illegal. In fact, if the EFF loses this case, it will establish a precedent that what AT&T did is not illegal.
Go on, go on... I know you can do it! The next logical step is... If the EFF /wins/ this case, it establishes what AT&T did was illegal! And possibly even the order itself! Maybe that's what the EFF is trying to do! Now you can argue that they do not have the track record to do this, but I can't see how you miss the whole point of their lawsuit... and get modded +5.
There's the question of the wisdom of arbitrarily curbing the Executive's constituional authority, which would make it more difficult for the Executive to fulfill its constitutional responsiblities.
Nothing arbitrary about it. Either the Executive has that power, or not. The courts tend to decide such matters. You seem to be trying to create grey areas where there are none. And dropping the word "constitutional" repeatedly in your statement seemingly supporting the Executive tapping whoever they want does not show it has that power. What next, the Executive can do whatever they want, no balances, no protections, no laws?
I hope that the EFF does lose this suit, thus bolstering Bush's case for Executive freedom of action in military matters during wartime
Oh good god, that /is/ what you're "arguing"! Sad when statements like these come from Americans, and then we tell the rest of the world that we're going to teach them how to run Republics, and what freedom is about. So the prez can tap whoever he likes without court approval? How about jail whoever he likes (if he calls them terrorists, of course)? Indefinitely? And as this DOJ has argued, these terrorists will just use lawyers to pass messages to other terrorists, so we deny them lawyers, too? In fact, we can't let anyone know we have them, so we take them in secret, and don't even admit we have them (of course, real terrorists would notice that their operatives have been "disappeared"... but don't confuse me with logic!). You know what would help the war? Internment camps! Hey, worked for us before! Let's jail everyone of the ethnicity we declare war on this week (of course, war wasn't really declared... but don't stop me, I'm on a roll!), and their lawyers, and anyone else who supports these terrorists... like those kids with their anti-war signs, and their anti-Bush signs. Hell, let's jail anyone with anti-Bush signs! You either with us or against us, ya know! Why does this all sound so familiar, though? I feel like I've read this all before... Oh, right, those history books, in the chapter usually titled "The Start of Great Police States".
You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line.
Don't be silly. Of course it is. Especially with our secret, rubber-stamp FISA court. The least we can do is keep track of what the Executive is doing. What next? A secret Executive? Nevermind, don't reply, it will just depress me.
Lies about crimes
Like most people, there are issues which I take the conservative viewpoint and others where I take a more liberal view. In full disclosure, I consider myself Democrat only because I tend to lean very slightly more towards their views on certain issues than the Historical Republican Party/Grand Old Party and lean very far away from the views of "neo-conservatives"/"Grand New Party". The historical Republican Party was for individual rights and the corresponding limited government, entrepreneurship, and fiscal conservatism and to a point I would concur with these views. The neo-republican party seems to be a "do as I say not as I do" party that preaches the GOP but seems to act with an agenda of more government, fiscal irresponsibilty and caters to primarily "big business" like Walmart while mom and pop stores are pushed to the side. To get to the point, as a citizen who has a vested interest in individual rights, the individual rights to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures is clearly not a "party politics" issue and frankly is an offense to what the original GOP stood for.
$sys$droids
Explaining the reasoning behind Bush's position, that he and Alberto Gonzales think Congress allowed it when they passed the authorization of military force in 2001, yet that Alberto Gonzales refused to ask for legislation to amend the authorization because he knew that the legislation would not pass. Explaining that this interpretation would depend entirely on whether or not an authorization to use military force is included in the definition of a declaration of war will not make the news. Talking about Supreme Court precedents related to this, like East District of Michigan v. United States, I think it was called, would not make the news either.
The most I have ever seen any of this in the media was in a written two page report carried by the written MSNBC, with only two paragraphs of Bush's lawyers explaining about the authorization and declaration of war part, which to my knowledge did not air on the television network.
With CNN's very frequent recycling of headlines, and the bottom crawler, it is very obvious they want to be as accessable to people just tuning in as possible, trying to talk about as many current issues as possible, meaning to me that CNN is just trying to be a poorly performed version of CNN.com. The Internet, or the newspaper, if you can bother figuring out how to flip through the pages now days, will always trump TV for that reason. CNN borrows nearly all congressional footage from C-SPAN with permission, and cuts to them frequently, but it seems very, very wrong to me to advertise to watch the Alito hearings on CNN where there is a version not punctuated by advertisements and Woolf Blitzer saying, "This is the Situation Room. Stay tuned. You're watching CNN."
In year 1984, you listen to your phone. In year 2004, your phone listens to you.
He knows if you've been bad or good.
KFG
Okay, so the EFF sues AT&T for letting them do the wiretapping. Lets just say they win. Do you really think they will stop tapping the phones? Instead the NSA has to move the wiretapping from easy (ie, AT&T handing them the keys) to a bit more covert (ie, splicing in somewhere remote) which will cost tons more to the taxpayer than the original plan.
I am sure they already do plenty of covert splices as it is now. When I was working for a major internet backbone provider a few years back, I always found it interesting that in the office right below where we did all the long haul network designs was an office for the Dept. of Defense. Anytime we were walking through the halls and one of their employees were punching in the code to gain entry, they'd "accidentally" punch in the wrong code. I did some research, but couldnt find any info on what was done in that office... So, by no real logic, that means it had to be the NSA and they were intercepting all of our network designs so that they could find a repeater in the middle of no where to attach their monitoring equipment. Its only logical...
This is a deeply flawed assumption.
English is easier said than done.
I guess it's a good thing I have Sprint. I'm pretty sure that that is both the first and last time I'll (have)EVER say(/said) that!
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
A lot of people born elsewhere love their countries, but there's a reason for them to love the U.S.A. Or at least, there used to be. While it was never perfect, the ideals of the rule of law, limited government, individual freedom were worth emulating. Take it away and you've got the Soviet Union with a better economy, Iraq with less history. Nothing special, just big.
We used to have a heritage of civilian control of the police and military. Now that civil government no longer exercises that control, it's a short step to reversing it. Betraying that heritage is treason against not just the country, but humanity. Bush has done more to hurt our country than bin Laden could dream of.
Guarantees only come with household products. I endorse wiretapping anyone who's having a lot of conversations with known terrorists. And that's my opinion.
Naw, Dickie-boy had it written up over a week ago, I think, and I been practicisin on it since then. Plus the telemaprompters are gonna have it on there so I just gotta listen to them 'n' I'm fine.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
If he's going to ignore constitutional term limits, why would he step down if impeached?
There's nothing illegal about what they are doing!
/.'ers get so upset at all of this.
According to the Bush Administration, no crime has been committed. So, no criminal offense. If it's ever substantially evaluated by the Courts or Congress I'd be very surprised.
Whether or not that is correct is beyond my level of interest, as executive office authorized domestic spying is simply the tip of a proverbial iceberg that's been going along quite well all by itself.
I still do not understand why
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
If you look at the US colonies before 1776 as an example then the people receiving communication from the enemy were, most likely, the people in positions of legal, political, and business authority. The governors were on the British payroll, the judges were on the British payroll, and the major international traders were on the British payroll. On the other side of the pond the colonial representatives, such as Ben Franklin, were watched but never, to my knowledge, formally arrested by the British.
I think that the nation has once again reached the circa 1750 state--where the best interests of the governing class are so far removed from the best interests of the governed class that situations like the current one shouldn't be at all surprising.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
"The government has always had the authority to monitor international communications without a warrant. "
no, it did not.
"Bush didn't make up that power. "
no, but he has expanded it to include far more things then ever before.
That said, the NSA can not go snooping there citizens files, and then find something and say "Well it's ok becasue we happened to find something."
There is the issue of the government demanding records without a warrent or court order. Now if they were on a time criticle case, they cuold ahve gotten a FISA warrent after the fact, assuming the had proper evidence before the fact.
But I ma sure people like you wouldn't mind if the goverbnment stormed your businees, riffled all you records, gather person infomration on all your phone records becasue they say they are hunting Al Queda. No proof, evidence, wittness, needed.
". I would probably agree that there should be oversight on this program to make sure there are no abuses, however I would strongly disagree that it should be stopped."
there is an oversite, but they completly disregarded it.
"EFF is on the wrong side here. It is like they are turning into the ACLU."
oh, I see, you only think people should have rights that you agree with, gotcha.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Like what you see? Want to see more of it? You can. Join EFF.
Not that I disgree.. +5 is just fine... ..but +5 WHAT? Apparently you just post at +5 :\
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
they apparently have decided they can't prove that the NSA is breaking any laws
That is so true it's positively funny!
EFF: Yes, we'd like your records concerning domestic spying
NSA: No.
EFF: Why not?
NSA: I can't tell you.
EFF: Your honor, I demand the records be released!
Judge: It's a secret.
Judge: Case dismissed on lack of evidence!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
This is the perfect way to handle this.
Basic fact is that these (non-oversited) wiretapes are illegal, even if our fascist leader says otherwise. No one is correcting Bush on this, but by-god make it clear by hitting every for profit company which moves to help - hit'em in a way they understand. $money$
It's commonly understood (through out the world if not here) that big money corporations are overly represented in our government. This seems a good tactic.
(flamebate on)
It makes me sick to see min wage poor, or unemployed bluecollar worker, or anyone for that matter showing support for Bush. Bush is 3 times more impeachable then Nixon was. Wakeup please.
(flamebate off)
Now the cops will be more embolden to ask, "Papers please!"
It's a very favorable legal status in America.
. _Southern_Pacific_Railroad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Disclaimer: I'm a privacy advocate. Is it not true that the illegality of the NSA's wiretapping is still being debated?
01001001 00100000 01110111 01100001 01110011 00100000 01100111 01101111 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01100100 01101111 00100000 01100101 01111000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100111 01100111 01100101 01110011 01110100 01100101 01100100 00101100 00100000 01100010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101110 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101001 01111010 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101101 01101111 01110011 01110100 00100000 00110011 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100110 01101001 01101110 01100001 01101100 00100000 01110100 01101111 01101101 01101111 01011110 01010111 01110100 01101111 01100100 01100001 01111001 00101110 00100000 01010011 01101111 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101000 01101111 01110000 01100101 00100000 01111010 01100101 01110010 01101111 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 01100001 01110100 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100110 01100001 01110010 00101100 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100111 01100100 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01110101 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01110100 01101001 01100011 01101100 01100101 00100000 01110011 01110101 01101101 01101101 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101110 00100000 01000001 01101110 01101111 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01110010 01100101 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01100001 01111001 00100000 01100001 01101110 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110101 01110011 01100101 01100110 01110101 01101100 00101110
You're not a big history student, are you?
you had me at #!
Then again, they're a big corp, and as such a big bureaucracy, they have absolutley no concern for their customers. Bureaucrats follow the rules without question. And ATT, being a bureaucratic organization, will follow those rules - without question.
Martial law didn't end until Rutherford B. Hayes was granted the presidency in the Compromise of 1877. It was during this time that the reconstruction amendments were imposed on the South.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped, because the government was actually following the law?
Oh, no doubt. Wouldn't it also be nice if we didn't have to wonder, or discuss, who's getting wiretapped because the opposition faction understood and accepted that the government is, in fact, following the law?
I mean, the Administration is claiming that there are laws--and Constitutional obligations, even--that clearly and properly justify these wiretaps. You want to put an end to the wonder and discussion? Easy enough: simply accept the Administration's interpretation of the Constitution, rather than jumping on the partisan bandwagon and trying to apply FISA for political gain.
While you're at it, could you please bring back the unicorns and the fairies? Because, hey, wouldn't that be nice, too?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
I think that it's great that this being settled peaceably in a court of law and NOT with a bunch of people running around shooting each other!
