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.
Not to seem too pessimistic here, but exactly what kind of enforcement is going to happen here? Is the judge going to order Bush arrested if they don't stop? Will the judge impound NSA's computers? Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it seems much more symbolic to me that actually useful.
----- Connection reset by beer
Does it mean that any arrests and prosecutions made as a result of information gained from these wire-tappings are deemed unconstitutional and their respective cases dropped and verdicts overturned? What happens to the people whos freedoms were violated by this unconstitutional act? .. sorry that's more than one question
-Sj53
Ok, so it's unconstitutional... now what? Who's going to be held accountable?
Good compilers know enough to optimize out a test if nothing will be done as a result of that test. Seems to me that the U.S. courts could've gone the same route and just skipped the trial.
I wonder how long before the Judge is found dead, "of apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds"?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
As provided for under Section VI of the Patriot Act, President Bush will now declare U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor an enemy combatant, have her stripped and dog piled in Gitmo.
Land of the free, eh?
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.
Welcome back, you guys.
Signed,
The Free World
Carousel is a lie!
The current administration will never admit mistakes such as these. You are absolutely correct about the warrents.
Ever since I heard about the wiretapping issues, when I talk to my friend over my cell phone, I sometimes say hi to the NSA just for fun. They never respond though...
I am so glad to hear about this decision! I hope that the message has been sent now: We will not tolerate being spied upon for no apparent reason.
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
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!
I Soviet America, NSA rules judge!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
This is the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers.
Great! Now they can get their instructions from their masters without worrying about those idiotic anti-terrorest groupies getting in the way.
I for one reject our NSA wire tapping overlords. Halleluiah for "activist" judges! =P
I think that this is the best news this year. This means that the wiretaping *should* stop, and if it doesnt, who ever is doing it, will be breaking the Law
This has clearly been against the constitution since it began, and since it was not appoved by congress, shoudl never have been done. Does anyone know of a amendment to the constitution giving the president the right to disregard the consitution? If this continues, and bush still knows about it, then it is definatly reason enought to impeach him, if there has been enought so far.
also check out BBC and CBC
-EL
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.
It was the Clinton administration in the 90s that expanded the FISA law to easily allow warrantless searches and wiretaps.
I was listening to a local radio talk show when this issue came up. The host, a right-leaning Bush mouthpiece used the if you are against this program, then you are pro-terrorist. I actually called in and explained to him about the FISA court, and how it is retroactive, and most people (including myself and those I have spoken to) don't have a beef with the program itself, but more so the warrantless methodology used by the administration. The talk show host, quick on the reponse as most of them are Asked "So you would have activist judges like the judges who ruled that goverments can take your land and give it to corporations making the decision on whether you are wiretapped?" He was basically using a tactic that many policial folks, use another unrealted issue to hide the issues with the one we are talking about. Well, I responded quietly and firmly that he was using an unrelated case, AND in that case the Supreme Court did not rule it that goverment can take your land and give it to companies, but instead ruled that nowhere in the constitution does it state that people are protected from this, and as long as the process is lawful (which in Conneticut at the time it was) it wasn't the Supreme Court's decision to make. This is a correct judgement, and has lead to many newly passed state laws protecting citizens from this behavior. His response was "What are you a lawyer or something?" to which I replied, no just an informed citizen. My point? I am sick an tired of divisive issues like this being hidden in the terrorism crap... you are any NSA wire tapping, you are pro terrorism... that's BS. We just want security WITH protections of our rights. Some actually informed news people who could communicate the issues instead of getting all hot button on the issues wouldn't hurt as well.
Actually, you are thinking about the wrong program.
The Federal Judge has ordered NSA to stop wiretapping international calls that the Government says targets suspected al qaeda members.
The one you are thinking about (a much broader domestic wiretapping) was recently dismissed. It was also filed by the ACLU, hence the confusion.
While the decision may be a good news for privacy advocates, it is certain that the Government is likely to appeal Judge Taylor's decision.
