Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Domestic Spying Program to Get Judicial Oversight

Posted by samzenpus on from the who-watches-the-watchmen dept.

Alchemist253 writes "The U.S. Justice Department has consented to court oversight (albeit via a secret court) of the controversial domestic wiretapping program (the "Terrorist Surveillance Program") previously discussed at length on Slashdot. From the article, "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""

114 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. So it was 100% legal before ... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... but with a different Congress ... suddenly it's going back to the court with warrants and everything?

    Makes you kind of wonder how "legal" it was in the first place. And whether this is just an attempt to avoid an investigation.

    1. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      suddenly it's going back to the court

      And is this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court actually a court? I mean given that its hearings are in camera by default, it doesn't seem to satisfy the criterion of public scrutiny which characterizes a true judicial court. Any constitutional lawyers here?

    2. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was not legal to begin with. These kinds of warrants specifically require the oversight of the FISA court. All warrants require the oversight of the judiciary (by definition). When a specific set of Federal law statutes tell the Executive branch they can do certain Fourth Amendment searches only under the review of a specific court, the Executive branch damn well better comply. If George Bush does not end up in prison for this clear violation of United States Federal law (and numerous American's rights under the Constitution of the United States) you can officially call the Consitution "just a piece of paper" because it no longer has any meaning. But I think that may have been the intent of this administration to begin with.

    3. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by mrogers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By backing down they don't just avoid an investigation, they avoid testing the legality of the program. That could be useful if they want to reinstate the program under the next Congress. But more importantly, the claims about wartime Presidential powers that were used to justify the wiretapping program are still being used to justify other questionably legal actions (perhaps even including the covert expansion of the Iraq war into Iran and Syria). The administration wants to avoid a direct court battle over those powers, and by backing down over the wiretapping program it's hoping to pacify Congress without establishing any precedents.

    4. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by deKernel · · Score: 1

      The FISA court setup is at-best shaking if you were to actually read up on it, but hey that is not the /. way.

    5. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Written constitutions Just Don't Work.

      This has been proven time, and time again - especially in America. More time is spent arguing about the syntax of the document than is spent fighting for and legislating towards the semantic meaning.

      Massive fail all round.

    6. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      The FISA courts have existed since the 70s and have passed judicial review of their constitutionality. It is useful to remember that Congress has the authority to create and destroy any court other than the Supreme Court and that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that public scrutiny of warrants are required. The Constitution only says that a judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate must issue the warrants:
      no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      Nothing here says that the public has to be informed. Personally, I think the FISA courts are a good thing but we have to be extraordinarily careful with them. They still have the checks and balances required by the Constitution but they don't have a people's check (i.e. public opinion determining how they are implemented). FISA courts were designed to operate against foreign enemies of the US (such as spies and terrorists). There is a legitimate need for secrecy here. Since the people's check was returned for trials these FISA courts are legitimate (since they don't have the authority to run trials). Any trial will still be a public proceeding.
    7. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the alternative is?

      It seems that the American constitution HAS worked rather well in its 200+ year history, sure there are some small glitches from time to time, like McCarthy, and now. But on the whole it has worked, only one superfluous amendment (added, promptly deleted). The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.

      The constitution is the only thing America has going for it, and the only real hope it has.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    8. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      ... suddenly it's going back to the court with warrants and everything?

      But not just any court. This is a super duper double top-secret court. That nobody can see. Or touch. It's so secret, I bet it doesn't really even exist. We're just supposed to think it does.

      --
      What?
    9. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Massive fail all round.

      Not for Exxon. Or Halliburton. Some folks have done remaarkably well. It turns out that most things don't exist for the reasons we think they do. There's always a "rest of the story" which isn't so pretty as the fairy tale being portrayed as American history.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand ... if one breaks the law a number of times, and then agrees to play by the rules, why should that get them off the hook. Why can not these actions be ruled in (obvious) violation of the current law, and the officials prosecuted? Is there no accountability for the administration?

    11. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      Well, there are different meanings of the word "legal." These programs are legal in the sense that no government officials will ever be charged, not legal in the sense of being compliant with written law.

    12. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Purely illegal from the start, which is why Reagan's deputy attorney general Bruce Fein said that Congress should either change the law or impeach.

      The administration's argument was that Congress couldn't interfere with the powers of the Commander in Chief, that the President could issue any orders to the military without any restraint. The Constitution says otherwise in Article I, Section 8, clause 14.

    13. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Avoid testing the legality of the program? Doesn't Congress have the power to investigate any illegal activities such as warrantless wiretapping, even if they occurred in the past? If the investigations reveal something, don't they have the power to impeach and convict?

      Oh yeah, nevermind. The Democrats are afraid of looking partisan. They saw the voter backlash against the Republicans for impeaching Clinton over a blowjob, and said "Oh no! Now we can't impeach anyone for fear of looking partisan, even if they eat a baby on live television! We're helpless!"

      What do you think? What happens if Bush eats a baby on live TV? My predictions:
      1. FOX News runs a lively debate on Hannity and Colmes. Hannity claims we should all be eating babies. Colmes suggests that eating babies is generally wrong, but concedes that this one baby probably deserved it.
      2. 25% of Americans believe that baby planned 9/11.
      3. Joe Lieberman and John McCain demand to know why that baby was not eaten earlier.
      4. Hillary Clinton says it's not productive to rehash whether or not it was right to eat the baby, we should just spend our efforts finding out if there's dessert.
      ...anything else?
    14. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.

      No. I won't let you get away with that assertion without some comment. The Constitution is a living document because it may be amended by a two-thirds majority of each legislative house. (It can also be amended by a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States; this has never been done.)

      What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.

      Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.