The issues of law, however, are not so tenuous as you seem to think.
Erm, real lawyers and law professors disagree with you and Al Gore on that point. Try here and here, for example. I'm not saying either post is right on the money, but these are real fancy-pants lawyers throwing around real F. Ctr. Op. fnord. Cit. (3) legal citations. And when the professionals disagree so heatedly among themselves I'd say the legal issues are indeed unsettled, at least until such time as the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue.
This is hardly surprising: the exact point where the Executive Branch's Article II war-fighting powers trump the Legislature's power to make law has been argued for centuries. Did Lincoln have the authority to free the slaves by decree in the absence of any law whatsoever giving him that power? Could Truman seize steel mills hit by a strike during the Korean War to prevent disastrous steel shortages? Scholars still debate. Let us not even get into the delicate question of the famous War Powers Act, which every President, Democrat or Republican, has claimed to be unconstitutional since the day it passed.
In terms of spying on Americans, however, there must be a warrant. Article 4 of the constitution asserts this.
Nooo, the Fourth Amendment (not Article IV) just says there can be no "unreasonable" searches. That may or may not mean a warrant -- the definition of "unreasonable" is up to the Courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. For example, if a policeman sees you stuffing something that looks like a body in a trash bag or 50 pounds of marijuana into your woodshed, does he need a warrant to order you to unlock the woodshed and let him search it? Nope. In a case like that, the Courts have held that the value to justice of allowing the policeman to exercise his reasonable judgment on the spot, and collect evidence that you might otherwise hide, if given time, outweighs any danger to your civil liberties.
Furthermore, the Courts have generally held that the Executive Branch (that's the President, or his designees, like the NSA) has broad authority to search the effects, persons, and, yes, communications of US citizens when they enter or exit the country. You'll have noticed, I hope, that the Customs and Immigration people don't need a warrant or your permission to search your bags, papers, person or car when you enter or exit the country. They can even stop you within the US to search your bags or car for, say, illegal aliens or drugs, if you're near enough to the border. And the postal service can open up packages sent by you to international destinations, or from international destinations to you, to inspect them. They don't need your permission, a warrant or even a specific reason to do so. (The generic reason of making sure the Customs and Immigration laws are being followed is considered good enough.)
We can think of border control and inspection as something like a sobriety checkpoint. As long as the "borderline" over which, if you step, you get inspected, is clear, and as long as there is some reasonable law-enforcement goal served by the inspection, and as long as the inspection does not overly intrude in your daily life, then the procedure has been held to be Constitutional, even in the absence of probable cause or a warrant.
Modern communication, with the binging of messages back and forth across international borders, has made a bit of a mess of our expectations. Fifty years ago, the government read every international cable or telegram as a matter of course. But people expected that. It was an unusual thing to communicate internationally. Nowadays, and especially with the Internet, we tend to think of international communications as pretty much the same as intranational communications. But they're not. We expect the same privacy and legal rights as when we talk to our neighbors. But we shouldn'
You do some legwork - find out who owns that phone line.
The terrorist just made three calls, found out the guy with the laptop was gone, and then left the place where the phone number was.
The whole point of these things is that they find the number and sometimes have just minutes or hours to tap before the loss is noticed and the line is useless for intelligence.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lastly, the "big number" that Media corps publish basically qwell citizen revolt.
I think you mean Quell... (if you don't get it, don't bother asking)
As of 10/06/03, I hate COBOL developers.
to what you were saying.
If you really didn't like your situation, you wouldn't be in it. So, the way out is as follows:
1. Live below your means
2. Take control of your life!
Everyone, and I mean everyone serves somebody. So, that part will never change. But if you live below your means, then you make many more choices available for yourself.
In this situation, the people at the EFF are doing #2 and they are doing it using the tools the system provides. Please use the EFF as a source for inspiration.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
True, and true. However, we've declared War on Drugs, Poverty, Education, and Secularism, so I think they already have enough prior art.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'd like to also add - [not shooting] like many other countries in this world. Even in troubled times like these, I really appreciate our Founding Fathers for their foresight in creating our governmental system. So that these issues can be solved without the violence that we see so often on our news screens.
Ok, mod me sappy!
But, whether the wiretaps are legal or not isn't relevent to the complaint. Assuming the wiretaps are relevent, providing access to the consumer information in AT&T's database would still violate a number of laws still on the books. This is actually a good complaint specifically because it's a peculiar case whereby it strikes at a place where the government hasn't actually asserted any authority.
However, I would guess that the prize for the EFF is not in wining the case, but what they may find in discovery.
Nobody is accusing the government (or AT&T) of spying on terrorists.
The question is instead: can an administration that lied to start a war be trusted to take further illegal actions against American citizens, based on unknown goals?
- The administration lied to start a war which is both killing thousands of innocent civilians and killing/wounding/shell-shocking a new generation of young American soldiers.
- The war serves no purpose to secure American people or interests, but rather inflames terrorism against Americans.
- The original lie was told to start a war that would enrich specific corporations by rebuilding the destruction with Iraqi money, but backfired when we started losing the war, and it turned from a quick invasion to a Vietnam style boondoggle, and is now clearly a long term police state that will generate a new breed of terrorism.
- American soldiers are now dying and suffering to support and contain a tragic mistake the administration made to divert interest from real terrorist threats (like Osama bin Ladin IN AFGHANISTAN, who was left alone !! and N. Korea, which has the capacity to nuke people rather than just crash planes) and instead create a patriotic smoke screen and enrich corporate friends.
- Does this shamefully incompetent, dishonest and inept administration deserve some blind trust that any investigations it handles need not ever follow any of the basic rules of law, rules designed to protect against abuses of power against American citizens?
People with the capacity to think, whether they are conservative, moderate, or liberal, should question an administration that thinks it is above the law, particularly when it HAS A HISTORY of using wartime hysteria to mask over illegal, destructive and unethical behavior.
The illegal acts of the administration are far beyond Nixon's; it's just that the current president thinks he has enough unthinking supporters to do whatever suits his objectives and those of his corporate partners. The 2005 US is looking a LOT like Hitler's pre-war Germany.
It's not really the time to be unthinkingly supportive of illegal government actions, which are wrapped up in criminal arrogance and hiding behind a flag. Wake up!
They aren't (currently anyway) illegal.
How best to serve and protect the people?
Do we act in a manner to minimize loss of life? For if that is the case, we could ban automobiles and subsidize health care for everyone. I don't see that happening, which leads me to the conclusion that protecting peoples' lives is not the highest priority. The government spins it that way, but their actions say otherwise.
How about ensuring that our legal and civil rights are not trampled upon by big government? Isn't that one of the reasons trumpeted for entering into conflict? We must protect the American Way of Life! How many wars/police actions has the U.S. entered into for the publicized sake of spreading/preserving democracy? And yet, in our own country, laws like the Patriot Act are passed that allow the enforcers to wiretap our phones and enter our homes without a court order --- without due process. What are we fighting for again?
Exactly! Unfortunately, the "in a time of war" is being used as a rational for many of this shit that's going on.
I'm sure that Bush will be using/used that phrase tonight.
There's the question of the extent of the Executive's power to conduct military operations during wartime.
Uh, I believe the President *does* have that power. To a fair extent, anyway.
Did you mean "during peacetime?"
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
They think that the NSA will stop doing this if the court says not to. They're quite wrong, and we might as well just code it into law that this is fine as long as you don't try to use any of this in court.
[bold added.]
So you honestly believe that Bush had legislative approval to conduct the NSA taps? That sounds like a purely partisan position rather than a sincere reading of Congressional intent in their authorization of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to me.
(Boondock Saints)
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
1. Do they have any evidence that AT&T has actually been helping the NSA conduct warrentless wiretaps?
2. Do they have any evidence that AT&T has been sharing their customer records with the NSA?
3. Do they have any evidence that they have been harmed by #1 and #2?
Because, last time I checked, they would have to have proof of all these things in order to file suit....
Clear, Dark Skies
They are fighting ATT on consumer rights front.. that they gave the Feds private data nobody else could legally get and without any formal court paperwork. Like you said, it's a grey area that's not offically illegal because we can't prove it was going on... so how do you prove you're injured if it all happens with a few company execs and the feds in the computer room???
As far as the tail of your post, we are not at war...this is a policing action. the prez started one, but not with the congress approval before hand. Under the current precedent, the prez can pretty much start something somewhere and call us "at war" forever if he wants... that's got to stop. To put a counter conspericy out there, what if 9/11 was planned, or at least allowed to happen all along? The "patriot" act was way to convenient, big and thought-out for a last minute powers bill, what if it was planned to grab for the power all along.. there's a large segment of higher ups that think we should return to "cowboy" days where the "good guys" can just "get" the bad guys and go home proud of themselves and damn the conciquences.
well, as far as my watch goes on the US government, it doesn't matter which party is in power, the exact same thing seems to happen (with this kind of issue at least)
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Yes, the government has always had the right to gather foreign intelligence - including wiretaps - without a warrant. It's right in the Constitution. (Here's a hint: the 4th ammendment applies to U.S. Citizens, not citizens of other countries.) FISA was actually the first attempt to limit that authority:
However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power is granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption. Case law supports the idea that the President has the "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President Commander in Chief with the responsibility to protect the Nation. This authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization" and without court review of the "level of force selected." Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Whether such declarations apply to foreign intelligence has been examined by few courts.
Moreover, the FISA court itself has ruled that Bush has that authority, as recently as 2002.
The only question of illegality is whether or not Bush has been wiretapping Americans and legal U.S. residents without a warrant. And, to that question, we have lots of people making claims but no one has shown evidence of a single case where he has.
Clear, Dark Skies
Having been part of project to deal with some of that data a while ago, 300 terabytes sounds about right. You do not just do major searches against the whole thing, you have to be going after specific things. And that much data *only* lists the connect points and the billing and the time. That has nothing to do with recording the conversations themselves. There is not enough storage on earth to record all the conversations.
Unless you have dealt with AT&T and some of this data, you have no idea how much data is neccessary just to hold the billing information for a huge network like AT&T.
So obvious you don't even have to produce evidence that that is the case, right?
Quick question:
Please provide evidence that bush has actually spied on Americans and U.S. residents - because every link I've followed claims that he has, even claims that he has admitted it, but I can't find any transcripts or documentation of such.
Clear, Dark Skies
We don't need to, Bush himself has said they were warrant-less wiretaps!
Please provide direct evidence that Bush has admitted to the warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Don't bother with admissions of warrantless wiretapping of overseas calls - because he doesn't need a warrant for those.
Clear, Dark Skies
Because the post man can't accidentally hook into the trunk line and eavesdrop on your phone calls.
On the other hand, if I was working on a problem with the e-mail server, and I find e-mails talking about dope shipments, I'm pretty sure I can turn those over to the police and they can use them as evidence.
Clear, Dark Skies
They didn't just tap the phones of immigrants? but of US citizens who were communicating with people abroad. This includes noted journalists, politicians, and others. The taps invaded the privacy of thousands of people.
Please provide even a hint of evidence that any of these claims is true. Because I'm betting that you can't.
here's a hint: Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.
Clear, Dark Skies
to the subject under discussion?
DoD != NSA, monitoring activists != warrantless wiretaps.
Your comments == FUD.
Clear, Dark Skies
Monolithic kernels are better.
You might as well discuss the likelyhood of the Moon turning into a gigiantic green face and proceeding to spit out hordes of winged toasters which then proceed to smother the US under 60 foot thick layer of toasted Pumpernickel. I'd say, start preparing secret underground caches of butter to deal with this "imminent" threat.