I would argue that of the three known warrantless data collection programs, the one targeting international calls has the least privacy impact and the most potential to garner actionable intelligence and protect the American public, so it may be unfortunate that this is the one ordered stopped, while the other two are allowed to continue.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think he'll be okay. Hunting season is over.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
Folks, it isn't over until it's over. The ruling can still be appealed. Bush nominated judge Samuel Alito to the supreme court. Alito subscribes to the notion of the unitary executive, which basically means that anything the president does is legal, by definition. Alito may be sympathetic to the administration's view on this. He is just one of nine judges, but I point him out to show you who Bush is appointing.
Remember the Total Information Awareness project, proposed by Admiral Poindexter, shortly after 9/11? It was to be a gigantic database of all electronic information -- the complete, ongoing electronic record of every US citizen. Of course, because of public outcry, the project was defunded. However, the project has simply been broken apart and pursued. Wikipedia says "An unknown number of TIA's functions have been merged under the codename "Topsail".
We don't know the full story, yet we are being given some very clear, bright red flags. Why does the government need to keep track of every single citizen?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
You:"Hi NSA we are talking about bombs!" (smile)
NSA:"Actually you were dicussing your blog, get a thesaurus."
You:
NSA:"The TP is in the hall closet"
Sound of phone dropping and wet footsteps running away
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
In other news, freak power outages have been reported all over the United States today. Experts attribute this power outage to the newly-installed generators on the Founding Fathers' graves. Powered by their eternal rolling over, they were expected to provide power to the United States for the duration of the Bush presidency.
The Department of Energy has urged power consumers to attempt to cut back on their energy usage until new generators can be installed on the Republican Spin machine, which provides nearly as much spin as the Founding Fathers' graves.
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.
W. had not pushed the patriot act, if the judge would still have ruled the same way. One part of the act was to allow (in fact, insists on it), that data moves from NSA/CIA to the DOJ/DHS that was collected while in the persuit of terrorists. Had that not been there, and had the NSA been operating the same as always (all data is kept to self except for chasing a real terrorists), I suspect that she would have had less reason to rule this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Well, He sounded like a quail..."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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?
Please read this as "How long will it take before Judge Taylor is branded just another of the "activist" judges?
It was meant to be poking fun at the current administrations attempts to use labels to make people who oppose their view seem less credible.
I just really wish I could honestly say futile attempts....
"He'll"? 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.
When you assume....
Which works great when you're spying on individual suspects.
This wiretap program seems to be spying on everybody. There's no way the secret courts can handle that kind of paperwork.
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
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.
If they'd just done it by the rules, it would have remained both confidential and legal. The problem is that this Administration thinks it can make its own laws. You want to blame someone, blame them.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Note: Conyers backed down this past May.
That depends on whether the judges end up leaning more toward political conservatism or judicial conservatism. From a strict constructionist point of view, one would expect them to agree with the premise that a wiretapping program requires due process of law. (Of course, there may be some argument on whether the program qualifies as due process.)
Supreme Court rulings often break down in ways you wouldn't expect (the recent ruling on eminent domain, for instance) because the judicial positions described as conservative and liberal don't always line up with the political positions.
I'm dying to hear what the conservative side (FOX News) has to say about this. I want the see the look on Bill O'Reilly now and how he's going to slander the ACLU and The New York Times on the next Factor show.
Of course, you do realize that if NSA contests this judgement in the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Bush has his men there.
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
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!"
While I agree with the judges ruling, and agree that our rights are more important than our security (my argument is that people died to ensure our rights, and I thank them for it; I'm not willing to give them up for potential security).
However, I've always disagreed with this argument. I use the Mafia example. Let's say the government DOES get a grant to tap a criminal's phone line. Then YOU call him... now YOUR call is being tapped because of who you called. That's the way it works. Otherwise the government has to have permission to tap both parties phones. That's ridiculous.
From what I understand, in this case, the government got international phone numbers that were stored in cell phones they found in Al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan. These are the numbers they were tapping (on the U.S. side, so calls out to and in from these numbers were tapped). If that's the case, I have no problem with it...
