Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules NSA Wiretapping Unconstitutional
strredwolf writes "CNN is reporting that NSA's warrantless wiretapping program has been ruled unconstitutional. This is the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. From the article: "U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.""
Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.
Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively.
Yes, retroactively. You can spot a suspect, set up an emergency wiretap, then a day later you can walk into the secret court and tell the judge why it was necessary to set up the wiretap. And you'll get the warrant. It's no hardship, unless you have reason to believe a judge wouldn't grant you the warrant.
This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately." End of controversy, they can still listen in on suspects, it's still done without revealing state secrets. Arguing that they need the ability to spy on people without warrants makes them look awfully suspicious.
P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?
It doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
One branch of the U.S. government acts in a sane and rational manner, not to mention appropriate regard for the Constitution.
It's such a small article but with all of the talk that has been going on about the "alleged" illegal wiretapping this simple story headline was more then enough to make my jaw drop open in awe.
However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?
Bravo, Judge Taylor, Bravo.
That's already the case. Pretty much everyone who has rallied behind Bush and his administration for the advances of executive power that he's pushed for criticized Clinton for the same attempts. They granted the line item veto, only to have Clinton use it once and have it taken away. Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing. Clinton's ties to industry were scrutinized; Bush's are clear, yet it's OK because it shows he supposedly knows what's going on.
Directly related to FISA and the wiretapping, Clinton's administration conducted a few physical searches w/o warrants, which was legal at the time. When it was discovered, and a law was passed saying that a warrant was needed... they stopped.
It's just a case of "When our guys do it, it's OK, but if your guys do it it's not" syndrome. What they really want to have happen is have a law that only takes effect when members of a certain party are elected. So there would be a "Republican Only" law that only works when the president's party is Republican. And so on.
FTFA
"The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets."
What about the President's authority is secret? Is there some part of the constitution that you have to be TS/SCI to read? If the law exists that allows the President such powers, then let's take a look at it. I think the "state secrets" trump is going to fail them this time. It's not about the purpose for what's being done, but the authority to do so, and this judge has (thank goodness) made a sensible call that the President does not have the power to authorize this invasion of privacy, even to combat terrorism or while thinking of the childern.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Damn activist judges, legislating from the bench! What's that? There was no legislating involved here? She was just ruling based on the laws that are already on the book? Well, she's still a damn activist judge!
This guy's the limit!
This has been anticipated and all the pardons have already been written and just awaiting a presidential signature at the right time.
Yeah yeah people have been talking about how f*cked the government has become but the nice thing about the United States is that it DOES eventually correct itself and justice usually comes.
The absolute and correct interpretation of how disastrous this presidency has been is now beginning. Worst administration ever and that has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It just IS.
"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" -- Andrew Jackson's reply to the Supreme Court on the subject of indian removal.
The lesson learned: judges can strike down anything, but unless it's enforced, the decision is moot. Will the NSA stop? No. Will the government ensure they stop? No. What can anyone do? Nothing.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Who cares (aside from partisan dumbasses (and everyone who is partisan is a dumbass))? Government abuse of power always sucks, no matter what ideology the perpetrators subscribe to.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'd expand the question in your PS to why ever trust an entity which can exercise total power over you? Its not wise to do, even if you like the people in said entity.
Why stage a suicide, or even a murder for that matter, when they can imprison or even kill him and then claim that it was done legally?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I would argue that your right to free association is being violated. After all, the wiretaps between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen, even if its the foreign national whom the goverhment is really interested. You can't collect the data without violating the rights of the US citizen (unreasonable search, freedom of association). Hence, they should always need a warrant.
History is such a fun thing to watch being repeated... Just sit back, read the news, and everytime there is the word Terrorist, replace it mentally with "communist" or "japaneese spy" or "Indian." Man, why don't we teach more history in the schools? Honestly...
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics. The idea that the parties are supposed to work together to support society is not a familiar concept. They think it's about two teams, one of which must be the winning side and one of which must be the losing side. They've picked a side, not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I think the sad part of this story is that the ALCU are the ones standing up for our rights. Where is the outrage? The problem is Americans are too complacent in their SUV and Mc-Mansion lives to give a F***.