Seriously, the Iranians are about 5 years away from producing a most primitive, dumpster-truck-sized uranium pistol-type nuke. It will take them years to produce enough uranium just for a single one using their gas centrifuge enrichment process. Before they can start making anything a wee bit more practical, they will need plutonium and therefore a fast-breeder reactor to feed their U235 and U238 into. A decade before they have anything even remotely streamlined to put on a missile after that. Suitcase? Pure comedy. The same by the way applies to Pakistan and India. You did not seriously fall for all that comical posturing about "nuclear capable missiles", did you? They'd need a Saturn V sized one to deliver their current generation of nukes anywhere. Their test ones had to be assembled in-place at the test site and weighted a feather-like 5 tons or so. They are far behind in many ways of the stage where the US was with the Manhattan project in 1944.
White House statements have been pretty vague on reasons for avoiding use of available court authorizations. While they imply it only affects those on the end of overseas calls, court authorizations could have covered those. Court authorizations don't scale well. How big could this be? Phil Zimmermann showed considerable insight in his statement on why he wrote PGP. Here's a portion:
"The 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) mandated that phone companies install remote wiretapping ports into their central office digital switches, creating a new technology infrastructure for "point-and-click" wiretapping, so that federal agents no longer have to go out and attach alligator clips to phone lines. Now they will be able to sit in their headquarters in Washington and listen in on your phone calls. Of course, the law still requires a court order for a wiretap. But while technology infrastructures can persist for generations, laws and policies can change overnight. Once a communications infrastructure optimized for surveillance becomes entrenched, a shift in political conditions may lead to abuse of this new-found power. Political conditions may shift with the election of a new government, or perhaps more abruptly from the bombing of a federal building.
A year after the CALEA passed, the FBI disclosed plans to require the phone companies to build into their infrastructure the capacity to simultaneously wiretap 1 percent of all phone calls in all major U.S. cities. This would represent more than a thousandfold increase over previous levels in the number of phones that could be wiretapped. In previous years, there were only about a thousand court-ordered wiretaps in the United States per year, at the federal, state, and local levels combined. It's hard to see how the government could even employ enough judges to sign enough wiretap orders to wiretap 1 percent of all our phone calls, much less hire enough federal agents to sit and listen to all that traffic in real time. The only plausible way of processing that amount of traffic is a massive Orwellian application of automated voice recognition technology to sift through it all, searching for interesting keywords or searching for a particular speaker's voice. If the government doesn't find the target in the first 1 percent sample, the wiretaps can be shifted over to a different 1 percent until the target is found, or until everyone's phone line has been checked for subversive traffic. The FBI said they need this capacity to plan for the future. This plan sparked such outrage that it was defeated in Congress. But the mere fact that the FBI even asked for these broad powers is revealing of their agenda.
Advances in technology will not permit the maintenance of the status quo, as far as privacy is concerned. The status quo is unstable. If we do nothing, new technologies will give the government new automatic surveillance capabilities that Stalin could never have dreamed of."
Of course mining of other types of data should be expected too. Even the average person can do some surprising things with public data.
Ya' know, answering an Anonymous Coward is one of the stupidist things one can do, but for anyone who comes after and wonders what this anonymous "but oh so wise" coward is spouting about:
http://cryptome.org/nsa-ussid18.htm
Sig under construction since 1998.
With all respect, it seems that the certain groups have been successful at obviscating and blurring the essentials of the wiretap issue. With that said; let me take my swing at it... The argument that Presidential Power overshadows the scope of FIZA is mute; whomever framed the FIZA statutes took war into account when they intentionally placed in WAR TIME PROVISIONS of 15 days. Another argument is that the FIZA process is too slow and to catch the terrorists requires FAST and FLEXABLE so FIZA unacceptably encumbers the process needed. We can eavesdrop on virtually every form of electronic communication WORLD WIDE at a moments notice, but we can't manage to have a computer automatically submit a retro-active request to the court in 15 days ??? Yet a further argument is that 'we only listen to people with known links to terrorists and our enemies'. First, HOW CAN WE KNOW THIS ? The adage 'Trust your government' doesn't hold water. Today it is the terrorists. Well, how about GreenPeace ? Some would consider them a terrorist group, so can we also listent in on them ? How about the ACLU ? How about a potential political opponent ? (oh, that's right, we already went down that road... ) Where does the line get drawn ? Lastly; "Other presidents have done this also... " I would suggest that the entire proclamations of these past presidents be read IN FULL; especially the part just after the lines saying that domestic intelligence gathering can be done, where it continues to say ' within and following the statutes outlined but the Domestic Surveillance and FIZA statutes. (Thanks to CNN and MSNBC for doing so...) My point is simple; FIZA was established to provide OVERSIGHT. OVERSIGHT is not telling 6 Congressmen, and then telling them that its illegal for them to discuss it with anyone. Why was FIZA circumvented ? To avoid OVERSIGHT. Why do we ship prisoners to other countries ? Because torture is illegal in the United States. Just as the provision on torture and other Patriot Act elements that allow anyone that is considered a threat to be taken off the street without legal recourse. Is the next presidential opponent going to be considered a threat ? How can we know ? People far wiser than me realized long ago that a government must be transparent and responsible to the public they serve. That begins and ends with OVERSIGHT. This particular administration has done a great deal to remove themselves from oversight under the guise of protecting us from the 'evil empires' and terrorists. Remember Communism ? - The government spys on it's citizens at will with no oversight - Anyone disagreeing was considered ' un-patriotic ' - People were tourtured while in custody - People were held in prison with no formal charges being brought - People were 'disappeared' without legal recourse It's odd that all the freedoms we used to hold so proud as Americans are now being eroded by our politicians under the guise of Patriotism. No wonder the rest of the world is no longer impressed by us. A just man acts in the light of day, not scurries around under the cover of darkness and shadow.
Like what, sport? Smoke signals? Wooo, the terrorists KNOW that US Signals Intelligence is trying to listen in on their phone calls/email/faxes and any other form of electronic communications they can get their 40 foot dishes on! Oh Noes!!1!ONE1!ELEVENTY1!
Do the words "No shit Sherlock" hold any meaning for you? Any terrorist that didn't already know this was already killed or captured long before 9/11 or any other major event. It's just common sense. Terrorist darwinism. If you are too f'in stupid to stego-encrypt your plans to blow up the White House in an apparent P3N15 enlargement spam, you were a dead terrorist already. The ones that aren't dead are the ones that know better. Either that, or you're saying the good men and women of our nation's intelligence agencies are incredibly stupid, endangering American lives with negligent job performance, and deserve to be fired.
Wait a minute... that's exactly what you're saying... That's it isn't asshole? You're talking shit about our CIA/DIA/FBI/KGB/SIGINT/STASI/NSA/NRO/DHS, aren't you, you mother fucking unpatriotic piece of horse shit!!! You're saying there are terrorist sending plain text email that haven't been captured! You mother fucker... Call in the jack boots and kick itsdave's ass. You're with us or against us you unpatriotic towel head son of a bitch. What's it gonna be 'dave' or should I say Akmed?!?!
... there, now you know how stupid you sound to the rest of the free world.
Thanks for a really thoughtful reply. It's nice to see actual dialogue on this issue. 8^)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to cherry-pick a few small points, because it's nearly 04:00 where I am, and I will never be able to do justice to your entire message. I don't necessarily agree with every assertion you make, but I respect the time and effort and thought that went into it.
With regards to legal controversy, I've read across a number of online resources, but I'm in Eastern Europe at the moment, so I haven't had the chance to do more than that. While there are individuals (Yoo, the ex-Justice dept. staffer and legal scholar, for example) who strongly defend the president's power to perform warrant-less surveillance on US citizens, it appears to me that the majority strongly disagree. A number of conservative Justice dept. officials are reputed to have lost or left their jobs because of their refusal to support the White House warrant-less surveillance programme. There's a good article on the Newsweek website. It's well researched and well written, presenting the reasoning and rationale in a pretty straightforward manner.
"Nooo, the Fourth Amendment (not Article IV) just says there can be no "unreasonable" searches. That may or may not mean a warrant -- the definition of "unreasonable" is up to the Courts, ultimately the Supreme Court."
The 'unreasonable' element puts limits on the kinds of search, but the 'probable cause' part makes it clear that searches and seizures require warrants that have stood up to the appropriate level of scrutiny, in this case the FISA court.
That's fairly unambiguous.
Again, people will argue that the president needs the ability to conduct warrantless surveillance of US citizens in order to protect the nation. While I don't personally agree with that, I can see why people would argue for it. What I consider indisputable, though, is that he would require congressional approval to do so, and that would certainly entail legislation. Some say the law covering FISA already provides this capability. I'm prone to agree with them.
"Congress has no power to grant or deny war powers to the President, because he is granted those powers under Article II of the Constitution, and the Constitution supercedes all laws passed by Congress."
I think you need to re-examine that assertion. Only Congress has the right to declare war. Once that's done, the president has constitutionally granted latitude to carry out the conflict as he sees fit, without requiring further advice or consent. But Congress has not declared war; they have granted him powers as defined within the legislation authorising the use of force against Iraq. The fact that Congress explicitly disallowed the prosecution of these powers on US soil is, in this case, integral. They did not grant him the power to operate unsupervised on US soil.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Sorry for the long quote, but here's Article II (from The U.S. Constitution Online). I don't see this supposed right anywhere in there.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
This is insane? Ummm, yeah, maybe.. but, ahh... how can I get signed up to be a part of this lawsuit? I been oppressed I tell ya!
These people used to be called "liberals" until the Bush administration got hold of the reins of power. When will people learn that you don't give government the kind of power you wouldn't want your worst enemy to have?
Dog is my co-pilot.
Yes I can agree with that. Imagine the nerve of someone sworn to uphold the constitution thinking he can simply order a government agency to violate constitutional rights without consequence.
The government has always had the authority to monitor international communications without a warrant.
I will accept that statement only after you provide a citation to a legal theroy that propounds it. In contravention of your point, I cite the FISA of 1978, the FISA court which has, in it's ENTIRE HISTORY, declined only four requests for a wiretap.
Bush didn't make up that power.
I suggest he did, out of whole cloth. The solicitor general (Alberto Gonzales) has been quoted on CNN saying he and President Bush did not seek specific authorization from Congress on exactly this point because they didn't think they'd get it. So he made a wild power grab and got away with it for many years. Now the lights are starting to come on, and they are scurring away from it like cockroaches in the kitchen.
Just let me point out, if you substitute "Clinton" for "Bush", I suggest you'd be barking at the moon for not just removal from office, but criminal prosecution as well. I tell you true, if Clinton tried pulling something like this, I'd have screamed for his head.
It just happened that in the past those communications were generally broadcast radio transmisisons and not internet or telephone communications.
Ahhh. Therein lies the rub. It was still illegal even then. Look up the law on interception of communications absent a warrent. Now, "they" (in this case, the NSA, DIA, MI6, and ANZAC) have to touch what they want to snoop on. In the past, they could just stick a wire in the air and break the law. Now they have to have cooperation. Regardless, it was still illegal since 1932.
The power hasn't changed, only the technology.
I argue that they never had the legal power. Tech has changed, that is self evident. That they have the absolute power is obvious. They can kill you if you refuse to cooperate. And likely bill your family for the bullet too. Doesn't make it legal.
Also, the communications in question are phone calls originating overseas
Incorrect. NSA is tapped directly into the Datona database. This includes ALL calls made through the PTSN, internal to the US, external, either initiated from inside or outside the US, and most Internet connections. They have SUGGESTED they were interested in only overseas initiated calls, however, I question if that is the case, and if it is, if they have the legal authority to do so even then.
by known Al Qaeda members.