Except that they could have gotten warrants and avoided a lot of problems.
Also, the phrase "Domestic Wiretap", in this case, is a blatant mischaracterization of what was being done. The score, in my opinion, is zero-zero...
The administration shouldn't have done it without the easily obtained warrants...
But the media made a much bigger story out of it and mischaracterized what exactly was happening.
They're all a bunch of %$@%$@#@'s.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
And yet, you say it's false without presenting any evidence of your own (or perhaps obtaining it from the same region as the GP). I'm not aware of a poll that asks a question like, "Do you trust the current administration?" I think it would be a poor question, because it's too vague to be meaningful. Most of the time, we'd trust people so far in a certain situation; trust is not a binary issue. For example, I trust Bush not to intentionally bring down the USA, but I don't trust him to make accurate statements about intelligence. There are some things we can say, however. We can say that according to polls most people disapprove of the overall job that Bush is doing (see almost any recent presidential approval rating poll), and we can say they're almost evenly split on the question of whether warrentless wiretaps are ok (see, for example, this Newsweek poll). Most of the polls I've seen, but not all, show a slight majority for the opinion that these searches are a bad thing. Perhaps if you're going to attack people for a lack of facts, you should at least try to offer some to support your own claims.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
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.
They think it's about two teams
Who are you refering to as they? The populace and the society as whole is not technically relevent (other then the original vote). Your winning and losing way of thinking is practiced much more by and applies more to the people actively serving as elected officials more then it does to the general populace.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.
<Joe Blow>What are these 'sums' of which you speak?</Joe Blow>
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I was interested in your question, so I did some research. The grandparent poster is overstating the case, but there were polls back in December/January that kind of back him up.
The NY Times says, "The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval 'in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.'"
The CS Monitor (reporting on a Zogby poll) says, "Nearly half of likely voters, 49 percent, say Bush has the constitutional powers to approve such a plan".
I don't have more recent figures. The President's popularity is roughly the same now that it was then, though it had risen a bit for a while in the meantime.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
This ethical relativism talking point doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The specific searches that Clinton ordered were legal at the time he ordered them, while, as judge's ruling described in TFA reaffirms, the ones Bush ordered were illegal. Further, even at the time Clinton ordered his searches, he could not have done what Bush has done without breaking the law. Guess what? He stuck to what was legal.
--MarkusQ
Not going to state my position, but I would imagine you could get a poll to go either way just by the wording.
For instance, if you asked if you supported "Bush's warrantless, unregulated wiretapping program" then you would probably get less than 50% approval.
However, if you asked if you supported "Anonymous wiretapping to promote US Security" then you would probably get more than 50% approval.
So there are two morals to this story. First, every one has an opinion. Including the survey makers. They can (and in most cases will) skew the questions to achieve the results they really want. Second, statistics are just statistics. Even if 0 or 100% of a poll/survey/whatever said one thing, you should still make up your own mind and vote accordingly.
Again, not going to pick a side, but it should be assumed that the gov't is going to appeal. As with the scenario above, people have different opinions. I'm not saying it was that judges personal agenda to shoot this down, but if it were then there is just as good a chance that the next hearing will have someone with a different view and the ruling will be overturned.
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
The actual decision by the court is worth reading. Some quotes:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"
The sad thing is, the right to own guns isn't like most of the other rights, it's merely a means to an end, the end being that it's supposed to help you protect the other rights. Keeping your right to own guns while happily giving away all of your other rights makes the right to own guns totally meaningless. A gun that isn't fired is nothing more than an ornament.
... but I will not let my fear of losing karma stifle my right to free expression.
I for one believe this particular program is good, necessary, and in line with the Constitution, so it's not a matter of "security vs. freedom" for me. This ruling is just the start of a legal battle that will likely go to the Supreme Court.
I for one do not want to see the program go. We have foiled terroist attacks and cells within the US for 5 years now. How much is due to things like this NSA program, I don't know.
Dark Reflection
"He'll"? 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.
