Slashdot Mirror
The Fine Print On Wiretapping Review
notarus writes "Congress' new bill to 'force' the wiretapping program to be reviewed by FISA has some very doublespeak provisions. One nice line: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.'"
So, if i'm to understand that correctly, if you use the grey area rule a bit, that can be construed as to allow anyone exemption if they were considered an agent of a foreign power... And terrorists are certainly a foreign power.. so if they wanted to say i'm a suspected terrorrist, then i'm obviously connected to a foreign terrorist cell, and i'm free game for no legal protection? Or am i just missing something....
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Hoefully this won't pass, but I would almost bet it will.
We can safely bet it will not be vetoed by POTUS!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The devil is in the details, and he's plotting busily away.
For one thing the bill allows FISC to issue, not individual warrants, but permission for exactly the kind of driftnet fishing expedition that's never been legal against US citizens.
Then comes the real land mine. If someone does challenge a domestic spying program, this bill says FISC can "dismiss a challenge to the legality of an electronic surveillance program for any reason". Think about that: "any reason". Not "any legal reason", not "any rational reason", not "any reason related to national security". This simply means the court can throw out any complaint without a hearing just because it wants to.
"...foreign powers and agents of foreign powers" makes this sound much better than it really is. Just remember that if spying on "agents" doesn't allow enough abuse to satisfy the people behind this, they'll interpret it as "suspected agents". After that, it will somehow expand to "alleged agents" and then to "possible agents", meaning everybody. Then they'll be able to bug the Democratic Party as before, only this time it will be legal.
...the great sage (and government employee) Gomer Pyle: "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
Searching for "Laws fall silent in times of war" led to this page. Putting it in context, barring further violence US politics hopefully will begin to lose some hysteria and in another 5 years and we can get back to more pressing issues such as whether or not such and such president got or did not get a bj and whether we ought to impeach the bastard. And he didn't inhale.
Shh.
. . .there's no way in hell that august body is gonna rule against Prez.
Not really true, at the moment, as the recent ruling on the tribunals shows; however. . .
To show close you are to the truth compare and contrast C. Thomas' minority opinion in the imminent domain case, where he was both legally sound and right, with his minority opinion in the tribunal case, where he completely ignores his own legal philosophy in order to favor absolute powers for the president.
The cognitive disonance is scarey, as is the fact that these fundamental issues of American legal philosophy are coming down to single vote majorities.
KFG
i knew the law degree would come in handy some time. ok, sorry, but you guys have it wrong. the quoted language is to clarify that congress is making no attempt to divest the president of the rights he has in that office pursuant to article ii of the constitution. any efforts by the congress to limit the executive powers expressly granted to the president in article ii are illegal because they implicate a breach of separation of powers. along the same lines, the president could not pass a resolution or treaty that would take away legislative powers from the congress. i take no position on the proposed legislation.
I see all the political propoganda going around these days as nothing more than FUD. The text of the bill isn't even in TFA, so without doing some legwork (which I'm sure someone here will do), you really have no idea what is in the bill.
It's certainly within the power of congress to present a bill that would reduce the effectiveness of a previously passed bill.
My take on this is that anything going through congress should be thought through with the mindset that terrorism is not a factor. Terrorism today is like the war on drugs or the war on communism. It never ends and it's a tool used by the powers that be to do things to the citizenry that would under normal circumstances be impossible. If you strip away the fundamental principals of society to deal with a problem, then the solution is worse than the problem.
We are dealing with three things here - 1) we live an an information age society that is fundamentally different than the one's which gave birth to the majority of our laws and 2) we have a general populous that is ignorant of that which makes our society great. The third thing is that political maneuvering is based on a polling structure that encourages answering without any pontification or even any background information. Sure, we would all like to live in a well thought out society, but we can't even force the issue of working in a well thought out environment. We can blame our congressman for making bad decisions, but a better solution would be to become involved to the point where we were helping governmental decision making in general better.