    15. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, it is true the FISA court is shaky with respect to it being able to allow some of the searches the statutes appear to make it capable of allowing. Those searches are searches that would not be constitutional under any interpretation of the Constitution. And, yes, it does appear the present administration has done those searches. The searches are illegal. But if they had been performed in conformance with the FISA law, the present administration could present a qualified immunity defense successfully. Since the searches were not performed in conformance with FISA law, George Bush is going to prison. The alternative is to pretend the law does not exist, like George Bush did.

    16. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by navyjeff · · Score: 1
      Is there no accountability for the administration?

      That's correct.

    17. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by omeomi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process. It is this philosophy that has lead to the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US.

      So the current mess we're in is the liberals fault?

      Yeah, right. Pull the other one...

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    18. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you mean by 'the current mess we're in'

      Your terminology is even more reckless than 'the incredible divisiveness that currently infects the US' which isn't that hot, either.

      I guess you're both mostly just posturing, though.

    19. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Written constitutions Just Don't Work.

      That's why I prefer my constitutions on audio cassette. Preferably narrated by James Earl Jones or Sir David Attenborough.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    20. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People who use the word "liberal" OR "conservative" as defined by FOX should be taken out and shot. They're easy to spot by the context they use it in. (sorry about the grammar) It's like pulling the string on a Barbie doll. "I think math is hard" "Let's make some brownies". Pitiful

      --
      What?
    21. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by gkhan1 · · Score: 1

      It's not such a bizarre statement to say that the constitution should be updated every now and again. I mean, after the initial framing and the formation of the Bill of Rights, there have been an additional, what, 17 amendments? That's a whole mess of amendments. Doesn't that tell you that in the past at least, they considered the constitution something that should be changed?

      And look at for instance the second amendment which was written at a drastically different time than today. I mean, "a well regulated militia", WTF? Nowadays, people getting guns and forming a private army would be a threat to the freedom of the state, not the other way around. It was clearly written for a different world than ours, and it should be revised.

      And by the way, my constitution (I'm Swedish) is updated every now and then using referendums and the like. Like the US constitution it's pretty old (the first part, the Freedom of the Press act, dates back to 1766), but there is no fundamentalist belief that it shouldn't change based on the will of the people. For instance, the aforementioned Freedom of the Press act was altered in 1772, 1810, 1812, 1949 and 1982. More recently, the constitution was changed when we entered into the EU in 1995 (and it would have been changed again in 2003, had we voted yes to introducing the Euro) and the Act of Succession was altered to allow the eldest daughter of our king to become the heir-apparent instead of her younger brother (isn't that quaint, we have heirs-apparent ;) Also we added a whole new part to it in 1992 (making it a total of four parts), the Fundamental law of Freedom of Expression (it had previously been covered by the Freedom of the Press act).

      Saying that you can enumerate a number of things that will ensure a perfectly running state for centuries to come is not only silly, it's hubris. For a state to function for the future, it needs to adapt to changing times and the will of the people.

    22. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are describing is a relatively new judicial philosophy, usually ascribed to by liberals who cannot achieve their will through the legislative process.


      It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.

      The US Constitution was innovative for its day, but it has two major flaws. The first is that it is much more vague than a modern constitution would be, failing to define its terms and spell out clearly the extent and limitations of powers. For example Article 1 Section 8 where the copyright and patent power is granted to Congress. It is extremely vague about the actual extent of the power. Instead it tries to give guidance about how they hope the power will be used via useless dicta: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". The same problem infects the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." It wouldn't have been difficult to eliminate the dicta and spell out the full range of implications.

      The second problem with the Constitution is that it is too hard to amend. The most important thing a law must do is consistently spell out what one may do with impunity, and what one is restricted from doing. The Constitution is constantly being called upon to limit or empower the government in situations beyond the imaginging of the founders (for example wiretapping, see Justice Brandeis' famous dissent in the 1928 case of Olmstead v. United States, a position that was eventually adopted by the court in Katz v. United States in 1967).

      Unfortunately, the second problem finds a solution which is ready made by the first : the nature of the language in the US Constitution is that it demands judicial interpretation. Judges of every stripe, conservative, liberal, statist and libertarian, are called upon to interpret the Constitutoin creatively for each new generation, because the law demands answers from the Constitution which, strictly speaking, aren't in there.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by omeomi · · Score: 1

      It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.

      Conservative justices too...Anyone looking for an activist judiciary should take a long look at the *appointment* of George W. Bush to the presidency while votes were still being counted in Florida.

      --
      ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
    24. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.

      I never said it was exclusively liberals doing this, I said "usually". I am sure this hint of negativity concerning the holy concept of "liberal" that has spawned most of the ad hominem attacks. Since yours, and a few others, were considered responses, however, I will response and consider any response you care to give.

      As a side note, while it is easy to get into arguments about conservative versus liberal, this was not my point and I want to preface that I allow each to describe themselves and have a general perspective that, in the areas that concern me, conservative = proud liberal. My perspective established, the modern day concept of liberal should never be confused with the proud liberal and, similarly, neo-cons are not conservative. One favors a nanny state that supports libertinism and the other supports a nanny state that promotes social repression. Of course, like any quick and dirty assessment, the afore is inaccurate, but it does describe my general perspective.

      Now, in direct response to your comment, all I can say is consider the Warren Court and how that has shaped the last several decades. This does not mean all decisions were bad but, if you look, most certainly enhanced the power of the Federal government.

      This is why I caution the embrace of a "new judicial philosophy". It can be used to push liberal or, more recently, neo-con agendas. And the Federal government does not share power.

      The US Constitution was innovative for its day, but it has two major flaws. The first is that it is much more vague than a modern constitution would be...