When you assume....
In other news, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (formerly Andrew Diggs Taylor) commented on the media's frequent mischaracterization of him as female, even though he is merely one of several transvestite judges in the state's district court.
And now, Stephen Colbert style, it's true! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Diggs_Taylor
Just kidding.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
There is hope.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Here are some round figures. It's absolutely amazing to me that so many people actually support warrantless taps. That's why this country will eventually decend into some totalitarian government reign - because the people don't really have any will to stop it - rather they accept it.
Still can't get me head 'round that one...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Again, the law degree comes in handy. I think you misunderstood the government argument. The President has express constitutional powers allowing him to handle foreign matters and matters of national security. This power has been construed broadly, and there's quite a lot of caselaw giving the President some latitute in this area--in support of the express constitutional power. The monitoring of foreign calls coming to the USA is arguably well within the sweet spot of these powers. The government argument regarding state secrets should not be sluffed off too quickly either. A federal judge is not necessarily cleared to hear all state secrets just because of her position. There's also no indication this was a secure courtroom or otherwise closed to spectators. There really is some merit to a government's/military's having secrets. It's also not a coincidence where this suit was filed; it's a clear case of forum shopping. I read the entire opinion and I suspect the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse or refine this ruling. Also, from what I've read previously on /., the way NSA "wiretapping" (I think it's a really poor word choice for this activity) occurrs in this context is by very rapidly scanning segments of conversations for voice recognition and other forms of identification ON THE FLY. And herein lies the problem. If the NSA monitors calls in realtime, there is no time to get warrants before the calls are completed. They may be able to get anticipatory warrants on US numbers, but I'm not sure they could get open warrants for calls coming in from a region of Pakistan where they don't know in advance the US recipient. It's actually a VERY difficult legal and organizational problem. By the way, I haven't heard of any identifiable, individual Ammerican who was subject to this wiretapping.
You really don't know what you are talking about. The US isn't anywhere close to a civil war. The east and west coast liberals would never let it come to war since all of us "inbred simpletons" have most of the guns.
BTW, it sure sounds like you have never been to the "dopey, backward heartland".
I thought we already said that 'just following orders' does not excuse human rights violations?
I think "zero" pretty much sums up politics.
Recently the Supreme Court has made several rulings about prisoner detention in guantanamo and torture that firmly establish that the administration violated the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions. These offences would easily rise to the level of a "high crime" and are impeachable.
The congress unfortunately is utterly corrupt and has failed for 6 years to meet it's oversight responsibilities. There is zero chance that the current congress will impeach. Vote and pray for the Democrats in 2006. Then there will be a small but real chance that the Criminal in Chief will be held accountable for his may crimes.
-- QED
Suspecting you that you are being monitored will likely lead you to censor yourself so yes, it is a free speech thing. Its also a freedom of the press issue, because the informants (those outside the US, which have something to say which we want to hear) will stop informing, if they believe they are being monitored.
http://www.cnn.com/
The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional.
"Now let's see them enforce it." (In regards to the Cherokee genocide the supreme court ruled against in the 1800's)
And there is still an appeal possible. Anyone want to bet which way a 5-4 supreme court split would go? And which side Alito would vote on?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Today's ruling quoted from Judge Walker's ruling in the EFF lawsuit. The EFF lawsuit is still going strong : they filed in January, and Judge Walker ruled against an automatic State Secrets dismissal.
From the WashingtonPost article:
Do officials actually do the torture, or do they give commands? Ahh.. Furthermore, if a president ordered such an act, wouldn't this amendment absolve him?
From the article I originally posted, the lawyer that leaked this information to the press had this to say about the amendment he helped to draft:
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
If the laws of the future are retroactive, that's a far bigger problem then the data collected today.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
"The government admitted to tapping all [my emphasis] phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country."
Huh? Where do you get this? Even the judge's opinion striking down the program had this to say:
It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.