Again, this is incorrect information. These are not "known" members of a terrorist orgisanation. These are SUSPECTS, some of them citizens (although I strongly believe that we should NOT be making distinctions about what civil liberties (aside from voting and holding office) should be granted to a non-citizen verus a citizen while within US jurisdiction. We then in turn expose ourselves to having to prove at every street corner that we are citizens. Think a Nazi SS Trooper shouting "PAPERS!" at every bus stop, airport (oops, too late!), train station, and highway blockade. And God help you if you don't have official permission to go to another city.)
If the NSA wasn't monitoring those conversations, it would be gross negligance and they would be ignoring their duty to the country.
Part of their duty is to make sure they aren't breaking the law themselves while trying to get the "bad guys". That's how you tell a good guy from a bad guy. The good guys always obey the law. The bad guys don't. It is an important distinction to remember. Or else you'll just have to accept someone is a "good guy" because they tell you to. And if they don't, they take you to jail.
I would probably agree that there should be oversight on this program to make sure there are no abuses,
T
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
So if they are only wiretapping foreign terrorists, then why is it a problem to get a warrant?
What do you call a person within the boarders of a country, not a citizen of the country, during the time of war, without any sort of uniform, receiving communication from the enemy?
A dangerous criminal. We have laws for dealing with them. These laws were created specifically to put checks and balances in place to ensure freedom and democracy stay alive. These laws ban the kind of things you see in dictatorships like indefinite imprisonment without charges, spying on citizens who oppose the government, torture of prisoners, and secret trials where the defendant is not allowed to have access to lawyers or to see and challenge all the evidence presented against them. These are all things that this administration has claimed the power to do (oh, but only against the bad guys, of course).
This is the type of person that 150 years ago would not be arrested by the police, and not tried by citizen courts.
Please justify this statement with historical examples.
If you look at things this way, it is very easy to see why the administration went to Congress and informed them on what they were doing, and nothing was done. It would also explain why the administration believes they are doing the right thing, within the law.
He only informed a very select few members of Congress, and we don't know how much he told them nor whether or not what he told them is true. After all, he's acted to prevent oversight that would allow fact checking. We do know however that he's presented tainted evidence to Congress before, and look where that got us. We also know that he's lied about wiretaps before.
--George W. Bush, during a 2004 campaign speech
Honestly, how can you trust this man anymore? There are no legitimate reasons to evade FISA. The only other reasons are to spy on people who shouldn't be spied on or to go on a fishing expedition through a wide sea of innocent people in the hopes of grabbing someone guilty. These are the acts of man who has no respect for rule of law.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I have no insight into the FISA process, since it's Very Secret. But those numbers don't need to mean anything more than that it's very clear to both sides what rules FISA operates under, and what requests are worth submitting.
Many an FBI agent may want to wiretap his wife, but he wouldn't bother to submit a request for that to FISA, since it is sure to be rejected. If FISA is abolished, and they can wiretap anyone at will, that would change things a lot.
ITYM the US Signals Intelligence Directive. Its only partly secret, its legal and its not morally imperative, just expedient.
I'm often critical of the way politics works in the US but this is one valuable thing you Yanks do have over us Brits - the ability to sue the government. In the UK we have something called "Crown Immunity" which basically means a British subject can't sue an institution run by the "Crown" i.e. the UK government (IANAL though). It's a real pisser being a "subject" sometimes. Though it hardly needs to be said there are plenty of republics where "citizens" are treated rather worse.
This is a *bureaucracy*. They will do anything, including alter the orbits of entire planets and utilize higher dimensions, to keep doing things exactly as their narrow interpertation of 'the rules' specifies. They will fight any change in 'the rules' (as well as change in general) like Spartan warriors on crack, until a massive loss of life forces a change:
New Government Slogan: If you can spy on our military bases through Google, then we can do the same to you!
It was later revealed that the EFF was being funded by Verizon and Sprint...
Interesting comments, particularly your last sentence which hadn't occurred to me before, and yet seems obvious in retrospect. Thanks for the insight.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to decide whether someone did something illegal. Precedents do apply to both under common law systems, but I wouldn't worry too much about a lower court ruling in a civil case becoming an important precedent on such a significant issue.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Damn shysters... now my phone bill will be as expensive as a coronary bypass.
To say that the committee in Congress didn't know is a lie.
Good thing I didn't say that then. This is even alluded to in the MSN article I link. Even if I had that in no way implies it's a lie, although calling it a lie might well be. And what was it, yesterday, the day before, when I posted that detecting lies is not at all the same thing as detecting truth?
The eavesdropping program was very closely held, with cryptic briefings for only a few congressional leaders. Once again, Addington and his allies made sure that possible dissenters were cut out of the loop.
Are you now going to argue that the FBI knew who Deep Throat was all along?
KFG
If you spent 10 years in the military you'd understand then that the Legistative Branch (Congress) has its own police force (Capitol Police)...they arrested Ms. Sheehan, not the President (or any police force connected to the Executive Branch. It is difficult to understand how the President comes into play with your argument here, or how Ms. Sheehan relates to the NSA or AT&T...
Where has common sense gone? Lately all I hear is accusations following partisan lines that are just ridiculous. Being from a family with a military background I regard personal liberty and freedom two of the most important privileges Americans have. An uncountable number of Americans have died in order for you to have those privileges that are taken for granted every day.
Along with the privilege comes responsibility that people take for granted now. The most important one being the privilege of voting. Instead of learning about thier political candidates through 30 mins. of research; they rather hear what CNN, FOX or some other news agency describes them as. The most important fact to that person is if they are a republican or a democrat. That is irresponsible. Then they act as armchair lawyers stupidly defending thier views with quotes from news agencies.
The blatant fact is over 2500 people died when it may have been prevented with wire-tapping. If wire-tapping could have saved the lives of 2500 people than I agree with it. If a political leader I helped elect in office wants to do something that has been done for years I will support it. Even if the official I don't want in office makes it I am not going to say anything against it if it's possible to save lives.
If an agency hears an international call I make they are going to be bored out of thier mind because I have nothing to hide. Instead of saying the government is transparant maybe we should look at ourselves and see if we have anything to hide. Then think, is someone listening to my calls even on accident worth 2500 lives?
If you know the background of your politician you will trust them with the power. Even with the opposing political party gains office your votes for senators or congressmen will keep him in check. Not to mention the media trying to gain todays big story.
Instead of stupidly insulting leaders come up with new ideas that will do what needs to be done. Only ignorant people go around saying stupid this or idiot that. Instead of being armchair lawyers do something productive, develop ideas to find threats.
If half the energy of griping about politicans was put toward working for the better of American society this would be an even better place to live.
What you need at your side is a buddy you can trust to get the job done.
"if for no other reason than if they had, this lawsuit would not be necessary."
The USDOJ is going to prosecute against a phone company that gave warrantless wiretaps to the USDOJ. Yeah, that'll happen.
"There's the question of whether or not the definition of "military operations" includes intelligence-gathering operations conducted by the Executive. There's the question of the wisdom of arbitrarily curbing the Executive's constituional authority, which would make it more difficult for the Executive to fulfill its constitutional responsiblities."
I've read Article II. I see no mention of any "war powers," with or without a declaration of war.
I hear a lot of talk of "implicit powers." The Ninth and Tenth Amendments say to me that there are no implied powers of any agent of the United States in the Constitution: it's either explicit or they don't have it.
"There's also the practical questions: how much of what's being said about this issue is FUD from partisans, extremists, the media-industrial complex, etc."
Considering that the White Hosue is defending rather than denying (or at least they stopped denying once the program became public), I'd say very little.
If anything I've only seen FUD coming from the programmers supporters: this has nothing to do with Osama calling somebody in the United States, that's something explicitly untouched by FISA; this is about tapping calls made from within the United States. For example...
"Then there's the technical questions: You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line. What do you do? Give up?"
You listen in to the calls coming from outside the United States to that particular number without need for a warrant, as explicitly spelled out in FISA. It's the calls made by the US number that you aren't allowed to listen to without a warrant.
However, if you want to go that far without warrants, you simply ask the 107th Congress to give you the power. They already gave the White House the keys to the kingdom in the form of the USA PATRIOT Act, what's one more little rider? The only reason for doing this in the way President Bush did it is pure hubris: he didn't want it to seem that he needed to ask permission (a rather liberal application/abuse of power from a self-described conservative, IMO).
"Or do you say, I'm Executive, the Constitution gives me the responsibility to do whatever I can and whatever I need to do to protect the country in time of war, and Congress has told me this is a time of war, so tap that fucker and let's see what's up?"
We're talking about the United States Constitution, not a Tolstoy novel. If the Constitution gives the executive such power, there should be a clause in the (rather short) document that makes this as plain as day. Otherwise, at most, these "executive powers" are left in the hands of the states to whom the constitution belongs.
"There is a problem with suing a company that did something not obviously illegal, and losing the suit."
Then how, praytell, are you supposed to find out whether or not it's legal if not before a court of law?
Of course, regardless of how the legal issue is finally resolved, it's pretty sad that Bush lied about it until he was caught. Consider his comments in this speech.
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Now that it's out in the open, they claim it is legal. If they were so sure, why didn't they simply announce they were going to be doing it?
It sounds to me like the article summary isn't assuming anything. It's stating the position of the lawsuit. The EFF is suing over illegal wire taps -- that's a fact. What hasn't been decided yet is whether the lawsuit has any merit. We'll need a court hearing to know for sure.
... nobody at the New York Times is trying to keep you from making up your own opinions. That's not what the news is for.
Believe it or not, though, trusting the New York Times, even after a couple of unfortunate incidents, is still pretty good practice. What's scarier is people like you, who can't seem to separate the concepts of somebody explaining facts to you and somebody telling you what to think. Don't worry, dude
Repeat after me: Being informed is good.
Breakfast served all day!
What is the alternative? Just let it happen?
No, you have skilled trial advocates who actually win trials do it. The problem with the EFF is they're way too emotionally involved with the issues, and it makes lousy lawyering. We need more people who know how to win cases and less ideologues.
If not them, who, and how? I just watched the state of the union crap, then the alleged democratic party "response". That was PATHETIC, I couldn't believe it. Well, I can actually, I expected it, but I had 1% hope they might actually DO SOMETHING. Instead of using the great opportunity to do something with GUTS, say announce some serious impeachment moves, they had some gomer on who droned his way to lecture hall sleepytime and said...nothing. Not believing this incredible display of ineptitude, I go over to the democratic official webpage. They are having a blog circle jerk call in to each other while they have "watch parties". WOW, THAT'LL WORK!!!1!1 MAN,, I IZ IMPRESSED!!
I checked the Libertarian party home page, NOTHING, NO RESPONSE. Constitution party, NOTHING, NO RESPONSE. Only the Greens had anything, they have 5 videos up as a response (says there available feb 1).
If the major so called opposition party FAILS to address wars based on lies, illegal and clearly unconstitional actions domestically, expansion of the heinous police state, destruction of the economy, with the only thing they do is get on the phone and talk at each other, then who the hell is left? Only places like the EFF and others like that who are trying the only peaceful remedy we have left, in the courts. Sure as hell VOTING ain't doing it, because they hack the damn vote now and get away with it! So even play acting at VOTING is a big fat waste of time.
Someone, please, stop the EFF before it's too late. I know they might think of these things as a "why not, let's give it a shot and see what happens" deal, but these trials and the EFF's continued losses are going to be a serious impact on ALL of our futures. I know, I get a chuckle too after seeing the latest story about how they've been laughed out of court, again, and see how riled up people get over it, but this needs to stop now. Our rights, and our (US citizens) futures may depend on it.