      Knowing how lawyers push at all fringes of law, I am not sure how much difference it really makes and would point to the example of how many times the various European constitutions have been rewritten but, in general, I agree with your first point.

      The second problem with the Constitution is that it is too hard to amend...

      I view this as a positive, not a negative. Neither of us have room, or likely education, for a scholarly treatise on the framer's Constitutional philosophy but I don't want the foundational rules of my society changing as suits current fad. Whether it be whim of the mob or whim of the nine. The modern philosophy of a living constitution promotes just this. I believe a Constitutional Republic really does mean something.

      Consequently, while I feel as disenfranchised from the process as anyone these days, Congress is the people's only access to the functioning of the Federal Government. (Once can seek remedy in the courts, but rarely does that alter the functioning.) Consequently, I believe we have a very vested interest in any change to the Constitution and should be a party to that process. Judicial fiat by ANY philosophy (there can people live with that statement?) is of great concern.

      Unfortunately, the second problem finds a solution which is ready made by the first : ...

      Did you agree with the Medical marijuana decision? That was a perfectly correct decision based on the philosophy that EVERYTHING falls under the Federal government's jurisdiction, which shall always take precedence to the will of any local population. The major flaw I see with the Constitution is that is set up three branches of government with the expectation that they would watch over each other. It never seemed to occur to the framers that while each would seek to preserve its own turf, as expected, but that doing so would not precluded each working together to enhance the power of the Federal government over all.

    25. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1
      I don't know how this is insightful.

      Your statement is neither what I said, nor what I think. I was describing the philosophy that, until recently, was used by those considered liberal in the US to achieve certain goals that could not be achieved at the ballot box.

      I don't care who is reinterpreting the Constitution. Anytime the rules of society are altered by any entity other that We the People, I have great concerns. Even then, the ramifications should always be well considered.

    26. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by crotherm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Those who fear a totalitarian government would to well to reconsider their approval of this perspective. What the nine giveth, the nine can take away.


      Sheesh, they gave us Bush. PLEASE make them take him away!!!!

      --
      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
    27. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I'm not even really talking about SCOTUS, or a purely legal aspect of this philosophy, it also infects the other to branches of government. A lot of legislators legislate on how they see the constitution. As stated, in the short term this can lead to some bad consiquences, but averaged out over the long term I don't see it as a bad thing, and it hasn't been. I don't see this as just a liberal thing, either, EVERY party, no matter how insignificant can be heard sitting around arguing what this or that particular amendment means. Look at the gun control (2nd Amendment) argument, you have several interested parties with varying interpretations of the amendment, and to say that only liberals "interpret" it, and your side doesn't is rather fallacious. Hell SCOTUS exists for this purpose, to determine the constitutionality of legislation.

      I agree though, SCOTUS scares me, it has a wee bit too much power, even if there is a legislative check on them. To be more clear, too much power concentrated into to few, unchanging, hands. Especially when none of these people are purely objective, since they were assigned by their president's partisan policies, and not by their judicial merit alone.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    28. Re:So it was 100% legal before ... by Arcane_Rhino · · Score: 1

      Well spoken.

  2. like the?? by Amouth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "or an associated terror group" so someone like anyone that doesn't like them.. i see

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    1. Re:like the?? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      "the difference between thugs who engage in mass murder of innocent people as part of an attempt to force their extremist brand of religion on people around the world"

      tell me now.. how many people have died in this little personal war of bush's that never took up arms to the US?

      because if it is more than a handful then it is mass murder

      and by logic if their way of life and religion is extreme to us - then we are extreme to them - and when was the last time we stopped fucking with others in the world. tell me this..

      if I was in their position I would hate the US too.. personally I think this country is and has been going down hill quite fast - it was great at one point in time but now we are nothing but international "tugs"

      and if you look at it terrorists aim to strike fear into people - we are no better, and the government has been using the US's fear of 'terrorists' to slowly and methodically take away our rights and turn us into a police state - it might not happen tomorrow or next week but if we keep this up it will happen..

      so yea.. when ever I hear about secret courts and laws I do place them the same as any other fascist government.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  3. But what about the illegal wiretapping? by guspasho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who's to say that the administration that has been openly breaking the law for years hasn't just created another hidden illegal program and shifted their illegal activity to that?

    1. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by megaditto · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420- 2.html

      Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      But... But... 10000 slashdotters can't be wrong!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, wiretaps require court orders. Yes, it's good that the gov. is asking for warrants. But it wasn't that long ago when the executive branch claimed it didn't need warrants--check the /. link in the summary.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    4. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Wavicle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      I'm lost. Are you being sarcastic? Normally I'd think it obvious that this was tongue in cheek, except your nickname makes a Rush reference.

      Is the United States Department of Justice, a department headed by an appointee of the president, also part of the liberal media? So when they wrote "This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States"?

      The entire executive branch, and much of the republican congress, has said it/they believe that the president has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps and furthermore he has done so.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    5. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Informative

      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420- 2.html

      Bush said this BEFORE he got caught doing wiretaps without warrants. I agree, wiretaps DO require warrants, but Bush has claimed that he doesn't need them (the quote in the parent post not withstanding) and he authorized a program of domestic spying without warrants. If you don't recall this, you are woefully uninformed.

      Since you think the "liberal media" may be lying to you, how about a court decision regarding the program? The first TWO SENTENCES reveal that 1. the program exists and 2. the administration does not dispute that is exists. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/do cs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf [pdf link]

      People that ignore facts on the basis that they were reported by the "liberal media" confuse me. About 2 seconds of research are all that is required to confirm much of this stuff. If you ignore facts because they came from the "liberal media" you are part of the problem; people in power can sit back and do what they like realizing that you are going to take what they say at face value and not take advantage of the resources at your disposal (the media) to see that they are lying.

      Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple. You don't even need the media, the government's own documents the lie.

    6. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant

      In theory. Things work a bit differently in practice. Unfortunately, we can't verify that without proper oversight. Which we aren't getting. So I'm going to assume the worst until someone can prove otherwise. That thing you quote there sounds sooo believeable. For now, it's just Bart Simpson saying, "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove a thing."

      --
      What?
    7. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Who's to say that the administration that has been openly breaking the law for years hasn't just created another hidden illegal program and shifted their illegal activity to that?

      They can't; they were replaced by the Bush administration in January of 2001.

    8. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by megaditto · · Score: 1

      I didn't RTFA either, but doesn't the summary mean we actually ARE getting the oversight?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    9. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by thule · · Score: 1

      Since when did US civilian courts need to grant warrants for the NSA to target foreign individuals for wiretapping? The NSA has been doing this ever since its creation. What the TSP did is allow the NSA to pass leads to the FBI. The FBI would get the lead and file for a FISA warrant to make the domestic side a wiretap TARGET.

      Remember if you call a number that has a tap on it, the police can listen in on your conversation. You are not the target, the person you are calling is. This is the same for the NSA. The idea was to remove the wall so the leads the NSA would discover would get passed on to the FBI. The FISA judges would still require something other than a pure NSA lead to grant the warrant (see: Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data.

      What is funny about this ruling is that the FISA court is now said that all it needs is a NSA lead. This is a lower requirement than what the TSP was doing.

    10. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      It is a secret court. There will be no oversight without public verification. And I mean public, not just a couple of baldheads. This here is what is commonly known as a ruse.

      --
      What?
    11. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by megaditto · · Score: 1

      It's the same court that would have issued the FISA wiretaps in the first place.

      So it appears reasonable that if the court are competent enough to issue individual wiretap orders, they are probably competent enough to issue a blanket approval.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    12. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by mikek3332002 · · Score: 1

      And Witches are the Devil's Servants and they deserved to be burnt at the stake.

    13. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      What in the world makes you think they're competent? You are getting government press releases, not independant reports from a disinterested party. I can't believe what they say. I can only see what they have done, way back before "frat-brat" Bush was put in front of the camera to play president on the TV. Their credibility report doesn't look so good. And the closer you look, the worst it gets. It is that simple. Government transgressions are growing like a fungus. Or more like a mold. You don't see it, but you see what it leaves behind.

      --
      What?
    14. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Yeah, everyone needs to be terrified out of their minds. The terrorists will hate it if we are all so scared of them that we give up the rule of law and cave in to whatever ridiculous demands the government makes of us so that we'll be safe from these people who's most successful attack was carried out with box cutters. We should all shut up and toss out all those rights that were fought and died for by our grandparents because of the huge threat posed by these near cavemen.

      You are pathetic. Coward.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    15. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Ardeaem · · Score: 1
      No, you are confused. I never said anything about "appeasing", nor did I say anything about being able to "bargain, argue, and negotiate" with anyone. (You've constructed a totally irrelevant straw man). What I said is that Bush stated that wiretaps require warrants (as indeed they do). But he had previously directed that wiretaps can be done WITHOUT warrants. Neither of these facts is in dispute, regardless of your attempt to derail the discussion. By the way, let me quote you quoting Bush: "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." This is in direct contradiction to the position you are attempting to argue on Bush's behalf. Bush himself, in the very quote YOU posted, invalidated your argument even before you made it.

      Either that, or perhaps this means the warrants are not required to listen to foreign terrorists making phonecalls from outside the US? This is domestic wiretapping. The people being wiretapped are American citizens and are afforded all the rights that come with citizenship. This includes 4th Amendment rights which require a warrant (covered by FISA) for wiretapping. The fact that the person on the other end of the phone is not a citizen is irrelevant. That's the whole point of this discussion. In the topic article, the DoJ has said that they will seek FISA warrants. If it is destructive to national security to do this (as they have argued) and if it is unnecessary (as you and the administration have argued) why would they do this? It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that they fear a challenge by Congress, and want to make the point moot. They've done this before (see Padilla and Hamden cases). Finally, as to your claim (completely irrelevant to the discussion) that you can't bargain with terrorists that want to see you dead, you are wrong about this. The most successful alleviation of a terrorist threat in modern history was in Northern Ireland. We don't hear much about terrorism in Northern Ireland anymore. Why? Read about it yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Rep ublican_Army
    16. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Where did I even suggest that those were the two choices?

      We have existed quite nicely for a while without having either, but I see one becoming more likely than the other all the time, and it isn't terrorism.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    17. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      What, you think terrorists aren't human? You're an idiot, plain and simple. I'm not going to go into it, because, ironically enough, no rational argument is possible with people who honestly think terrorists aren't capable of rationality.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    18. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Phillup · · Score: 1

      They can't; they were replaced by the Bush administration in January of 2001. Clinton had a prosecutor shoved up his ass almost from the get go... and the worst they found was him lying about getting laid more than he should have.

      The Bush administration could not survive one one-hundredth the investigations that Clinton endured.

      The worst that Clinton did was soil some skanks dress.

      Many more have suffered from Bush's actions.
      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    19. Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Clinton instituted the Extraordinary Rendition program. I guess you're in favor of that, then?

  4. Took long enough by tarlos25 · · Score: 1

    Why couldn't they have just done this in the first place? Then there would have been minimal objection and none of this PR nightmare.

    1. Re:Took long enough by User+956 · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't they have just done this in the first place? Then there would have been minimal objection and none of this PR nightmare.

