Slashdot Mirror
Warrantless Surveillance To Continue For Now
NormalVisual writes "It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case, according to an AP article. The 6th Circuit ruled that while the lower court had ruled the program was unconstitutional, they felt that the case's chances before the appeals court and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue despite the likelihood that the appeal process will take months."
>The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area
Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.
>The government says it can't always wait for a court to take action.
And doesn't have to. Within the law, they can (and do) wake a judge up at three in the morning, or even get approval after the fact. They can start wiretapping the instant they choose and take it to a judge days later.
>The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
Actually, the President said the same thing. When he signed the amended surveillance law, amended at his request and the one he is breaking now, he said "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists".
The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.
But you still can learn something from EU:
1) Give records of european flight passengers to a country without data privacy
2) European court of justice says: wrong legal basis, find a new legal basis until 30. September or stop by then
3) 30. September passed, no new legal basis, everything goes on as usual
4) This violation of a court decision is then called "legal vacuum"
5) The airlines won't get sued because "it is not their fault"
But wait, it gets even better
1) SWIFT gives the bank transaction data to the US intelligence
2) It is proved that it is against EU law
3) SWIFT sais it is not against US law so it is a legal grey zone and they can go on as usual
And because EU-Comission thought it is fun it is thinking now about giving phone communication data to US.
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Let the post speak for itself and if you want to argue about it, do it here NormalVision.
:-)
'Tis NormalVisual, not NormalVision.
The lower court issued a 43-page ruling that explaining why it ruled the activity was unconstitutional, so it was a statement of fact and will continue to be so until/unless the appeals court rules otherwise.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
That is the line the administration's lawyers have been taking.
The Constitution spells out the President's powers down to such minutiae as "he shall receive ambassadors". Unlike the Bill of Rights, it's an exhaustive list. The Founders knew how to write and they knew how to implement a kingship. If they'd wanted the President to be able to spy on Americans without any check and balance from the judiciary, they would have said so.
"Commander in Chief" is a title Hamilton took pains to distinguish from the British King's powers. It was deliberate and careful design that left Congress with exclusive power to declare war, to raise armies, and to regulate the armed services. That last is in Article I Section 8, "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces". This is why administration attorney John Yoo was dead wrong when he said that Congress can't outlaw torture. This is why Congress can regulate the NSA.
Oh, I get it. So you should only delay the ruling if you're wrong. I
No, you missed a really simple point.
When the government asks the courts if it can fuck the people, then the answer is "no" until they can prove their case.
When it is discovered that the government is already fucking the people, then the proper response is "stop" until they can prove their case.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with eliminating the courts.
In this case, the government decided that it was better to ask forgiveness than permission.
They knew full well that they didn't have the right and they did it anyway. They only bothered to ask permission when they were caught commiting treason.