I think you should review the Electronic Frontier Foundation's history of accomplishments before making such an over-generalized (and incorrect) statement. They're trying the herculean task of protecting OUR civil liberties at THEIR expense; I think they deserve better than baseless criticism.
I read the Register article where this meme ("EFF is hurting our civil liberties by losing cases") started, and it needs to die. Frankly, I think the lawyers at EFF know a hell of a lot more about winning cases than some hack from The Register, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it.
In any case, if really have some brilliant and constructive idea about how the EFF could win more cases, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it. They have contact information on their website. Knock yourself out.
(Side note: it's amazing how much a reputation can be tarnished by one sensationalized "article".)
Well, I understand your position, too, I think. I don't agree entirely, but as I said, this is an area where reasonable men have differed for centuries. Consensus is not likely any time soon...
First, I believe the Supreme Court has held that all sorts of searches can be considered "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment without involving the issuance of a warrant. The text you quote certainly establishes two things: that searches may not be unreasonable, and that warrants may not be issued without probable cause and a narrow specification of what precisely is to be searched. But this text does not explicitly connect the two, and state clearly that a search is a priori unreasonable if it is not authorized by a warrant.
What exactly the text of the Fourth Amendment means, what the precise connection between "reasonable" and the presence of a warrant is, is therefore up to the Supreme Court to say. (Congress, of course, has no say in the matter.) Certainly what the Supreme Court has in fact held has been a welter of horribly complex reasoning that has kept fleets of Constitutional lawyers busy from the founding of the Republic to the present day. Myself, I do wish Madison had been a tad more explicit. But we have what we have.
One might argue -- as perhaps you are here -- that even if a search is not in fact authorized by a Court warrant, the Fourth Amendment requires that it be authorizable in principle by a warrant. That is, the same legal standards must be met. But I think the Supreme Court has rejected this reasoning. I believe they have held that different standards apply in different circumstances. For example, what is "reasonable" when a policeman decides the issue in a split-second can be different than what is "reasonable" when a learned judge with days to ponder decides the issue. And (more to the point) what is reasonable when the nation is in danger of armed sneak attack is not necessarily the same as what is reasonable when it is not.
I believe there are also all kinds of complex issues about what constitutes a "search" that depend on when one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." An example is that, while it is blatantly illegal for the police to tap your home phone without a Court order, it is perfectly legal for a plainclothesman to listen to your conversation (and take notes that can be used against you in Court) if you and he are sitting in a cafe and you're jabbering on your cell phone loud enough for him to overhear. The circumstances mean he doesn't need a warrant or "probable cause" to listen in.
So, what kind of "reasonable expectation of privacy" do you have when talking internationally, versus domestically? When talking over a cell phone (on which anyone with a radio receiver can eavesdrop) versus on a landline? When talking to friends and family, or your lawyer or your doctor -- or to people you know or should know are enemies of the United States? These are complex questions, and reasonable men may certainly differ on the exact answers. But the exact answers matter, to determine how the Fourth Amendment applies.
What I consider indisputable, though, is that he would require congressional approval to do so.
Well, other people -- indeed, all Presidents -- dispute this. In the context of fighting the foreign enemies of the United States, the President draws his power directly from the Constitution. That's why there didn't need to be a law authorizing the CIA to spy on the Soviets during the Cold War, and that's why Eisenhower, for better or worse, was able to secretly order -- without Congressional knowledge or approval -- spy planes to fly over Moscow and photograph Chairman Brezhnev taking a leak behind Lenin's Tomb, if they could.
If the President were ordering the NSA to wiretap conversations between Americans and, say, German industrialists, for the purpose of industrial espionage, surely that would not fall under Article II. But it's difficult to see why, for example, FDR shoul
Ooookay...I go to www.google.com...enter a few search terms...press enter...presto!
Elapsed time, 20 seconds.
To quote from the opening paragraph of the link:
Washington, D.C.-- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Robert C. Bonner today hailed the Supreme Court ruling upholding CBP officers and agents authority to disassemble and thereby search a vehicle's gas tank for terrorist weapons, drugs, and other contraband, without the need to obtain a warrant or probable cause.
So this is the yardstick by which we are to measure democracy and quality of life?: North Korea? I suggest you get some better standards. Just being "better than North Korea" is not good enough for me.
Transistors and Beer!!
YES thank you, very well put. I keep hearing people say these wiretaps are "unconstitutional". I suppose they are referring to the 4th amendment which states in part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. Does anybody honestly believe it is unreasonable for the government to tap Bin Laden's cell phone? Cmon put aside the tin foil hats and think about that one for a minute, anybody remember 9/11 ???? It's not like they are tapping your phone call to your grandma, and waiting to break down your door if you say "allah" or "bomb", only calls to known al quaeda operatives are tapped. Of course then someone will say, ahhh they are ALLEGED al quaeda operatives, who cares if they were caught on a battlefield fighting our troops, doesn't mean anything unless they are convicted in court. Thank God we did not have this mentality 60 years ago, I can hear it now, no we cannot just storm into Normandy and start shooting people, they are not nazis in those pillboxes, they are SUSPECTED nazis. People don't seem to realize criminal justice standards do not apply in war.
And shoving your fingers deep into your ears and singing lalala doesn't make anything not true, so thanks for that nugget of information.
My previous statement had two salient points: 1. The NSA tapped or datamined information for possibly thousands of people and inundated the FBI with this information, according to the NYTimes. 2. Noted journalist Christopher Hitchens, a pro-Iraq war writer, has joined the case against the NSA along with the ACLU and EFF.
Further reports indicate that not only Hitchens, but also Christine Amanpour a CNN reporter as well as many others also had their phone tapped. This program was far-reaching, did not follow the FISA requirements, and was lied about by current Attorney General Gonzales while under oath and by President Bush during a press conference.
This program did not merely focus on "immigrants" but on many more people and included domestic calls within the United States.
Finally, these are internet links so I guess they can't be true since the seem to put some rent into your well-defined reality.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Dude, the point is simply that when Constitutional law professors at big law schools can make the argument either way, then the legal issues can't possible be as settled as the OP said.
I didn't endorse any point of view. I just said that when the guys with JD's don't agree on what the Supreme Court will say, then ipso facto the final word on the issue -- the clear opinion of the Supreme Court -- doesn't yet exist.
"After the privilege is properly invoked, the privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case."i lege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Priv
IANAL, but I see the possibility of the details of just what information in ATT databases was accessed being deemed privileged material and thereby being disallowed as evidence.
-1, Troll? Pheh. Truth hurts, I suppose.
You're right on.
For those who need a quick reminder, the fourth amendment reads as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What is this "domestic" wiretaps nonsense? Since the media has been spinning these wiretaps on *international* calls as "domestic," I guess you, like many others, fell for it.
In fact, these are intercepts of communications crossing our international borders. Hardly the same as tapping your phone call to your girl friend or whatever. These international taps have *always* been legal and have been used for a very, very long time.
As for wanting to be secret, are you not aware that members of congress, from both parties, were briefed regularly on this program? THAT is accountability. But if you have ever worked with secrets, you know that you want to minimize the number of people who are know them. And going to the FISA courts, which requires the involvement of many people for the complicated warrant process, not to mention the staff of those courts, greatly increasess the probability of a leak.
Such leaks are quite damaging, as they reveal to the enemy the existence of the program, and to some extent, the power of the program. Given that this program has already prevented one Al Qaeda attack, the argument that the enemy already knew and took countermeasures doesn't work. But now they *really know*, thanks to irresponsible and illegal leakers of extremely sensitive information, and the highly irresponsible media.
Wonderful.
The only good weather is bad weather.
A brilliant post. May I add one comment, in re this:
In fact, if the EFF loses this case, it will establish a precedent that what AT&T did is not illegal.
Only if SCOTUS wants to set a precedent. They can easily settle any specific case without setting a precedent, if they feel like it.
I only mention this because of one interesting fact: have you noticed that, despite all the huffing and puffing by Congress and the President in the last five decades or so, over precisely who has what authority over what when it comes to war, neither side has actually filed suit in a way guaranteed to get the issue settled once and for all? The Supreme Court has never really settled this issue in part because neither the Executive nor Legislative branch has seriously asked them to.
And why not? Let us wax a trifle cynical, and suggest that perhaps the present ambiguity serves the interests of both branches. With the water muddied, so to speak, each can hope to angle for more turf, e.g. get away with stuff because of popular opinion that doesn't quite pass Constitutional muster. After all, both the White House and Capitol are inhabited by political animals, who are probably more confident of their ability to win the backing of popular opinion than of their ability to dispute arcane legal principles with nine gimlet-eyed humorless old sticks.
Once the Supreme Court rules firmly on the issue, there will be far fewer ambigous dark corners where one side or the other can exercise some squatter's rights. Maybe, like spouses battling loudly in divorce Court, neither President nor Congress really wants the Court to make a final and complete ruling.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
He never said the legal issues were "settled". What he wrote was this:
The matter is controversial, and there's no denying it's being hotly debated. The issues of law, however, are not so tenuous as you seem to think. Every argument that the White House has offered has been quite thoroughly refuted.
He's saying one side's arguments have been discredited, but since there can be many sides to a legal issue, that's not tantamount to saying the issue is "settled".
In fact the arguments from the White House depend on a theory of consolidation of powers (my phrase, not theirs) in a strong executive branch. I'd say we pretty thoroughly refuted such theories when we fought a war with the British over just this sort of thing back in 1776. Sure, the Supreme Court could rule otherwise and resurrect that theory, but in doing so they would be abandoning the principles on which the union was founded.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Sorry. Does not compute. Maybe you should try taking a history course. Or read a newspaper. The thing that should probably scare you the most about terrorism is that terrorists are not irriational. The thing that should scare you the least is their bombs, because you are far more likely to be struck by lightning. Or be murdered in prison.
Why do people always look to place blame internally? If you think that we can end terrorism by appeasment, then you are wrong. Failed with Hitler, and it will fail again. The only way to stop it is to remove them completely from the face of the Earth. Country by country, terrorist by terrorist.
Exactly! That's precisely why World War II wasn't won until we had exterminated every last German, Italian, and Japanese.
In the real world (rather than the one you live in,) our "War on Terror," especially the whole Iraq part, has been the best al Qaeda recruiting tool they could have come up with. You don't win the war on terror by making more terrorists than you kill. You win a war on terror by reducing the recruiting base for terrorists. And the only way to do that is to find the problems that cause people to become terrorism. This is not appeasment. It's more like "stop propping up failing dictatorships because they sell us oil and hold our hand when we walk through the garden at our Texas ranch."
Support SETI@home
My guess is what the government is going after is the call records of all the numbers that the suspected terrorists were in possession of and then the call records of the "friend of the friend of the terrorist". That second list (much larger) would be a tough call for a judge to sign off on a warrant. As Mr.Bush senior was so fond of saying, then you connect the dots.
....not the President of the united states. Just trying to clarify a point.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
I'd rather just stick with Bush for the remainder of his term than let a man wholy consumed by evil take the reins.
Karl Rove can't be President.
My Sysadmin Blog
We are not at war. Well we are at war but we are at war with a word. To quote a wiser man. "you remember when we declared war on drugs and now you can't buy drugs anymore? It will be just like that".
So you have bought into this eternal war. This war which will never end and gives the president any power he wants as long as the war exists.
No fucking wonder this country is going down the shithole.
evil is as evil does
the parent post was modded funny, which is how i read it, so i think you might have missed the tongue planted in the poster's cheek.
Er, it doesn't? Do you figure that as soon as you step out your front door and into the "public thoroughfare" your Fourth Amendment rights vanish? Or, they vanish because you travel on a bicycle, automobile, motorcyle, public bus, or rented donkey instead of on foot?
Geez, that point of view is far more restrictive of civil liberties than the wildest dreams of H.R. Haldeman.