      Because, in their minds, asking forgiveness is easier than asking permission.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:Took long enough by kst · · Score: 1

      Most likely because they were doing illegal things that a court wouldn't have approved. (Their previous claims that getting permission would have taken too long are not plausible; the law allows for retroactive permission in some cases.)

  5. About %@!#% time! by Kelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they'd just gone through court procedures in the first place (it's not like it's difficult to get a FISA warrant), there wouldn't have been such a controversy in the first place.

    Ironically, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the administration's insistence last year that they didn't need judicial overview contributed to the electoral frustration that cost the Republicans control of Congress.

    1. Re:About %@!#% time! by thule · · Score: 3, Informative

      But they did get a FISA warrant. The FBI would have to get the FISA warrant if the NSA generated a lead on the domestic side of the tapped communication. The domestic side wasn't the TARGET of the tap. Thus the NSA never needs a warrant. This has always been the case.

      You call can be tapped without a warrant if you call some criminal suspect. That is because the TARGET of the tap is not you, the suspect is. This is how the TSP worked. The targets if the NSA taps were outside the US and considered part of the battlefield. If they needed to follow up domestically the FBI would get the information from the NSA and start their own investigation.

      This ruling expands the program and does not require the FBI to further the investigation. The FISA will grant the warrant based purely on NSA intel.

    2. Re:About %@!#% time! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Ironically, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the administration's insistence last year that they didn't need judicial overview contributed to the electoral frustration that cost the Republicans control of Congress."

      Yeah, and AT&T is looking at chapter 11 after so many of its customers left them for going along with this program.

      If the American people actually cared about this stuff, it likely wouldn't have happened to begin with.

  6. For more information: by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    This link explained alot for me. Too bad it's a secret court, but it's better than no court, and at least it's a court within the judicial branch of the federal government.

    http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/fisc_bdy! OpenDocument&Click=


    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

    Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "Church Committee"), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court's suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
    Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel's Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General's certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a "foreign power" or "the agent of a foreign power" and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
    The judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court travel to Washington, D.C., to hear warrant applications on a rotating basis. To ensure that the court can convene on short notice, at least one of the judges is required to be a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government's request, the decisions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of the almost perfect record of the Department of Justice in obtaining the surveillance warrants and other powers it requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the review court had no occasion to meet until 2002. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (115 Stat. 272) expanded the time periods for which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can authorize surveillance and increased the number of judges serving the court from seven to eleven.

    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
    1. Re:For more information: by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Did you know that Chief Justice John Roberts has the role of appointing the Judges that sit on the FISA court?

      Did you know that Chief Justice John Roberts also has the role of appointing the Judges that sit on the FISA Review Panel?

      Link

      It makes me wonder if a new judge was appointed to FISA recently.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:For more information: by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

      Possible but not likely. However, one term on the FISC (Claude Hilton) is due to expire in 2007. Two more are set for next year, two for 2009, one in 2010, two in 2011, one in 2012, and two in 2013 for the FISC. The Court of Review has vacancies coming in 2008, 2010, and 2012. All terms expire on 18 May of their respective years. All current judges would have been appointed by Rehnquist before he died.

      Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 2006 Membership

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  7. Not good enough by schwaang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. It sounds like they won't be pulling NSA cables out of the AT&T (and other) facilities. They're just claiming to use them under FISA now. This wired blog raises some interesting questions about this.
    2. During Attorney General Gonzales' previous congressional testimony on this topic, he was very careful and lawerly in asserting that his statements only applied to the program under discussion, that is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The clear implication is that there are other programs besides TSP which have not seen the light of day.

    In short, don't let this stop the oversight hearings.

    1. Re:Not good enough by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Funny

      2. During Attorney General Gonzales' previous congressional testimony on this topic, he was very careful and lawerly in asserting that his statements only applied to the program under discussion, that is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The clear implication is that there are other programs besides TSP which have not seen the light of day.

      Yes, AT&T is still working on their, "Terrorist Friends and Family Surveillance Program." Spy on all the friends and family of a suspected terrorist that you want to for just one, low-cost, secret warrant!

    2. Re:Not good enough by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      one more "insightful" needed.

      Good catch.

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
  8. It still won't be traditional warrants by the+Gray+Mouser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which is a good thing.

    First they need to troll through all the communication looking for patterns. Once they find something, then they can eavesdrop specific targets and go for a warrant.

    But you don't know what you're looking for until you find it.

    It sounds like not much is changing really, except FISA has given the ok to the datamining.

  9. Requests denied? by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 2, Informative

    "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""

    That's nice. How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?

    1. Re:Requests denied? by abb3w · · Score: 1

      How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?

      FISA is the law; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the primary court chartered thereby (with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review as primary appelate, and the SCOTUS as final court of appeal).

      That said, at least the Bush administration may have to put together a request that a handful of the most conservative pro-federal judges on the federal bench won't riot over. This is at least a small step away from a utterly absolute imperial executive. On the other hand, a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber">t he Star Chamber was a court, too.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    2. Re:Requests denied? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

      That's nice. How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?

      -1 for not realizing that FISA _IS_ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Or more specifically, the Court was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  10. THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by crhylove · · Score: 2, Informative

    FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.

      So you want to be proven guilty before they can collect the evidence that would actually prove your guilt? 1) that makes no sense, as it would be circular, and 2) the standard isn't that high for regular warrants.

    2. Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by kevin_conaway · · Score: 3, Insightful
      FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.

      Thats what they're doing. Agency X goes to the FISA court (a court of law mind you) and with A, B and C pieces of information showing that you are a "threat" and that they would like a warrant on you.

    3. Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anything less is traitorous fascism

      I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. But treason is defined in the Constitution so you can go ahead and look it up.

      Anyways, all that the FISA courts are doing are approving warrants. A normal court does not require a jury of your peers to do that.

