NSA Spying Comes Under Attack

maotx writes "The NSA's no-longer-secret surveillance program came under a two-pronged attack this week on both political and legal fronts. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania threatens to cut funding to NSA's spying program if President Bush's administration does not come clean on how it works. Separately, two hearing dates have been set for a lawsuit that seeks to prove that AT&T illegally cooperated with the NSA and violated federal wiretapping laws in doing so. Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'"

Comments

He's going to be waiting a long time

[grasshoppa]

The public doesn't care. They have their Idol, they have their gas guzzingly SUV. What do they care that the president is the one breathing heavy on the other end of the line.

Personal liberties? What are those?

Re:He's going to be waiting a long time

[citabjockey]

And just how would you know that Bush is just going after international communications? IIRC Gonzales did not "rule out" domestic survelance. As far as what is new about this, Bush has sidestepped FISA court. If Clinton had a tap with no court order, he should be in just as much hot water as Bush.

Arlen Specter as Vice President? [OT]

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Arlen Specter ran with George Bush as his Vice President, would they be Bush 'n Specter?

People Do Not Care

[thebdj]

Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'

Sadly, like most things in the US, all that will build up is public apathy. This is the same apathy we see every year with laughingly low voter turnouts. Many people in America are perfectly happy not knowing what is going on and sadly enough have no clue the NSA has been spying on Americans. Those who do know are often perfectly happy to say, "They are only listening to the terrorist. They are just trying to keep up safe."

The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies. If they feel a bit safer, they are more then glad to hand over every last civil liberty, until we are nothing more then a military state. Our country has come a long way since Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Re:People Do Not Care

[iminplaya]

The majority of people in America are too stupid...

You're cutting them a lot of slack. That would assume some innocence on their part. I contend that they are just as despicable and corrupt as the people they elect. They vote for their own personal interests. They vote against their neighbors' or the community's, or the nation's, or the world's...if it collides with their agenda. They feign ignorance to avoid responsibility for their actions, or in this case, their votes. Is their version of "plausible deniability". This is why some people say, "There are no innocents.", and I tend to agree. The only thing that is saving us is the gridlock they create. That's the only thing that make a democracy better than a direct dictatorship.

Re:People Do Not Care

[thedletterman]

This will likely be an unpopular opinion here, but there's a few things that irk me about the above reference. 1. Benjamin Franklin never said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.", It was written by Richard Jackson. Benjamin Franklin himself denied writing this phrase in a letter to David Hume dated a year after the book that attributed the phrase to him. Franklin's nearest quote to the same effect holds quite a different meaning: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power" [1] 2. "This is the same apathy we see every year with laughingly low voter turnouts" - This statement is patently absurd [2] 3. People who frequently pen, "The majority of people in America are too stupid..." are typically intellectually insecure, obnoxiously arrogant, or both. In either regard, they presume to perform with superior judgement to the common sense, which is the antithesis of democracy. 4. "Many Americans sadly enough have no clue the NSA has been spying on Americans." There's 2.2 million webpages on the internet dedicated to reporting the NSA spying efforts. I don't have access to Lexis Nexis anymore or I would happily tell you how many front pages the story has made. The idea that people are 'unaware' of this is stupid. Unlike you, they understand the need to obtain valid intelligence information to fight a war. [3] 5. The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [4] What I would rather argue, is which of security or privacy are a more essential liberty, and in fact, is privacy even essential. The Constitution requires reasonable privacy, not absolute. Privacy is not essential for freedom, other than the fact it requires accountability. so you are no longer free to be unaccountable for your actions, given the times, would it be reasonable or even prudent to allow this? There's a big difference between the NSA spying, and say, Bill Clinton using illegal wiretaps to spy on Senators. How many people survived the Rose Law firm scandal by the way?

Re:People Do Not Care

[tshak]

Privacy is not essential for freedom

Free speech is essential for freedom. Anonymity is essential for free speach. I can not excercise free speech if I'm worried about the government recording everything I say. When I am engaged in some form of private communication my privacy is my freedom. Whether Franklin originally wrote it or not, I will proclaim: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Re:Yadda, yadda

[maotx]

And we should care, why, exactly?

Because a senator is making a little noise to the public, increasing awareness, and pointing out how that what the NSA, ATT, and the Bush Administration did quite possible violates our Constitution?
Who cares if it is election time or not? Just as long as progress is being made.

Re:Yadda, yadda

[sconeu]

Because the President violated his oath of office?

He swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Allowing domestic wiretaps without a warrant is a violation of said oath.

And the warrants would have been easy to obtain, including the fact that they're available up to 72 hours after the fact.

What the item leaves out

[KarMann]

They didn't mention this bit, however:

"Institutionally, the presidency is walking all over Congress at the moment," Specter said. "If we are to maintain our institutional prerogative, that may be the only way we can do it."

Specter made clear that, for now, the threat was just that.

"I'm not prepared to call for the withholding of funds," he told reporters later.

So for Specter's part, it's pretty much just posturing, or else maybe he kinda sorta meant it, until some of the boys from the administration came to have a friendly little chat with him.

Re:What the item leaves out

[SatanicPuppy]

Hey, remember that this guy is a fricking Republican. He doesn't need to posture...He's got nothing to lose if his party stays in power.

What he's doing is saying, "Hey! President Jackass! Things are going to get ugly around here if you don't start keeping us in the loop! This ain't the House, where they gotta depend on your ass for fundraising! Half of us aren't up for re-election until 2010! So tell us what's going on with this NSA crap, or we may just create us a little gridlock."