I certainly see that government will always push the limits of it's own power and understand that laws which grant power to the government should be written with a conservative (conservative, not right-wing) mindset. But I also can see that lawmakers have a different perspective than the general populous. They sometimes have a better historical perspective. They sometimes have access to information that the general public does not which factors into their decision making, and they sometimes have motivations completely unrelated to a particular bill that push them to vote one way or another. In the end, they have to live with their decisions just as much as we do. If their track record is so bad, then why is the re-election rate upwards of 90%? Surely it couldn't be pure apathy on the part of their detractors.
It's a bait and switch:
..."
..."
..."
President: "Under my constitutional authority
Supreme Court, playing along: "You don't have that constitutional authority."
Rubber-stamp Congress: "Under the President's constitutional authority
Supreme Court: "The law clarifies the President's constitutional authority
Bang! You and I and everyone else who gives a damn about freedom can howl all we want, but all it takes is one Supreme Court decision to enshrine this previously-nonexistent authority as precedent.
I feel like a conspiracy-theorist nutcase even making this post, but you know, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Let's be real. Government WILL wind up with huge amounts of information about us, and the technological means to filter it. Financial transactions, electronic communications, travel -- all of those are trackable in theory, and anything trackable can be stored and mined. Over the next couple of decades, that theory will increasingly become fact.
e n-without-data-privacy/, but it's just a start. A lot more is needed.
We need laws that protect us DESPITE this inevitable progression. I.e., since freedom will lose on the battlefield of what information government has access to, we need to find ANOTHER battlefield where freedom can win. And the only viable candidate I see is to greatly strengthen laws controlling what government can DO with data, even if it possesses same.
This winds up being a system design issue, as tough as the flip-side problem of "How will government integrate all that information to get at it anyway." So we need to start solving it right away, just like the integration problem is already being worked on, then get that solution out into the public consciousness.
I think I've made a good start at http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/06/freedom-ev
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
Like you, I'm getting pretty fed up with this excuse for trampling on the constitution and human faces in secret prisons scattered worldwide. While 9/11 was certainly a horrific tragedy, it certainly doesn't represent a threat of such proportions that we need to sidestep the trivialities of the constitution to preserve the continued existence of America.
While it's a completely different conflict, consider the threat that the Civil War posed to the country. 9-11 was baby crap compared to how close America came to disolving during the Civil War.
So, yeah, America has been guided through some spectacularly difficult times by that Constitution. And these neocons who are second guessing the original authors of the document, well, I wouldn't exactly put them on the same shelf of great thinkers occupied by the likes of Ben Franklin.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The quote is just boilerplate, designed to save everyone the expense of a court case.
The fact is, nothing in any Act can constrain the executives authority to conduct foriegn intelligence data gathering. That is a prerogative of the Executive, as enumerated in the Constitution, as interpreted (repeatedly) by the Supreme Court. An amendment to the Constitution is required. First, we establish that foreign intel gathering is seperate from domestic gathering for purpose of applying 4th amendment:
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case.
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
"[T]he instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
Let us not forget that the 4th covers people. Surely if seizing foriegners is an Exuctive prerogative to making war, then siezing thier communications is also:
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
"The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force]. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use."
Now establish Constitutional authority for Executive to conduct foreign surviellance:
United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970)
"We...discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap. Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)
"In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.""
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong
"For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations."
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Sealed Case No. 02-001
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority
IANAL, but surely FISA has no business determining if something is constitutional. Specter has come up with a poorly negotiated compromise that weakens two branches of government to the point of being hobbled. I really, really hope that consequences are fully thought out by our congress and senate before they agree to this power-grab. I'm hopeful, not expectant.
If you post it, they will read.
The Legislative body doesn't have that power anyway.
How fortunate.. you lost him right when he finished!
Also, withholding an opinion (until sufficient analysis is done) is better than jumping to conclusions without careful thought, as you seem apt to do. In fact, the OP's point was that many people posting here hadn't analyzed the story correctly and had the completely wrong idea (and yet are still ranting on)
The President has no constitutional authority to allow the wiretapping program, the doublespeak in the article means nothing. ... Of course since no american judge has the balls to knock down the constitution breaking laws Bush has passed such as the patriot act, Bush is effectively above the constitution. He needs no further authority since you dumbasses won't hold him accountable.