    4. Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      ever hear of "probable cause"?

      _if it walks like a duck...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    5. Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! by magarity · · Score: 1

      there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.
       
      Then stop taking all those overseas calls from known AQ operatives.

  11. Great! by tacokill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's exactly what should have happened from the very beginning

    It was obvious then and its obvious now.

  12. SECRET Court by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative

    To go with warrantless secret spying, secret charges in violation of secret laws on the secret evidence that resuts in secret detentions.

    "Secrecy" and "Oversight" are oxymoronic.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:SECRET Court by dbIII · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't forget the secret torturing to secret death. The reputation of the USA is going down the toilet due to no way to refute this other than "it was the guys we handed the prisoner over to and not us - and we don't know who the guys standing by with American accents were."

  13. Not so much... by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to his letter, Gonzalez hasn't actually subjected the program to judicial oversight. What he's done is gone judge-shopping to find a single judge to declare the entire program authorized.

    The problem is, that's not how warrants work. Warrants have to be specific and time limited - to avoid exactly the behavior that Gonzalez in engaging in: blanket invasion into the privacy of all Americans without any legitimate reason to think they're doing anything wrong.

    Remember: the laws we have on civil liberties aren't there to protect the guilty. They're there to protect the innocent, namely us.

  14. Surveillance Society - the governments aim by Garry+Anderson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FYI: It is not a "Terrorist Surveillance Program" - it is a "Public Surveillance Program".

    They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".

    Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?

    This is a post that I have used many times before :-)

    Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.

    It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?

    Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

    Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.

    Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!

    Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).

    The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.

    The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.

    INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

    This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.

    Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

    This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.

    It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.

    They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.

    This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

    "Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".

    This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).

    This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.

    So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

    It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.

    As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.

    Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.

    The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.

    They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying e

  15. Better a hundred guilty men go free.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    ... than an innocent man hang. Is a doctrine that seems to have been trampled in the War on Terror fear mongering campaign.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Better a hundred guilty men go free.... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's better that a hundred guilty men get hanged, than any one of them victimize an innocent man.

      But your version has some value, as well.

  16. Been Done Before by sehlat · · Score: 1
    The star chamber. This institution has the advantage that, if you're dealing with it and the Powers That Be approve of you, you're pretty much bullet proof. Of course if they don't...

    Under the leadership of Cardinal Wolsey (the Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor) and Thomas Cranmer (the Archbishop of Canterbury) (1515-1529), the Court of Star Chamber became a political weapon for bringing actions against opponents to the policies of King Henry VIII, his Ministers and his Parliament.
  17. this is pre-911 thinking by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Funny

    and it's gonna get us killed, whether you like it or not. We are more vulnerable now that investigators have to wade through the legal system. If you've seen the latest episode of 24, you'll know what I'm talking about, a nuclear attack on an american city. With the appropriate monitoring systems in place, that would have never happened on the show but they were hamstrung like the FBI and NSA is today. Blame the leftists and the god damn liberals for the terror that will befall us :(

    1. Re:this is pre-911 thinking by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yes, base your argument on a TV episode.

      Dork.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:this is pre-911 thinking by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I would rather lose a large city (and along with the destabilization) via a terrorist attack than LOSE MY FREEDOM. It'd not matter if it was my city, as long as others would keep their freedom.

      That, and basing an argument about a F-1CTIONAL show is stupid. Stupid.

      --
    3. Re:this is pre-911 thinking by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      The FBI and NSA are hamstrung today?
      And that would have happened under which administration?

      Hint, that would be the GW Bush administration,
      you know, they who have been fearmongering over
      the terrorist bogeyman for the last 5 years.

      You need to stop watching TV and start *THINKING*.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    4. Re:this is pre-911 thinking by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      So when (eventually) the leftists and liberals are voted in as President and Congress, are you willing to give them the same power to investigate whomever they claim as a terrorist (like their political enemies) as you're willing to give to the current administration?

    5. Re:this is pre-911 thinking by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      I would rather lose a large city (and along with the destabilization) via a terrorist attack

      What if it's not your large city to lose? Are you a multi-billionaire? You get to 'sacrifice' your city and everybody else in it because otherwise you LOSE YOUR FREEDOM?

      What, exactly, have you lost? Are you more paranoid now when you call your dope dealer? You think it's progressed that far? You think it CAN progress that far if people like you don't shout about losing large cities?

      It isn't a particularly slippery slope. The shouting people are engaging in shows that it can't go farther than it has. And in fact it's being reigned in pretty well at the moment.

      More fun to rant, though, I know.

    6. Re:this is pre-911 thinking by Chriscypher · · Score: 1

      Balanced budget? Budget surplus? Paying down the debt?
      Personal privacy? Haebus Corpus? Magna Carta? The universal rights of man?

      This is pre-911 thinking and it will get us killed! ;P

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
  18. Hunh? by Khammurabi · · Score: 1
    "The president has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," Gonzales wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that disclosed the administration's shift in approach.
    The program finally gets oversight, so the president decides to shut it down. What I want to know is whether the court will be able to review any or all past uses of the terrorism surveillance. I don't think the administration should be able to say, "It's okay, we're not doing it anymore," and get away with anything they did previously.

    I'm reminded of a FullMetal Alchemist quote, "I had to see it for myself...Innocent people don't cover their tracks." I was hoping that the administration was on the up and up, but this is definitely a signal that what they are and were doing has highly questionable legal merit. Far from proof, but highly suspicious looking.
    1. Re:Hunh? by thule · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason it is not being renewed is because it is not needed anymore. All the FISA court needs is a NSA lead to grant a warrant now. Previously the FISA judges required some sort of additional information from a FBI investigation.