- Alaska Jack
No, no, no. You just don't get it. The point of almost everything this White House has done is to ensure a perpetual Republican majority and infinite Republican control of the three branches. Everyone's arguing over whether they're committing a foul, while they're changing the rules of the game.
And that's why the Republic is in trouble.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Searching the consitution...
Free Speech - Check.
Privacy... searching... hmmm.
<tinfoil_hat> Just wait - when a supreme court rules you don't have privacy, what other famous cases based on privacy will fall? </tinfoil_hat>
BTW - here is a reasoned argument on why there is such a right.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Let me correct something for you:
Much later on when someone is suddenly suspected of being a terrorist, they have at their fingertips mountains of illegally gathered backdated infomation to sift through to see what you've been up to.
See, that's where their argument really crumbles. Its illegal to wiretap, no matter when you decide to eventually get around to listen to that tap. Their argument is not ingenious at all, its rather weak.
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
Anybody who argues that, due to terrorism, our country should compromise its most important ideals, is a person that appeases terrorists with their fear.
And that, my fellow slashdotters, is a VERY scary thought. Most US citizens think that football is a game played using your hands.
;p
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Problem: Defend our society from those hell bent on destroying it
Constraint: Do this without turning our society into something not worth defending.
I'm not sure how you do this. It's an ugly problem with a delicate balance. I'd argue that circumventing process when such process is sufficiently lenient to get the job done for domestic-only wiretapping is inexcusable. I'd also argue that holding people without charges is one of the reasons we were in such a hurry to dump colonial rule.
Can we save America while keeping it a place worth saving? (assuming you beleive it still is, which is up for debate in certain circles..)
In our society worth saving, we allegedly support religious freedom and tolernace. We try to avoid things like "racial profiling" or juding any individual based on a group affiliation. And we know the logical / mathematical rules about correlation vs. causation, and necessary vs sufficient and that the balance of favor must be given to assuming innocence.
At the same time, it seems very enticing to say things like "let's target brown-skinned muslims trying to board aircraft for extra security". It is undeniable that the set of "terrorists" is almost entirely contained in the intersection of "dark skinned" and "muslim". Even so, if we build a society that lets us act on that info and that info alone, tomorrow someone will decide that the set "serial killers" will fit into the sets "white" and "male".
I do beleive "we" have a real enemy - and that enemy is Islamofacism. I don't think there is any room in this country for people that want Sharia Law or want to change the laws of the US to fit their religion (that applies to Christians too - of which I count myself a member, and i'd be willing to concede that too many judeo-christian influences have been grandfathered into modern America ) - our law attempts to treat all as equals and _allegedly_ puts no religion over any other. If you don't want to play that way - fine, there are other countries for you.
However, the nature of this "enemy" and the antics of our government are setting off too many alarms in my head about how governments manipulate with fear for their own purposes. I don't want to be protected by a government that has so much power to eavesdrop and detain the people I don't like today that they can just as easily do it to me tomorrow when someone else decides they don't like me. Even if you beleive that the govt is trying to act benignly (I think they generally are - i think they beleive they're doing the right thing), the problem is building the machine that gives them this much power to begin with. even if they are acting in our best interests, the next crop of people or the set after them wont be, and by then it will be too late.
What the founding fathers understood is that to limit government tyrany, you limited government, not who could participate.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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
I suppose you think that the fact that Clinton did it excuses Bush? You can stop beating that horse now, I'm pretty sure it's dead. Why do you keep bringing up this point? It's utterly childish. You have no rational argument with which to defend "your man" so you point out that the other team did it too. So what. Wrong is wrong. As I said before, this is not a partisan issue, stop trying to make it one.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Did you know the NSA is currently hiring? If you want an application just call your mother and ask for one.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Of course not.
What I'm concerned a bit about is that no one with credibility is saying what the government is doing.
Not only that but I'm sympathize with the argument that the government needs to be able to make some information classified. To trot out a tired old example I wouldn't want the details of the Manhattan project to get out, I wouldn't want the USSR to know where our ballistic subs were (are,) and I don't think that we necessarilly have the right to know exactly whom the CIA is getting information from.