They key distinctions here have nothing to do with the mode of travel or whether you're on public or private land. You have the same FthA rights in your car as you do on foot, or on a public bus, and the same rights on your own land as in a National Park or someone else's house. What's different is (1) what your "reasonable expectation of privacy" is, and (2) what public interest is served by inspecting you, with or without a warrant. That's because the FthA is not an absolute statement; the restrictions it puts on government are to be balanced by the competing public interests of order, justice, and national security.
In the case of crossing the international border, there is a very strong public interest in making sure the border is secure, and a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy. Exiting and entering the country is an unusual and public action, and potentially puts your fellow citizens at great risk (should you, say, import dangerous and illegal substances, devices, or persons). You should therefore reasonably expect to be subject to a more than ordinary level of scrutiny. (And, of course, if you object to that scrutiny, you always have the option of not crossing the border. Crossing the border is almost never a necessity of life.)
So the government has very broad rights to inspect people crossing the border. Some people don't get this, and that's why the case I cited exists -- some times it's necessary for the Supreme Court to affirm the simple fact that crossing the border is special, and you should have considerably diminished expectations from the FthA when doing so.
Should this diminished expectation of privacy extend to "crossing the border" electronically, via phone or e-mail? Stay tuned, the Supreme Court will enlighten us on this topic any day now.
The grandparent may have been a little sensationalist, but the parent is a quintessential troll.
Use mod points wisely. They cannot be unused.
May the Maths Be with you!
And that's the huge gaping hole in your argument. How do you know they are calling known or suspected terorists, when your government refuses to let anybody know who they are tapping on what basis but just ask you to trust them?
Do I really have to point out to you that the US has at least once had a president who had no qualms about wiretapping his political enemies for political gain (Nixon, in case you completely lack history knowledge)? What makes you think you can trust the current and all future governments not to do the same.
Keep in mind that regardless whether you think Bush is an asswipe or a true American hero, he will not be president forever, and any expansion of presidential powers will be there to exploit for future presidents too unless something is done to stop it.
The scary part here is not that Bush wants to wiretap, but that he so obviously KNOW that these wiretaps are wide reaching, considering that he's decided it's worthwhile to avoid asking for permission from a court that hardly ever says no to any request, and where the requests can be filed after the fact.
It takes an extreme naivety to think even for a second that nothing is fishy there.
If these are truly people calling suspected terrorists, then warrants for these wiretaps would be granted with no problems.
So why again, is it necessary to bypass the oversight measures put in place by congress?
I mean, I could be wrong, IANAL, but I thought you had to show that you had been harmed and as for producing evidence - much like needing "probable cause" you can't use discovery to go fishing for evidence - you have to have some evidence a crime occurred before you sue.
Clear, Dark Skies
1. The presumption of innocence does indeed extend to any defendant in a legal case, whether that defendant is a homeless man, Enron, or Bush.
2. The constitution divides the government into 3 equal branches. It does not give Congress automatic control over the president. It also explicitly says that congress has no control over how the president chooses to defend the country. The courts, including the FISA court, have repeatedly ruled that that is true.
3. You cannot "presume" that the President is in violation of anything, without evidence to support that "presumption".
4. There is a difference between asking "have you any evidence" and saying "Bush was right".
Basic logic is lost on some people.
Clear, Dark Skies
Except for the bit that the 4th ammendment only applies to Americans, not to foreigners.
"international communications" are not protected by the 4th ammendment, nor by FISA, unless one of end of the call was a legal U.S. resident, on American soil.
Clear, Dark Skies
Please show me where that quote says anything about warrants?!?
It says that the AG can authorize wiretaps! And guess what! That's exactly what people claim was going on!
So, if Bush was asking the AG to approve of the wiretaps, he wasn't breaking the law!
Clear, Dark Skies
1. You offer no evidence that the article in the NYT is linked to warrantless wiretaps.
2. Read your own links. Hitchens never claims he was personally wiretapped.
3. Please provide any evidence, any evidence at all, that Amanpour was wiretapped.
The only evidence you've presented is evidence that you lack reading comprehension.
Clear, Dark Skies
They can 'honestly' believe that all they want, and they would be fucking morons. This Administration isn't doing a damn thing to make this country safer. It's apparently so incompetant it had no idea that Hamas was about to win so many election, it had no idea the leves in New Orleans could fail despite having warnings(1), it says stupid-ass things like 'Crusade' and 'Axis of Evil' that piss off our allies, and, of course, it invades Iraq for no logical reason which has made our position in the rest of the middle east incredibly bad, like in Iran.
And we ignore actual security problems, like the fact both Iran and North Korea. And problems to be, like Pakistan. And, oh yeah, bin Laden.
Meanwhile, the 'freedom' removals are things like no wiretapping, when any wiretaps were easily gettable, trial by jury, when of course any jury would convict terrorists, free speech around the president, when no protestor has ever attacked a president, freedom from torture, which doesn't get us anything except the loss of moral ground when others torture us, etc. None of these makes us safer in any logical way, they just remove our freedoms.
Trading freedom for security is a lie, it is not actually happening. Due to the actions of the Bush Administration, we are losing security and freedom. We have gained no security at all.
1) No, I refuse to be drawn into an argument whether local authorities should have done more. They should have, but their failure does not excuse the failure of the Administration.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The pinnacle of an oppressive regime is the ability to sit behind closed doors, inside of protective walls, while shooting at the underclass demonstrators outside.
paintball
AT&T also have the right to inspect any package (in this case conversation) passing through it's network that it suspects of breaking the law?
What is to stop them from simply using the NSA to determine what to monitor? Or allowing the NSA to be their monitoring branch?
I think the golden rule here is if you want a conversation to be private, dont use an unencrypted public means of transmission. Just like e-mail.
On the front of the EFF and it's lawsuit frenzy. I also agree that it dilutes the legal power of the EFF to go after cases which are going to be "hail marys" to win. The reason he is if they lose this case it ALSO sets a precedent which AT&T and the NSA can use in the future.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
I do not think I have seen this very basic point ever been made around here.
The consensus seems to be that non-US-citizens do not enjoy (most of?) the rights US citizens do. This appears to be supported at every level. I find it extraordinarily regressive. The idea that citizenship is required to be granted right to privacy, for example, seems to me something not compatible with a elementary understanding of basic human rights.
No, under several situations here the feds dont need the warrant up front. They can get it AFTER they trash your place.
Wont debate if its morally right or wrong for them to do so, but they do have that power now to do it legally.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How do you really know this for sure? Because Bush said so? Because the NSA said so? Because some pundit on tv said so?
These people have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted; they consistently lie to the American people. The administration usually does the exact opposite of what they say they're going to do. Personally, I find it impossible to believe anything they say. I do not trust this government; they lost that trust a long time ago and have done nothing to regain it.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Okay, we'll try this is simply as possible: This is a lie.
The president must, at all times, follow the law, even with regard to the military. It is his job to execute the law, not decide what the law is, or what it means, or whether it's constitutional or not. He has no power, whatsoever, to break the law, as passed by Congress, as filtered through the courts, in any way, shape, or form. Got it?
Now, because the President is in such an important position, he cannot be arrested. (In addition, he'd have to be arrested by his own branch, which is unlikely.) He must be impeached first. However, this does not affect the legality of his actions.
This 'Constitutional oblications' is a lie. He doesn't even have the power to 'make war', as some lunatics keep saying. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and that's it. Someone in command does not have the authority to do whatever they want, they must still follow laws. He does exactly the same thing he does for civilian government, execute decisions made by Congress.
Congress, in recent decades, has granted the president limited authority to use the military without their permission for a short of amount of time for 60 days, but don't confuse that with a 'right'. The president has no more constutitional authority to invade Canada than I do.
So there's the 'constitutional obligations' out the window. Let's look at FISA.
FISA forbids spying outside of that authorized by law. Everyone agrees with this. So let's see if the resolution to invade Afghanistan authorized anything under FISA. Well, no. Let's see if it authorized wiretapping in general. Hrm, nope. What did it authorize?
Well, first of all, it clearly says military force, but, more to the point, it says 'all necessary and appropriate force'. That is, in fact, legal code. Necessary is the opposite of excessive. Appropriate is the opposite of inappropriate. What is 'inappropriate'? Well, part of the legal meaning is 'within the law'. (Among other things.)
I.e., like many things, authorization of force is require within the law.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Got this off CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.
Q. Since when is expressing a political opinion a crime in the United States?
A.Since King George took over the White House.
Ummm...no.
Cindy got herself in the hoosegow for attempting to disrupt the speech by throwing a banner and screaming, and refusing to stop when ordered to by the Congressional (note: not the police, not the Secret Service) security/police force internal to and responsible to Congress, not to the President.
Cindy opened her jacket and displayed the propaganda T-shirt well before the banner-tossing and screaming, with no action taken until she escalated to outright disruption. The T-shirt was in extremely bad taste at such an event, but did not cause her to be arrested.
But I suppose facts tend to take all the steam from a good hysterical partisan attack.
There are plenty enough reasons to legitimately critisize.
FUD with no factual basis only weakens you and your causes' or parties' credibility.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
"So why again, is it necessary to bypass the oversight measures put in place by congress?"
Yet another AC here (wanna know something about tyranny of opinion? take a look at who goes AC).
Anyway, you asked the question didn't you? And as so many others you seem to vehemently believe that there are no conceivable valid answers to that question. But is that the case? Or could it be that a large proportion of those voicing their opinion have no practical experience or knowledge and as such go into the oh so typical traps of couchpotato quarterbacking. I swear most act like they would make any bureaucrat from hell proud in their total lack of realism and practicality.
I'm not discussing whether or not what was actually done (which we have rather few details about) was/is legal or not. You can find excellent discussion about that in replies by others (the thread where susanno is modded up) and it should be obvious that with the limited amount of information we have it is not clear-cut either way. No, what I'm posting about is whether or not it is conceivable that the use of FISA becomes impractical for valid reasons.
Sometimes seconds count and not just one second but hours, days, weeks and even months of seconds. By this I do not mean that those involved necessarily couldn't have managed to put in motion a FISA-approval during the first 72 hours, only that those involved have much more important things to do. Yes that mostly includes inordinate amounts of attentive waiting.
Counterargument: that can be solved by throwing manpower onto it.
Counter counterargument: possibly for individual cases although both in individual cases and generally speaking there is a big argument against this because we're talking about covert surveillance -- increasing the number of people involved will always be a security risk in itself simply because of the increased numbers and the increased amount of information and details retransmitted. In other words: there are valid reasons why the puzzlers love throwing machines rather than people at problems...
So far I'm not saying that the above arguments might be present in all cases, but if there is any justification at all then at least enough of the cases have a high degreee of probability of including those arguments. Many enough to make FISA impractical.
Let's say you find three laptops, seven mobile phones, 20 SIMs, and a satelite phone after a priority raid in Afghanistan. The foundation aren't known for their IT provess and the laptops run w95/98 and the phones are all standard consumer models. Nada encryption. In total something close to 300 phone numbers are found locally on the devices and the CID/SIM tracking coughs up something like 3000 unique numbers from past calls. All the data is sent to the puzzlers who adds it in the bin and starts crossreferencing which results in the adding of let's say 100 numbers to the watchlist. The watchlist is always on.
You do not know which of those 100 numbers, if any, are ever going to be used, if the present user will have any connection at all with the previous use of that number and so on (although the crosschecking has removed the obviously uninteresting ones). You cannot ask FISA for a warrant yet both because you can't and must not for security reasons give FISA all the numbers on the watchlist (far more than 100) and because most of the numbers on the watchlist will never be used before they fall of the list and lastly because no wiretapping has taken place at this point in time. Neither is it always possible to determine (at the time before the number is used) if the number is inside or outside the US
As time goes on some of the numbers on the watchlist are used and tapped. In many cases it will become obvious after a small amount of analysis that it doesn't belong on the list and is taken off.