I remember a poll a while back that stated 50% of people surveyed are willing to give up their rights if they thought it would help the war on terror. I am sure that's not what our forefathers had in mind.
Most people just take their freedoms for granted and assume they will always be there. I can imagine the look on their faces when the police show up to randomly search their homes, and they state "Don't you need a warrant for this?" and the police reply "Nope. Not any more!"
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in court about whether he had sex with an intern.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.
Most people in the United States supported slavery too.
The public at large cannot always be trusted to support the moral or ethical side of an issue, nor can they be trusted to maintain logic or consistency in their beliefs. I think it was Ben Franklin that said (paraphrasing now), "Being in the majority means that most people agree with you; it does not mean that you are right."
That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is intended to be a semi-permanent document that does not change with the "whims of the people". It *can* be changed, and in fact it was changed to outlaw slavery once and for all, but it is intentionally difficult to do. And if the Constitution says that this program is against the law of the land, then that's that. Public support is irrelevant.
What I was a bit surprised to read in this ruling was that the judge said the President of the United States had willfully and knowingly broken the Fourth Amendment. That's an impeachable offense; in fact, pretty much the worst kind of impeachable offense. Now, there are a lot of things that people on the other side of the aisle have said Bush could be impeached for, but this is the first time that I know of that we have a legal ruling by a federal judge that documents an actual offense for which the President could be held legally accountable. This federal judge has basically labeled the President a high criminal in a legally binding decision.
The question is, will anything be done about it? I guess we'll know in November. As we've seen, politics matters a lot more than ethics or legality to the current congress.
We just want security WITH protections of our rights.
You're missing the point. They're not interested in protecting you from terrorists at all, they're interested in chipping away the Bill of Rights. Stopping terrorism is just a pretext for a power grab.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
The phrase "domestic wiretap" is exactly what they were doing here.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
First, the lawsuit that was thrown out wasn't "wiretapping" at all. It was data mining -- a transfer of supposedly private records to the government so that they could be sifted for patterns. Not covered by FISA.
Second, in the current case, the privacy issue is entirely secondary. The real concern is: President Bush knowingly broke the law. End of story. (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act describes what steps the government needs to take to wiretap the phones of foreign agents. Those steps include a warrant by the special FISA court. The Administration did not seek those warrants on a large number of wiretaps. FISA also specifies that it is the only law covering such surveillance.) Caught at breaking the law -- a law, by the way, he had signaled his complete satisfaction with, and which, if he had asked, he could easily have had amended -- he brazenly declared his intention to go on breaking the law.
A few years back, a hyperventilating minority of the political leaders in this country screamed bloody murder and tried to oust a President for perjuring himself in a civil suit concerning a matter from long before his Presidency. It was, they told us, a matter of high principle: The President must obey the law. He must respect the judicial process. He must not be an oathbreaker, since he swears an oath to uphold the Consititution and faithfully execute the laws of the land.
Now, that group of leaders is shockingly silent -- indeed, worse, vocal in their defense -- when their party's President knowingly and intentionally violated an actual law and thus knowingly violates his oath of office. Even for Washington, the hypocrisy here is rank.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Unfortunately, you are simply wrong. The NSA is not doing anything that it couldn't do legally. All that is required is getting a FISA judge to issue a warrant. Since the institution of the FISA court in 1979, the government has requested more than 10,000 warrants. It has been denied four times.
But wait! Today's terrorist moves fast. Maybe there isn't time to speak to a judge! Bzzzt. But thanks for playing. The FISA judges hold court in the oddest of places -- such as the chief judge's living room at 3 AM -- so that they can be responsive and quick. And even then, the law (as amended) allows the government to conduct an emergency wiretap so long as it gets a (retroactive) warrant within 72 hours. So no nasty terrorist plots can slip through waiting on that burdensome due process.
Should the government be allowed to wiretap suspected terrorists? Of course. Not a single major player has ever said otherwise. But that's the question the Bush people want you to focus on, so that you don't notice the real question: Should the President of the United States be bound by the Constitution and the laws passed under it? And this Administration's clear, stark answer is: NO. The President should be entirely unconstrained.