The problem is all those examples place some trust in the government, the less trustworthy a government the more transparancy its citizens should demand. Dragnet domestic wiretapping is an abuse of the trust we've placed in law enforcement, and in theory anyways, it is from our trust that they gain their power. The only way to prevent abuse of trust from being a self defeating mechanism is to steer away from democracy and towards autocracy, which reverses the equation.
That is what really scares me. Now while I don't expect George W, or most of the senators to recognize this, I am fully convinced that there are some puppet masters behind the curtain who are all too aware.
I'm shocked!
Or how about talking about how much they dislike the administration or XYZ political party, who years later comes to power and decides to data mine those records for whomever said they didn't like them and target them for surveillance and counter intelligence activities - all just for having an opinion (ever heard of COINTELPRO?)?
Self-censorship is NOT a consequence of someone "doing something they shouldn't be." Self-censorship is fear of being punished for saying something someone else may not like - that's called the Chilling Effect and has nothing to do with the enforcement of law.
And finally, in particular, freedom of speech, coupled with the right to bear arms, were our founders attempts to ensure that one day, should the need arise, it is possible for a popular uprising to occur to overthrow a government that has violated its part of the social contract - and people who know for certain that the government is always looking over their shoulder most certainly will not act to secure their own inalienable rights.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Hello? You're the one peddling the "everybody does it" line. I'm the one saying that what Bush did was a crime, illegal, wrong, and he should be impeached for it (see, for example, the link in my my sig.)
Where in the heck do you get off saying that I'm apologizing for Bush's conduct, or for Clinton's? And, for that matter, why is it that you focused on the phrase "ethical relativism", made a baseless accusation in return, but managed to totally ignore the point of my post which is that your "everybody does it" talking point is factually incorrect, in that it conflates two very different things as if they were the same?
President Coolidge fed his cat at the table, the first President Bush vomited into the lap of the Prime Minister of Japan, and the present President Bush talks with his mouth full of food. If some future President kills a dinner guest (which, unlike the other items, is illegal, even when the president does it), would you trot out some sort of "Presidents have always had atrocious table manners" line?
--MarkusQ
The gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchanges to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. Does the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants?
Yes.
Or, does the gov't only get warrants for the KNOWN terrorists for "manual" monitoring and hope we don't miss anyone?
Yes.
That was easy wasn't it? That's the whole point of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and yes they will miss some. Oh well. Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" will convict all 'normal' murderers? Or do you think we might "miss some"? Are you willing to give up that principle too?
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Excellent example, but this would be equivalent to the Govt also performing invasive "Customs" level searches because you were on a plane who's travel heads OUT of the country. And searching every one on any given plane with the only cause being that your flying to the middle east, but you're IN Detroit right now. That would never fly, nor should this. The issue if they could get away with that EVERY flight would "leave" the country so they could inspect you. It's the same with wiretaps only easier because they can just put the sniffer on the physical wire going "out" of the country and catch whatever comes along. That's what the judge is seeing.
You took the words right out of Noam Chomsky's mouth:
"I've often been struck by the extensive knowledge that people have of sports, and particularly, their self-confidence in discussing it with "experts." While driving, I sometimes turn on radio talk shows on sports, and am always struck by this. People calling in have no hesitation in criticizing the coaches, the judgments of the people running the shows, etc. In contrast, when discussing matters of concern to human lives -- their own and others -- people tend to defer to "experts," though for the most part the expert knowledge is no more beyond them than how the local professional sports team should play their next game. That's where the indoctrination comes in: in the intensive training that brings people to feel that they must defer to alleged "experts" on matters of very direct concern to them, far more so than sports. I do, however, agree that there can be negative aspects to the heavily promoted frenzy on spectator sports, loyalty to the home team, etc. Depends very much on how it is carried out."
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
...I wouldn't want the USSR to know where our ballistic subs were (are,)...