    2. Re:Hunh? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was hoping that the administration was on the up and up, but this is definitely a signal that what they are and were doing has highly questionable legal merit.

      There's the rub. Even if everything was handled well and no innocent person's privacy was violated without good cause, the lack of oversight makes it wrong. I don't care if they were being nefarious or not, I want the spying investigated and overseen by the judiciary then, now, and forever always. Any organization that says "Trust us, we're working in your best interests!" without accountability is almost certainly not.

    3. Re:Hunh? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      There's the rub. Even if everything was handled well and no innocent person's privacy was violated without good cause, the lack of oversight makes it wrong. I don't care if they were being nefarious or not, I want the spying investigated and overseen by the judiciary then, now, and forever always. Any organization that says "Trust us, we're working in your best interests!" without accountability is almost certainly not.

      I think you have right/wrong and illegal/legal confused. While stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is right, but it is certainly not legal. Calling someone's mother a bitch is legal, but rarely right.

      Bending Constitutional rules to spy on someone to save thousands or millions of lives is probably not legal, but I'd do it, Bush did it and I hope you would too, because it's right. Now don't get me wrong, any abuse of such power, like using the FBI or IRS to harass your political enemies would be wrong, but if genuinely done with the intention of saving lives, then it's right, legality be damned!

      Unless, of course, that you are one of these righteous people that say even if everyone in America is killed, preventing would not have been worth violating the rights of a single American. (Yes, I've heard that argument here)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Hunh? by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      "National Security" is no excuse for violating due process. They don't need to publish the warrants on the front page of the NY times, the warrants can be kept classified until trial, but they still *must* go to a judge and obtain the warrant on suitable grounds. Spying on someone because they *might* be a terrorist or talking to a terrorist isn't going to protect anyone.

      It's the slippery slope that leads to secret police and being branded a terrorist for speaking out against your government. It's dangerous to not take terrorism seriously, but it's even more dangerous to allow your government to do things behind your back with nobody watching the watchers.

  19. Gee, that doesn't sound sketchy at all.. by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    "monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group."

    So he/she is possibly related to a group that is possibly associated with al Qaeda... I hope the evidence is a damn lot stronger than this half-hearted wording suggests.

    1. Re:Gee, that doesn't sound sketchy at all.. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      So he/she is possibly related to a group that is possibly associated with al Qaeda... I hope the evidence is a damn lot stronger than this half-hearted wording suggests.

      It isn't - so Kevin Bacon is in deep deep trouble.

  20. Makes sense... by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This of course also happens after a bunch of federal judges were replaced.

  21. This ruling expands the program! by thule · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out this link:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3 250

    AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html).

    Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what they do with foreign communications.

  22. Rubber stamp? by thule · · Score: 1

    Read this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html

    Does that sound like a rubber stamp to you? The judge was putting the FBI on notice. They will not grant a warrant based solely on a NSA lead. With this new ruling that is not true anymore. A simple NSA lead is all that will be required for the FBI to get a FISA warrant.

    The NSA has monitored communications for years and years and years. The TARGETS of the tapping were foreign communications. If the foreign communication terminated in the US, they could still listen in on it, just like the police could listen in if you called a person that was subject to a tap (suspected criminal). You could become the subject of a tap if you said something that the police wanted to follow up on. They of course would have to go back to the court and get another warrant for you.

    This is how the TSP worked. The NSA did what they always do. If they got a domestic lead they would pass it to the FBI so the FBI could follow up and potentially get a FISA warrant. The FBI is subject to civilian courts, the NSA is not.

  23. Re:BRACE FOR IMPACT!! was: Hunh? by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
    The reason it is not being renewed is because it is not needed anymore.

    Riiight!. So let me get this straight....The reason we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11 is because of Bush's illegal spying, which was necessary to keep us all safe. But now that it looks like he might actually be held accountable for those illegal acts, it's suddenly no longer necessary for Bush to conduct illegal spying just to keep us safe.

    Either Bush was right, and we're about to see a huge upswing in successful terrorists attacks (or at least unsuccessful ones that manage to see daylight) because Bush can no longer spy on people and foil the plots before anyone even hears about them, or we'll go on seeing about the same level of terrorist activity (what color are we at now?) as we were before and would have been if Bush had been playing by the rules all along.

    If they can claim a lack of terrorist attacks then as proof that the program was working, then we can use the same fallacy now to prove it was never necessary in the first place.

    Ain't payback a bitch?

    --

    The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

  24. Authority Given Years Ago by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

    Ummm, that authority was given to FISA years ago. The question should not be whether they now will be allowed to do their job, but if those who broke the law in circumventing it will be held accountable.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  25. Re:BRACE FOR IMPACT!! was: Hunh? by thule · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not needed anymore because this ruling allows for FISA warrants based purely on NSA leads with no FBI follow up. The NSA will do what it has always done, target foreign communications for tapping. If they happen on interesting communication that terminates in the US, they can pass this information to the FBI and a warrant will be granted. The FBI can now make the US side a target of a tap.

    Nothing has changed except the bar was lowered. Previously the FISA court required *more* information from the FBI beyond a simple lead from the NSA. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html.

    What the court is saying is that not only was the TSP legal, but they now make it easier to make the US side a target of a tap.

  26. Re:warrantless...surveillance != wiretap by Wavicle · · Score: 1

    "[W]arrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States" is not a wiretap. A wiretap involves intercepting the actual content of a conversation.

    What the heck? I cannot begin to understand the depth of ignorance of that statement. The DoJ letter I linked specifically mentioned that the letter was in response to concerns over intercepting communications. The letter was arguing that this was legal. Phew! Good thing you posted anonymously.

    That's right - you have no expectation of privacy for your phone billing data. That's settled law.