That is why this Administration is the greatest threat to the Republic since the Civil War.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Just another typicaly ruling from a liberal judge.
That's sure a well thought out counterpoint you've got there. But why bother with facts when they don't support your side, eh?
They make their own laws on the fly
Apparently so does the exec branch.
How are we going to prevent terrorist attacks if our own government says we can't listen in on their conversations?
Oh for Chrissake. Who has a problem with wiretapping terrorists?! I have never heard anyone say they are against wiretapping terrorists. Not one.
What I have heard is that wiretapping should done within applicable laws. Even congressional leadership (from both parties) has said that. Why is this talking point, that some people are against wiretapping, so stuck in your pea-sized red brain?!
Liberals are too concerned about big brother
As is the Republican Congress who held hearings about this exact issue...
to realized that there terrorists out there laughing it up as they get ready to explode at a town near you.
Oh? I thought we were in Iraq, "fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them here." Was that another lie then?
Yeah. Everything is black & white. Everyone disagreeing with you is a whiny-ass "liberal". People fall into neat categories and are either with you on everything or against you on everything.
*slaps knee* Damn dude, that's a good one! HAR HAR HAR!
What a limited scope of thought you appear to hold, for one accusing others of lacking in the thinking department no less. Somewhere between fascinating and horrifying.
Your entire statement falls on its face by dwelling in naive radio-talk-show style catchphrasing, and the oversimplifications that come with it.
>One of Clinton's staff members, a liberal, is embarassed by liberals like these on slashdot.
And that should matters to who, how?
>There is a war on to fight terrorism
There is a war on to put into action the pipe dreams of the PNAC and other neocon thinktanks, an attempt to impose their own worldview and vision of "democracy" upon foreign nations in particular areas of the world for both idealogical and strategic purposes.
They are also intent on increasing the powers of the executive above the other branches of our government, and imposing limitations on individual liberty resembling policies one would expect to find in a police state rather than our own. All in direct opposition to the US constitution, and in violation of the very priciples they feign to cherish and protect. All in the pursuit of creating and keeping stronger centralized government power, to better reach their aims.
Actions taken in pursuit of these goals have been conducted under the auspices of "fighting terrorism", which recieves little more than lip service, as far as effective strategies for identifying and containing real threats are concerned.
They are crucifying the very core of conservative ideals, in the name of empire building for their own idealogical and personal gains. They attempt to appeal to conservatives by gutting/ruining government entities they themselves find no use for (typically those with potential for common good, even given their faults) while they are busy building the ugly Orwellian machine behind the curtain. The very "big government" traditional conservatives despise the most.
Furthermore, this "war" is being conducted at the top levels with such incompetence as to be a complete embarrassment, and falling far short of the leadership our troops and other persons (the ones on the ground actually doing the finding, fighting, and dying) deserve. (I can't believe there was even talk about voluntarily opening another front. The idiocy of that kind of move is astounding.)
>hence people on all sides dying. Liberals would like to runa away from it and pay off the terrorists
Running away from what? From hunting Bin Laden to go have ourselves a grudge match with a fucking global has-been like Saddam?
>incorrectly thinking they will be left alone. Don't believe me, look into the real history of Rome and Greece. It didn't work then and it will not work now.
You appear to be referring to Danegeld style policies. You're right... they don't work. And you're stupid to think that is what anyone has in mind, or bears any resemblance to any policies anyone is suggesting.
>While I support the war on terror
Great... as currently conducted , you must support our brothers/sisters being shortchanged in force levels, equipment, and workable strategy, to be shot at and often killed for some bullshit diversion instead of what they should be doing.
>The world's enemy is being fought by those who have fought for and believe in freedom. The rest of the world is too afraid to fight these people.
And you're the fucking bastard who would throw away the very rights and freedoms that they believe in and fight for, the ones that make our country what it is supposed to be, because you're a scared little pussy... worried to death that "the bad guys are gonna get me and mine".
How about honoring their sacrifice with a little balls of