I know this is off-topic, but as a former submariner who served on a ballistic sub, I can assure you that not even our government knows exactly where the subs are. They are given a fairly large operational area, then go to complete radio silence and cruise around at the discretion of the Captain. Only the crewmembers who have a need to know (e.g. officers, navigators) even know where the sub is, so there is little chance of an enemy discovering that unless they can actually detect the sub with their own subs.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
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.
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 a deposition for a civil case?
The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.
paintball
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?
According to this statement This means that "Senior Gonzales" is going to get the President, who authorhized this UNCONSTITUTIONAL program, to continute the program against the judges ruling.
I would be reasonable enought to arrest the President of the United States for treason against his own country.
Hopefully, the Judge thought of the possiblity that Gonzales would go to the President and has a plan to stop the the program from continuing.
Gonzales and Bush are more concerned about protecting that small group of rich men in Washington. Why would $60 Million that is suppose to be used by DHS's science and technology division be used to hire extra security guards at a building owned by the Treasury Department?
NEVER sacrifice true freedom for false security!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
This is turd polishing.
See saying that one party is outside of the united states gets you looking at this as out there, when by definition, the other party must be in the united states and thus clearly covered by the "U.S. Person" qualification in the FISA.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
At what point do the efforts gone to to ensure you don't miss some dehumanise you to a point where it's unacceptable?
Listening in on phones? What happens when that's not sufficient next time? Do they install cameras with audio in your home? After all, we can't afford to miss some.
What if that misses something next time? Maybe they met in an open field? What then? Are we curfewed to be in our homes outside of work time? After all, we can't afford to miss some.
What happens if that fails, too - I mean, you can't perfectly enforce curfew, after all. Maybe we discover that a certain lobe in the brain lights up on an EEG when you think destructive thoughts. That's alright, we'll all check in for our brain sensor installation. After all, we can't afford to miss some
Think I'm exaggerating? Perhaps. But that's the logical path you're leading down - more and more incursions into the life of innocents is being justified in the name of preventing a possible tragedy that kills a mere fraction of those who die every year from cancer, a just as tragic, and possibly preventable, disease. Whilst throwing money at a problem only works to a certain degree (similar to the mythical man month), I'm sure some of the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at "the war on terror" (which, lets face it, was the result of one single incident) would go ... rather a long way ... to preventing some of the 600,000 deaths a year as a result of cancer in the US alone (not to mention the 1.5 million or so diagnosed with it each year).
Guess what? Elected Officials are representative of the general populace. Its a Democracy.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Only in America is half the nation more concerned about whether the President screwed one person than whether he screwed 300 million people.
I am anarch of all I survey.
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
You may be interested in this impeachment story. The author was on the Committee to impeach President Nixon, so her opinion ought to be worth something...
I'm probably showing my ignorance of process here, but what is to stop a future government repealing the War Crimes Act and replacing it with new legislation which allows the current administration to be prosecuted? Surely there must be precedents where legislation has been replaced with new laws which contradict those passed earlier. So in other words, the current government is simply protecting itself as long as no one decides to change the rules. Or am I talking bull?
Whatever happened to good old fashioned meetings in a dark parking garage late at night?
Well, its not quite as easy when the informant is in another nation, and even attempting to travel to the US could be viewed as suspisious.
But look. As far as I can tell, nobody did anything illegal and nobody went to jail.
Wiretapping a US citizen without a warrant is illegal. Its trivially easy to get a warrant too.
It's not a violation of free speech because no speech is being suppressed.
Threat of being arrested for exercising speech is suppressing speech.
You have a lot more to fear from the government passing more laws than the government's efforts to enforce existing ones.
You have even more to fear from a government which doesn't follow its own laws.
That doesn't hold up to inspection. With the radicalised British natives responsible for 7/7, their nearest and dearest were genuinely shocked and appalled by their actions.
Unless, of course, by "know who they are", you mean, that people know folks who complain about the government, perhaps express frustrated opinions that they should just shoot the sods, and don't toe the party line. Should any (muslim) who meets that criterion be suspected and reported? The US has already tried this before, and those witchhunts didn't do anyone any good.