But let's say we cherrypick a situation where the number is known to be inside the US and owned by a US citizen and has been in this citizens possesion for years. T
if everyone is a criminal, then you're living in a police state. maintaining a status quo where everyone can be arrested for something they've done if the authorities feel that you're interesting is a great way to keep people under your thumb. the only sense of that i've had in the U.S. is the speed limit situation (where it's basically understood that lots and lots of people are going to be driving above the "limit"), and i'm not sure that is extreme enough to warrant a police state label.
What do you call a person within the boarders of a country, not a citizen of the country, during the time of war
What war is that? Did I miss the Congressional declaration?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"Oh no, it's big brother. Oh no, what would Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover use this for."
I have some sad news. Hoover and Nixon are dead. And 9/11 happened because people were still obsessed with them.
So, logically, if you put a lock on your front door, you're only making life difficult for the burglars. I mean the professionals will get in whatever you do, so all your lock does is force them to go out and buy expensive new equipment. Of course, they then have to pay for that equipment, which they do by burgling more houses, to the detriment of us all.
Clearly the only patriotic thing to do is to take all your possessions and pile them in the middle of the street, so as not to overly inconvenience the working criminal.
I know! Why don't you run a pilot scheme? You can report back in a few weeks and tell us how much crime dropped in your area.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
And exactly at this point your reasoning fell apart. The very rationale for the existence of FISA is exactly that Congress wanted to ensure 1) oversight, and 2) that oversight would not compromise security. It is a secret court for a reason. It allows warrants to be obtained after the fact for a reason.
Regardless, if the government truly has such a compelling reason for bypassing FISA, then they should have put that argument to Congress.
As much as I dislike Bush, if he'd told Congress up front "sorry, but national security requires us to bypass FISA temporarily while you are addressing the concerns we're presenting, but we'll prepare documentation of the wiretaps as and when security allows" he would have earned a lot of respect. It would have opened the door for finding methods of oversight to address whatever concerns the government had, OR for Congress to decide that those concerns were invalid.
In a pragmatic world you have to expect that sometimes rules may have to be broken, and sometimes that is ok. But big alarm bells should go off if you're not willing to be upfront about it with those charged with overseeing your powers.
Anything else is a slippery slope towards a dictatorial police state.
See this article or this article for more details.
perl -e 'while(<>){print map(pack("B*",$_),split(/ /))}'
SIG: HUP
Rather than continue to hide behind the curtain of terrorists, let's consider who else is making international telephone calls:
Any international business. Insurance companies, military contractors, GM, Ford, pharmaceutical companies
Colleges and Universities. Checking references for international applicants.
Military. Yes, every phone call that Johnny gets to make home is probably being listened to (but we really already knew that)
Embassies. No political motivation here, eh?
Vacationers. Calling family back home.
Family. Plenty of people in the US have family or in-laws who live in Europe.
No. I'm not frightened by "big brother" surveilling. I'm disappointed and suspicious that it's being done so far under the table.
But at least the people who support it so staunchly should quit using the buzzword "terrorist" to rile up the troops. It's getting to be so overused that it is losing its effect.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
either.
Clear, Dark Skies
Yeah, let them know that because someone accused them of wrongdoing that has yet to be substantiated in the court of law, you are cancelling services. You will really come off as being the intelligent customer they want. They will probably be thinking "good riddance, another idiot we don't have to support" ... (not to mention the profit margins on consumer services are slim: even if the entire /. populace canceled services they wouldn't be feeling it)
"You raid a cell in Pakistan, find a U.S. phone number on a computer there. In criminal justice terms, that's not probable cause to tap a phone line." In what alternative universe would the FISA Court NOT grant a wiretap based on this information?
How the fuck do you KNOW who they were wiretapping? With no warrants, not even from FISA, they could very well be wiretapping your grandmother. "Only guilty people need to worry, I have nothing to hide" is an age old excuse for every kind of totalitarian government.
Hey buddy, if you object to sensationalism when some cries out that their libertties and fourth ammendment rights are being violated, then you should be prepared to ban advertising, radio, and TV. Talk about media hype.
This story about Osama's cell phone being tapped and somehow the NYT compromised national security is rediculuous (and the last time I checked the first ammendment still said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". So until Bush and folks like you succeed in repealing the first ammendment it cann't be illegal to publish such a story and hence commit a crime in doing so.
Only until recently have there even been any cell towers in Afganistan and these are found only in a few cities. Even if he had a cell phone it wouldn't have worked. Stop puking out the party line and try thinking on your own. Yes, it will be incoherent at first, but its time you took some baby steps in that direction.
One of my friends suggests that if it were him, he'd be busy tapping the phones of Administration lackeys, to stop the leaks about extradition, secret prisons, and public exposure of CIA operatives' identities, and only after the plumbers have tightened things up to stop legitimate criticism do they go after their actual enemies.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
The problem is that people conflate "good" and "legal". If you've done nothing wrong, that doesn't imply anything about whether you've done anything illegal.
I am trolling
Article I, Section 9:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
I'd say that terrorists invading the USA to endanger the public safety may require that the Writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended in these cases.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
What if it works? What if this wire tapping is actually effective and it's being properly briefed to other branches of the federal government so it's not soley overseen by the executive branch?
The FISA law was established in 1978. At the time it was designed for the US to monitor Soviet spys in the US. It was an era of rotary phones. Today It's way more complicated and dynamic with satellite, wireless and Internet communication. Today people have way more control over how information is distributed and how quickly the self identifying nature of those communications are changed. Getting to my point and question, what if Al Queda knows about FISA (it's no secret), how does the NSA track operratives that change their email address every 30 seconds? What if these legal attacks are successfull and the NSA has to chase down these dynamic identifiers but can't effectively do their job because they have to follow FISA? What if Al Queda knows this and even with communications outside the country they simply CC some random US email to implement some FISA protocol?
If you agree that intelligence agencies should act with alacrity in these situations is not the oversight of congress enough? Or, should the administration keep IP logs etc... that might number in the thousands let's say, retroactively to FISA so they might obtain the 1000 warrants for that tracking?
A related power to the use of force is the ability to gain intelligence about the enemy so one might use that force as effectively as possible. Presidents since at least Franklin Roosevelt have used the authority driven by the use of force to intercept communications by members of the enemy. Do you believe the authority given to the President does not allow him to order such taps in communication regardless of a non wartime law? If your answer is "no", then it might interest you to know that the FISA review board themselves believe it does, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802 .html.
We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.
Agreed. How this was modded a troll is beyond me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants.
Disruting the discussion was not the parent's intent. Moderation abuse.
This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
The kind of thing they say they are doing is exactly what I would be doing in their place. Nobody requires an explanation for that, and acting as if it is so is misleading.
The problem isn't what they say they're doing. It's that whatever thy are doing, they are concealing it from mechanisms specifically designed to keep such activities focused on legitimate ends.
Logically, this isn't proof of course that they're doing something other than what they claim. But given that the FISA mechanisms are so permissive, there's no obvious reason it should not be used.
That's what I think they should explain.
(1) If a FISA warrant is a burden to legitimate intel gathering, tell us why so we can change it.
(2) If not FISA, then how are you and future adminsitrations going to be prevented from doing all the abuses FISA was designed to prevent?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
First, there is no declared war. Second, FISA defines these people as "Agents of a Foreign Power", and warrants are not required to wiretap agents of a foreign power, as long as they are not also US Persons (citizens or legally admitted aliens). Put down the herring.
This is my understanding; and it may be wrong:
When something crosses a national border, all bets about privacy are off - or at least greatly reduced. This is why Customs can search your bags, your FedEx deliveries and your mail when it crosses the U.S. border.
The way the FISA law is structured, if one of the persons in the call is a legal U.S. resident on U.S. soil then the 4th amendment applies and a warrant is required; but if the person is in the country illegally, or if the call starts and ends internationally, there is no 4th amendment protection and the president is free to act as he sees fit to defend the country (under article II).
IIRC, Europeans have, in recent years, tightened their laws to raise the level of privacy in international (or maybe just intra-EU) mail, I don't know about phone calls.
Clear, Dark Skies
The FBI and the military are spying on non violent politcal activists now. Given that we have Alito on the supreme court who supports the power of the "unitary executive," and given that Bush lied to us about always getting a warrant before engaging in phone tapping (in New Mexcio 2004 google it), it's utterly foolish to allow Bush to have the power to spy on anyone in violation of FISA. Lists of links showing Bush's FBI and military spy on domestic activists now from a post to William Arkin's excellent early warning blog at the Washington Post: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/ 01/nsa_expands_its.html
r iendly=1
3 212&printerfriendlyVers=1&
c le/2005/12/31/AR2005123100
808_pf.html
2 08.html
2 20.html
3 0.shtml
c le/2005/05/17/AR2005051701
240_pf.html
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200406/JTTF_file_sar ah_bardwell_08-02-04.pdf
p l?url=http://www.motherjon
es.com/news/outfront/2005/05/battlespace_america.h tml
American Media Dodging U.N. Surveillance Story By Norman Solomon Media Beat March 6, 2003 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2226&printer_f
###
The unholy trinity of electronic snooping: Bolton, Negroponte and Hayden By Wayne Madsen Online Journal May 5, 2005
###
NSA spy program hinges on state-of-the-art technology By Shane Harris National Journal January 20, 2006 http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=3
### NSA Gave Other U.S. Agencies Information From Surveillance Fruit of Eavesdropping Was Processed and Cross-Checked With Databases By Walter Pincus Washington Post Sunday, January 1, 2006; A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
### New Documents Show FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Targeting Peaceful Protest Activity in Colorado ACLU Press Release December 8, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/22884prs20051
### New Documents Show FBI Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Groups Activities as "Domestic Terrorism" ACLU Press Release December 20, 2005 http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051
### Secret Pentagon Unit May Have Gathered and Kept Unauthorized Files on Thousands of Innocent Individuals and Organizations Newsweek Jan 23, 2006 http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/printer_307
### Protesters Subjected To 'Pretext Interviews' FBI Memo Shows No Specific Threats By Dan Eggen Washington Post Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
### Battlespace America: The new Pentagon can peruse intelligence on U.S.citizens and send Marines down Main Street Peter Byrne Mother Jones May/June 2005 Issue http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Thank (insert supreme being or any name here) for John Barlow and The EFF! Atleast not all Americans have stuck there collective head in the sand.
It says that the AG can wiretap without a court order (i.e. a warrant) only if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." He has to get a court order if the conversation involves someone in the US.
Okay, Bush wasn't breaking the law himself; he just asked his AG to break the law for him.
But he loves Jesus and thats all that matters. See, as long as you accept jesus into your heart,sinning is ok. In fact, the bigger the sin, the better! Isn't Jesus great?!
Please stop trying to support my argument. I'm a Christian, and while do I think the right-wing severely abuses the teaching of Jesus, I find your bigotry more offensive.
Honestly, this is why debating politics with people who disagree with you is more fun than with people who do agree with you. People who disagree with you don't have the ability to embrass you and make your side look bad with their own bad reasons for agreeing with you.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I honestly believe that Congress acknowledged a state of war, and that on that basis the President was authorized to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as conduct intelligence-gathering operations using all the means available to the Executive. This position is no more partisan than the one which would more narrowly interpret Congressional intent.
After all, as many people keep pointing out, Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of terrorism. Nor was the Hussein regime the worst perpetrator. While shutting down state sponsors of terror is an important part of the war, surely robust intellignece gathering operations are equally as important.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Feel free to substitute your own horrible act of slaughter, then.
