Slashdot Mirror


Government Seeks Dismissal of Spy Suit

The Wired blog 27B Stroke 6 is carrying the news that the US has filed a motion to drop the case the ACLU won in lower court against the government's warrantless wiretapping program. The government's appeal of that ruling will be heard on Wednesday, January 31 in front of the Sixth Circuit court of appeals. The feds argue that the case is now moot because they are now obtaining warrants from the FISA court, and furthermore President Bush did not renew the warrantless program. Turns out there's a Supreme Court precedent saying that if you were doing something illegal, get taken to court, and then stop the illegal activity, you're not off the hook. The feds argue in their petition that this precedent does not apply to them. Here is the government's filing (PDF).

4 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Not FISA court approval by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not done under the FISA program, he's trying to confuse the judge. What they did was they got 1 FISA judge to declare the whole program legal, not case by case with probable cause, not a FISA court ruling, a ruling of a single FISA judge.

    An actual legal FISA warrant is done case by case:

    Each application
    for a surveillance order must include, inter alia:

    1) the identity of the federal officer making
    the application;

    2) the authority conferred on the Attorney
    General by the President of the United States
    and the approval of the Attorney General to
    make the application;

    3) the identity, if known, or a description of
    the target of the electronic surveillance;

    4) a statement of the facts and circumstances
    relied upon by the applicant to justify his
    belief that . . . the target of the electronic surveillance
    is a foreign power or an agent of a
    foreign power . . . [and] each of the facilities
    or places [to be subjected to the surveillance]
    . . . is being used, or is about to be used, by a
    foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

    5) a statement of the proposed minimization
    procedures;

    6) a detailed description of the nature of the
    information sought and the type of communications
    or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
    [and]

    7) a certification [from an appropriate executive
    branch official] . . . that the certifying
    official deems the information sought to be
    foreign intelligence information . . . that the
    purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign
    intelligence information . . . that such
    information cannot reasonably be obtained
    by normal investigative techniques . . . .

    http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/sojudge.pdf

    1. Re:Not FISA court approval by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "What they did was they got 1 FISA judge to declare the whole program legal,"

      Yay, a general warrant! We don't need no stinking Fourth Amendment!

  2. Re:Section D of the government filing by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Informative
    You are correct. No court or judge has the power to issue such a blanket authorization.

    The Fourth Ammendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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.
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  3. Re:So lets see if I have this chain of events righ by mrseth · · Score: 5, Informative

    > Using it as an excuse for ex post facto warrants and attempts at all encompssing listening systems should not be tolerated.

    It is my understanding of FISA that getting a warrant after the fact is perfectly legal if the warrant is obtained within 72 hours. The Bush administration refused to even do that! The reason FISA exists is so that someone outside the administration (i.e., at least one federal judge) is aware of who and what is being wiretapped and will hopefully keep them from abusing the power of the intelligence services as had been the case from WWII to Watergate. During the 1960's the government was spying on the likes of Martin Luther King, Vietnam War protesters, and many others who did not warrant it. The government even had the audacity to attempt to use the information gathered about King to coerce him to commit suicide.