Specter is one of the last old school republicans in congress...I can remember when I thought he was a jackass rather than one of the only rational senators.

Re:What the item leaves out

[SatanicPuppy]

It's kinda like Bush senior. I hated Bush senior. God I wanted him out of office. I thought his policies sucked, I thought he didn't give a damn about the american people, I thought his economic policy was hilariously incompetent. Thought he took too many vacations.

But today, I can look back on him and think, "Well yea, he wasn't the best...But I didn't fear for the country with him in charge." No I didn't agree with him, but I could see where he was coming from, and I could see that he was making decisions based on strong evidence. I may not have agreed with the decisions, but I could see how someone might agree with them.

There are two types of unwinnable arguments. In one, you're arguing with someone, and you end up having to agree to disagree. They believe what they believe, and it's not crazy, it's just not what you believe. Their analysis is rational, you both agree on all the facts, you just come to different conclusions based on the facts.

Then there are the people whose descisions are based on things besides rational thought. They add too much weight to facts that are incidental to the point, they make leaps of logic (faith?) that are unwarranted by the strength of their premises. They argue based on their personal beliefs and feelings rather than on the actual facts, and they misrepresent the facts to support their beliefs.

Having seen far too much of the latter in the last 10 years, I am heartened and refreshed when I come across the former.

Pretty sad.

Heads should roll!

[TheSpatulaOfLove]

The only way the attitudes will change is if impeachment is successful and heads roll along the line. Til then, the mouth-breathers will continue to support this administration and their crimes.

Blowjobs & hiding it from your wife (and the public) or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars and profiteering - Which do you think is more of an impeachable offense?

Re:Yadda, yadda

[Keith Russell]

And we should care, why, exactly?

Because your rights as a citizen of the United States of America should always have a higher priority than your loyalty to any political party. Always.

It's probably legal. There are bigger issues!

[Medievalist]

Since we aren't allowed to see all the laws governing the behaviour of the NSA, why should we assume that their spying is illegal?

Bigger Issues? How about:
    This government says it can seize US citizens and subject them to secret military tribunals.
    This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
    This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.

Now add all that up: Any US President can say you are a terrorist, kidnap your whole family in the middle of the night, and have your kids raped to death in front of your wife to make her tell where you are hiding. And Gonzalez will say it's all legal, if anyone ever finds out about it.

That's the Novus Ordo Seculorum of George W. Bush and his Congress. As Orwell predicted, a hobnailed boot stamping on a human face. Do you right-wingers seriously want to grant total power to whoever's in the White House? What about if it's your evil arch-nemesis Hillary, or some Kennedy apparatchik?

FISA Court Anyone?

[Siberwulf]

How is it that every time one of these "NSA Surveillance" articles pops up, nobody chimes in about FISA Court? (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)

All you tinfoil hat people need to read this pdf document.

Some talking points:
Page 3: "In so doing, the Court of Review recognized that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."

More Page 3: ""perhaps most crucially, the executive branch not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs. The President and his deputies are charged by the constitution with the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States"

Page 4: In addition, substantial authority indicates that the President has inherent constitutional authority over the gathering of foreign intelligence--authority that Congress may not circumscribe. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review suggested that, even after FISA, the President possesses inherent constitutional Authority that FISA could not limit.

The list of quotes goes on
So, for all you people wondering why the hell nobody has got any legal dirt on all these 'illegal activities', you need to read your history book. Its come up before, FISA court shot the president down, FISA court of review shot FISA court down, and the Supreme Court Won't even hear the case because its been settled already. This is all democratic dragging through the mud.

/rant off

Re:FISA Court Anyone?

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Classic A=B and C=B therefore Z=A thinking. Court says president and do foreign wiretapping...everyone agrees this court has final say...therefore president can do domestic wiretapping!

you need to read your history book.

I like reading as much as the next guy, but I prefer to reference documents such as the constitution, federalist papers, etc more than a brief submitted by the AG explaining why his boss can do whatever he wants.

For anyone thinking the above was taken from some scholarly dissertation on the subject, it is actually taken from everyone's favorite civil liberties crusader (NOT) AG Gonzolez's response to congress about the NSA wire tapping (that means VERY unbiased look at the issues ;-).

Re:FISA Court Anyone?

[killjoe]

What i don't uderstand is why Bush would circumvent a kangaroo court designed to rubber stamp what he wants anyway? It's not like any of the judges on the FISA court care about the constitution or the US citizens. They are there simply to put a patina of legality on whatever Bush wants to do.

As for your legal analysis: It seems many highly esperienced legal professionals disagree with you. These professionals include law professors, judges, and other lawyers. I don't think I will simply accept your word on this matter.

I was going to say we should let the supreme court handle it but they don't really care about the constitution either. Really the court system is a joke now isn't it.

Re:FISA Court Anyone?

[DragonWriter]

First, a bit of pedantry, its not the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court", it is the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" which is set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

But more substantively, the ruling you cite refers back to a Fourth Circuit ruling prior to the adoption of FISA (which, therefore, discusses what powers the President has when Congress has not acted) and then makes some comments about inherent power that have little precedential weight because the issue of the degree and extent of Presidential authority to act without or contrary to Congressional dicates was not at issue in the case before the FISC. Instead, the issue was whether FISA has expanded Presidential power.

Though, for some reason, everytime this issue gets brought up in any internet forum, some defender of the administration trots this out as if it conclusively proved something.

Feingold!

[loqi]

Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. The one Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. The Senator to call for the censure of Bush over the whole wiretapping thing in the first place. If anyone's the One Good Senator, it's Feingold.