Unless you're arguing that the U.S. already totally secure, and monitoring the communications of suspected terrorist cells is wholly unnecessary on account of them (a) not existing and (b) not having any convenient methods of murdering large numbers of people all at once.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Comparing Bin Laden and al quaeda with Hitler and germany is simply ludicrous. IT would only be appropriate if Hitler was a militant who never had control of Germany.
We appeased and allowed hitler and germany to take over countries militarily and officially. Bin Laden has no such power, al quaeda is not a nation.
While he is not a common criminal he's also not a leader of any country. Treating the al quaeda situation as a real war will get us no where. We can't conquer a mindset with bombs. Killing all the top members of Al Quaeda including Bin laden will not extinguish the problem.
A similar thing can be said of Iran. Iran has yet to call for or conquer it's neighboring countries like Germany did. We appeased germany by allowing them to conquer foreign nations. Trying to stop a countries inevitable technological advancement is equally ludicrous. A nuclear bomb is almost ancient tech by modern standards. It's hella powerful but it's far from new technology. Long range delivery systems and the sophisticaion of the nukes themselves is a different case.
Hmmm... Pie...
And since no one has any evidence that any kind of crime has been committed, why are we spending so much time discussing unsubstantiated rumors as if they are established fact?
Clear, Dark Skies
I am arguing that acts of terrorism are fundamentally unpreventable in a free society and only marginally so in a totalitarian one. Therefore the intelligence services in a free state should confine themselves to operating within confines of the law, respecting due process and citizen rights, otherwise the outcome is the loss of the very freedom they are supposedly defending and any moral authority the state had for no substantial practical gain, other than incurred by would-be tyrants, small and large, wishing to end such freedom to further their own designs. Furthermore, combined acts of terror globally for the last 50 years account for less then 10% of the casualties on both sides in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns alone, or less then 20% of the yearly death toll due to car accidents in the US. The whole point of terror is that it is conducted by weak enemies who, lacking any significant military strength, resort to psychological warfare aiming to frighten hundrends of millions of people out of their mind, to the point of them ceasing any logical thought, to the point of them reverting to their most base animal instincts, to the point of them giving up all their rights and freedoms for which their ancestors fought and died, to the point of bigotry and xenophobia becoming the standard in their relations with others, to the point of welcoming totalitarian police-state complete with intrusive surveilance which would boil the blood of any of the patriots of any decade past, to the point of where their fear becomes an all-encompassing world-view which can only be satisfied by bloodshed and military dominance of all who might be a source of that fear -- all of it by an inexpensive act of killing at most few thousands and making sure hysterical media enlarges that act until it surpasses the opening battles of WWII in preceived importance.
The way to fight terror is courage and resolve, not panic, not random lashing out at random targets and definitely not cowardice exemplified by pathetic bargraining of one's sniveling subservience to authority figures in exchange for a comforting but empty promise of protection by the state.
The most potent anti-terror weapon ever devised, one that makes Osama cringe, is a simple refusal to be indimidated by him and the corresponding responsibility of the media of reporting any terror attacks matter of factly, briefly and immediately de-emphasizing them without any hint of fear or hysteria. Conversely, fueled by fear mongering, crazed, out-of control activities of zealots on a power-mad binge of destruction of the cornerstone elements of the democratic legacy, under the cloak of "war on terror", most certainly please Osama greatly as the actions of these lunatics only legitimize his position in the view of many moderates in his audience and drive them to his cause. That is how the phony "patriots" whose contempt for the principles of democracy is only surpassed by their hate for all who would challenge their power make Osama's terror campain such a success.
This was not a formal declaration of war, it was a specific authorization to use necessary force.
I'm not sure if you followed the public debate that occurred when Congress authorized the use of force. But I did. And at no time during that debate was it suggested that this action would give the president full war-time powers with respect to domestic spying (or other domestic action for that matter). Don't you think the American people should have understood that issue when they advised their members of Congress on how to vote?
In fact, drafts that included language that could possibly, under some circumstances, give the president more domestic powers were explicitly cut from the final bill, because the Congress did not have the intent to give Bush those powers.
One thing we do agree on is that "robust intelligence operations" are important to combat the threat of terrorism. But it needs to be done within the law.
Don't know much about Galloway, and it doesn't matter. The pro-Iraq war is completely unhinged. If you can find a straw man to make it seem more hinged, well, goody for you.
I really wish I could implicitly trust the word of the president of the U.S.A. more than that of a megalomaniacal, murderous tyrant. But I can't, because Bush lied about the intelligence support for WMDs. He wanted a war, he did what he needed to get it. Bush now says he would have invaded without even that excuse.
A war of whim and fantasy, but real people are getting killed. We have probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam did. Those car bombs the bad guys set off don't compare with the bombs we drop or the artillary shells. They are landing in crowded neighborhoods. The Pentagon has no credibility with civilian casualty statistics. It is probably inevitable that they will lie their asses off to shore up support for the war.
What about those which died in previous wars to protect our civil liberties and way of life?
My real problem with Bush, is that he seems much too eager to sacrifice our liberties to try and secure a relatively small amount of safety (Hasn't the American death toll in Iraq surpassed that of 9/11 already?) I honestly believe that the path he's taking us down will lead to far more many deaths than any terrorist attack could. Take Palestine... they actually elected a government of what we call "terrorists", and they did it for a reason. The U.S. can't invade every Muslim country on this planet.
Now lets take me for an example. Bush said that there is "constructive debate, and debate which aides the enemy." And he went on to classify anti-war debate as non-constructive. Therefor I'm aiding the enemy. I've lived abroad since 9/11 and the Iraq war, and I've never been shy about my stance on the war. Therefore my communications are foreign communications which are aiding terrorism. Next stop for me, a military trial. I don't honestly think that they're going to send me to Guantanamo, but it scares me that they could.
So next time you blindly support a leader as you march our soldiers to their deaths (in search of WMDS,) remember that's not patriotism. Patriotism is trying to make our country better.
And one more for the road;
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
Okay, so the EFF sues AT&T for letting them do the wiretapping. Lets just say they win. Do you really think they will stop tapping the phones? Instead the NSA has to move the wiretapping from easy (ie, AT&T handing them the keys) to a bit more covert (ie, splicing in somewhere remote) which will cost tons more to the taxpayer than the original plan.
It's legal to tap the phones with a secret spy court warrant - they have a national security court filled with retired judges who agree to 99.99 percent of all requests for such wiretaps.
And, you can start wiretapping 72 hours before you need the court warrant, and it's still legal.
The problem is that - unconstitutionally - they have been wiretapping without a court warrant.
You'll still never see the warrant, nor will you ever be told such a wiretap existed, nor will you be able to use a Freedom Of Information request to find out if such a warrant ever was issued.
But it would be legal.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
My original post was somewhat tongue in cheek, but what you say is true...
The thing is, since the NSA or other agencies can legally get a tap without asking for 72 hours, how can AT&T be liable for anything? They just have to go along with whatever they are told because they dont know if the NSA is planning on actually getting a warrant or not.
The thing is, since the NSA or other agencies can legally get a tap without asking for 72 hours, how can AT&T be liable for anything?
Valid point, but AT&T is joint and separably liable in that they didn't require to see the warrant - which isn't shown to the person being wiretapped or released to the media but is physically viewable by the firm in which the wiretap is placed (e.g. AT&T).
If they had requested to see the warrant by email, phone, or in person and noted on a log that they were refused it, then they would get off scot free.
But they - apparently - didn't even ask, just like the good comrades they are when the KGB shows up.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And since no one has any evidence that any kind of crime has been committed, why are we spending so much time discussing unsubstantiated rumors as if they are established fact?
Because if the corroborated rumors are true, then there has been a major violation of the Constitutional rights of many, many US Citizens--the thought of which, surpisingly, bothers many, many US citizens. In the forefront of concerns is that the elected branch chartered, by oath, with enforcing laws, specifically Constitutional law, is the alleged violator. In fact the alleged violator has admitted that the program exists and made claims regarding the nature of the program that do not align with previous public claims. Many consider that worth discussing. Odd, huh?
This cat isn't squeezing its narrow behind back in the bag. You'll have to do better than arguing that we can't discuss the legality of a program classified as top secret because of its classification. That's simply not realistic, and it's quite a dangerous idea for our system of representative government.
The constitution gives the president control of the defense of the country, it doesn't give it to congress, or say that congress can limit his control.
Now, that does not mean there are no limits on executive power. In later court cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the authority granted in Article 2 does not supercede the rights granted in Article 4; thus the restriction that he can wiretap foreigners all he wants, but that he needs a warrant to wiretap Americans on U.S. soil.
Clear, Dark Skies
I notice that he did not say "I chose not to get a warrant."
Seeing how many FISA cases there have been since 9-11, he could argue that he was referring to a case where a warrant was acquired. In addition, if the person in question was not in the U.S. legally, then the FISA warrant requirement does not apply.
That admission - while suggestive - is not hard evidence.
Clear, Dark Skies
the truth - and the only thing I've found is people making hyperventilated claims with no substance behind them.
If these "anonymous NSA sources" decide to step up to the plate then we can actually judge the merits of their charges. If someone comes up with something more substantial than empty claims that the NSA was eavesdropping on Christopher Hitchens, I'll give them a listen.
Until then, I give this hysteria no more credence than any other conspiracy theory.
Clear, Dark Skies
So, ~312 times more data than I have on one of my computers today, which is ~312 times more data than I had on one of my computers 10 years ago. Saying someone has "too much" data when your only measure is the byte size is a bit of an oversimplification. And it's not exactly easy to meet demand if you can't analyze your traffic to figure out where the demand is coming from.
I like my privacy, but the idea that a phone company wouldn't aggregate data about calls made on its system is just naive. What about a shipping company? Should they just guess how many trucks they're likely to need? "Looks like we've got a crapload of boxes piling up.. we should probably order more trucks."
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
He didn't admit to warrantless wiretaps of U.S. residents. He admitted to authorizing a wiretap of a "suspected al Queda member". FISA's warrant requirements and the 4th amendment only apply when the person being tapped is legally in the country.
His statement is suggestive, I agree, but it doesn't rise to the level of hard evidence.
Clear, Dark Skies
you're too lazy to do it yourself.
As for letting Congress judge the merits of these charges - excellent idea. I'd like to point out that they have not yet done so, though you seem to have made up your own mind.
Clear, Dark Skies
Lazy? Maybe. Relevant? No.
I know the guy's name already, I don't need to google it. You're supposedly the truth-seeker. Go forth and seek it, then...or quit lying about your goal.
I'd like to point out that they have not yet done so
You could, but it would be redundant, as I pointed that out in my last comment. Look up "abdicate" if you're confused.
I'm still in "Shock and Awe" that the US President was caught spying on the US population illegally without court orders and that the US media has pretty much swept it under the rug in under a few weeks. This certainly isn't the general public (or congress) of the Nixon era...if tricky dick was in politics today he wouldn't even get a censure...let alone booted out in shame. Clinton gets a blowjob in the oval office.....gets in trouble big time, Bush breaks the law on a massive and unpresecedented scale - no one says a words because that would be seen as aiding and abetting the 'bad guy' terrorists. Makes me want to move to Canada. Cheers, Dean
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/2
http://billmon.org/archives/002349.html, emphasis my own:
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Right! Why is there debate about "shall not be violated". Papers and effects seems to obviously cover correspondence. Sheesh.
No Citizen is above the law. If the President must violate the law to uphold his oath of office, then he must submit to the punishment for his crimes. I mean, if he must fall on his sword to "protect the Union", so be it.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.