    Yeah... 'cuz like HP is in absolutely no hot water at all for acquiring phone billing data on its board members without their permission. I mean, the board members have no expectation of privacy for that. Right?

    Clueless.

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  27. Re:Bush's Warrantless NSA Spying Was Always Illega by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

    When they don't impeach Bush, are you gonna claim the Democratic congress is all a bunch of BusHaliburtonMcChimpy dupes?

    I see a lot of ranting on the topic at Democratic Underground forums already. There was plenty of ranting when Peloski didn't immediately order Bush hauled out of the White House in an orange jumpsuit.

    There are other priorities. For instance, the Democrats' quick move to introduce legislation to restrict the 'Blog Threat' as the first bill introduced this session in the Senate.

    I'm sure the Minimum Wage rates higher, too.

  28. You've never read it, have you? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The Constitution very well is living without amendments. It is deliberately vague, high level. It doesn't assert the specifics of very many laws, just how it will generally be. Like in relation to copy rights it doesn't specify a time, just says that they'll be secured to their creator for a limited time. What that limited time is can, and has changed.

    We wouldn't still have a Constitution if it specified every little thing and required a massive effort to change it. It works because it lays down a framework, the interpretation of which can change.

  29. Re:Bush's Warrantless NSA Spying Was Always Illega by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The Senate's lobbying bill is bipartisan. The "blogger registration" amendment is Republican.

    If Democrats don't impeach Bush, I will continue to condemn stalling and evasion of that duty, as I have already. Though not BusHalliburtonMcChimpy dupes (because that's the Republican fascism), but rather just politicians who prioritize "don't rock the boat, we're winning anyway" over justice. I understand the political requirement to marshal support beyond mere 5:1 disapproval of Bush to actually impeach. Like evidence produced by real investigations with legit processes, not Clinton-blowjob-style impeachment bullshit. But I'm not a Democrat, so I have no problem badgering them to do their duty and impeach. And to end the Iraq War, rather than merely enable Bush to brand all Republicans in 2008 as "Iraq Warmongers". Which I do regularly, as well.

    Next loaded hypothetical question, please.

    In the meantime, who did you vote for president in 2004?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  30. You know its funny by ninji · · Score: 1

    I respect peoples privacy, and I really desire my own.

    However, if they really were/are using this only for suspected terror targets, I really don't mind. I don't talk about anything over the phone that I would be terribly upset if some agent in a room heard and woudln't do anyhting about unless its terror related.

    I suppose it comes down to the principal of it going against the countries founding rights... In my opinion, its justified in the name of security as long as not abused and only used in the cases when its necissary.

  31. disingenuous by McGurk · · Score: 1

    Calling it a "domestic" spy program when it clearly was targeting INTERnational, not INTRAnational, calls, is pretty much a lie. Please, stop lying. It makes you look bad.

    --
    You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
  32. A change that means nothing by jodido · · Score: 1

    You think the courts will protect your rights? That "judicial oversight" means anything? In 2005 the FISA court received 2074 requests from the Department of Justice and approved 2072 (the other two were withdrawn). http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2005rept.ht ml

  33. Why is it still called "Domestic" spying? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Since the program only covers international calls? Domestic calls have never required a pre-authorization. Cops have ALWAYS been free under wiretapping law to go ahead with a wiretap and obtain judicial approval within 72 hours after the beginning of the wiretap.

    Just curious...

  34. Anyone else see a pattern? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    There are elements of the Bush administration that truly believe in the "unitary executive" theory of American government, which by all appearances goes something like this:
    1. President does something shady (the reasons aren't relevant to this discussion).
    2. Congress makes a law to make it illegal to do what the President is doing.
    2. President signs a law (sometimes with a 'signing statement'), and ignores it.
    3. When someone catches him at it, appear to stop doing whatever he wasn't supposed to do so any court case will be considered moot.
    4. Start up a new program that does exactly what the old one did after the courts have thrown out the case in question.
    5. Goto 2.

    Bush's treatment of 'detainees' (i.e. prisoners) including US citizens, the warrentless wiretaps, and his administration's handling of government contracts all demonstrate this pattern.

    This time around, it looks to me like the threat of oversight by Congress and the courts is causing step 3 of this process to happen.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  35. What most don't know about the US Constitution by silentounce · · Score: 1

    http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

    --
    There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
  36. Judicial Review? by Phillup · · Score: 1

    The FISA courts have existed since the 70s and have passed judicial review of their constitutionality. But, I thought judges weren't qualified to make these kinds of decisions.
    --

    --Phillip

    Can you say BIRTH TAX
  37. It's Still Unconstitutional by krskrs · · Score: 1

    IAAL The Constitution requires that search warrants be issued only on "probable cause." This means giving a judge enough to show that you reasonably believe that something illegal is going on. FISA uses a different, toothless version of "probable cause" -- simply a statement that "we want to find out about something." That definition is unconstitutional for domestic use. That's why FISA is the FOREIGN Intelligence Security Act. The administration's commitment to go to the FISA court for domestic investigations is STILL unconstitutional. They didn't back down. They just threw up a smoke screen.

  38. Which program are we talking about here? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    FYI: It is not a "Terrorist Surveillance Program" - it is a "Public Surveillance Program".
    They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".

    Please explain how you think this program works, because I thought it was filtering telephone call routing information to fill in hidden nodes in graphs built to analyze social networks of terrorist groups, and because it's under NSA jurisdiction discarded all calls without an international prefix before analysis. This is just what I've read from experts over the past year, but I'm interested in learning more about it.

    Please also include the number of employees, bandwidth, and computing power (also include Watts for bonus points) required to listen in on everybody's phone calls to their domestic girlfriends. The number I seem to recall for the first point is forty million.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)