Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
So if Arlen Specter ran with George Bush as his Vice President, would they be Bush 'n Specter?
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."
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
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.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
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?
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.
This sig intentionally left blank.
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
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
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.