So the arguement is moot.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
One nice line: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.'
So, um...what's the whole point of this act, if the President can simply decide that this doesn't apply to what he's doing? Are we just paying our Congressmen to generate laws and paperwork that have no meaning or way for enforcement?
Whatever happened to a system of checks and balances? Geez.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
I'm surpised nobody has posted an EFF link yet. Here's the summary & link from BoingBoing:
Cindy Cohn, EFF's stellar Legal Director, sez, "Senator Specter and the Bush Administration today announced that they have reached a deal to send all of the cases concerning the illegal NSA wiretapping (including EFF's) to the secret FISA court. This is being spun in the press as a big concession by the Administration but in truth it's an abomination -- the FISA court acts in secret and doesn't even hear argument from both sides. This bill will likely move fast, so we only have a limited window to try to stop it. Here's s direct link to EFF's action center to let you write to the relevant Congressional committees."
It takes less than 30 seconds to send an e-mail to your congresscritter, and it's really the least you can do if you really care about this issue.
The system of checks and balances remains firmly in place. Congress cannot unilaterally override the Constitution. The language is actually probably boiler-plate to help avoid a Constitutional challenge of the new law.
As for the President we've already seen that the courts can and will override the Executive branch when they claim Constitutional privledges (Hamdan v Rumsfeld). In that case they said "go back to the Legislative branch to get clarifying law, until then we say this is beyond your Constitutional scope of power".
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
A. They don't count our votes.
B. They don't work for us.
C. They ignore the constitution.
D. They probably killed Kennedy and faked 9/11.
E. How is any of this a surprise?
F. Halliburton
G. Profit!
Are these the droids you were looking for?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
So, if i'm to understand that correctly, if you use the grey area rule a bit, that can be construed as to allow anyone exemption if they were considered an agent of a foreign power... And terrorists are certainly a foreign power.. so if they wanted to say i'm a suspected terrorrist, then i'm obviously connected to a foreign terrorist cell, and i'm free game for no legal protection? Or am i just missing something....
Even worse....
What if you are a Travel Agent working in the US (w/o US citizenship). Or an exchange student whose home country uses 220/240V electricity instead of our 110/120V.
I think that makes you an Agent of a Foreign Power.
Project Vote Smart may be a good place to start (the website interface is a little confusing; if you pick the wrong state you can change it on the left-hand side of the page). Voting requirements are quite different depending on the state you're in. While the information on this website gives you a pretty good idea of what you need to do, you should look up your state's elections website (the link to which should be available on Project Vote Smart) to make sure you've got the most up-to-date information, and feel free to call your local election office with any questions (they can be found on Project Vote Smart if you know what county of your state you're in). The following points are, in my opinion, the most important to look for:
As far as deciding who to vote for, the least-biased sources take the most work to examine. Our next election in November will affect Congress (every member of the House of Representatives and a number of members of the Senate) -- when t
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
its just that simple. in the 50's there was the mccarthy 'commie hunts'. fix that and the world will be safe again.
...'.
60's had vietnam. fix that and the world will be safe again.
70's had watergate. fix that...
80's and 90's had war on drugs. if we can fix that, all our problems will be solved.
skip to the '00 century and we now have 'war on terror.
and guess what, it won't be won, it won't fix ANY of our problems and next decade (god willing) we'll have forgotton all about this silly gov power-play and we'll have a BRAND NEW chicken-little thing to run around saying 'the sky is falling', etc.
people - there IS no reason to keep giving gov more and more power. give it more power and we seem to get no new returns on our investment. soon, the gov has its fun and then goes off to choose another plaything.
this is just how the world works. and no, nothing got any better for winning or attempting to win any of these 'battles'. because they are not winnable and if it takes 10 or 30 years, we WILL finally realize that.
not everything in life is a 'war on
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."