Slashdot Mirror
FISA Court Sides With ACLU Against Administration
jamie caught a breaking news story this evening: the secret FISA Court has ordered the Bush administration to respond by August 31 to an ACLU request for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. The ACLU's press release calls it an "unprecedented order."
I just picked up the phone and screamed "F You!!!" into it. Somewhere an NSA agent just threw off his headset in total pain.
Take that, NSA!
so a secret court takes steps towards transparency. On the face of it, I kind of like that. Of course, the Bush Administration will fight this tooth and nail.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
... but every time I get ready to write a check, I read about them doing something barking-mad like this:
International 'Tribunal' on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Second Amendment a 'Collective' right
Translation: The Bush Administration is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but we still need to give them a monopoly on firearms, because that way, we'll all be safer.
Or something.
Right Bush ... wrong voice.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Is there a link somewhere to the actual order? Or anything else more objective than a press release from the ACLU? As it is, the significance of this is nearly indeterminable.
Freakin commies in bed with the terrorists. What do they think this country is? A Republic governed by a Constitution? If they want the rule of law they can all go to Canada.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails."
I thought the whole hullabaloo was about *domestic* surveillance. Monitoring of internal US communications. This is how the story break a few years ago. But every time someone accidently brings that up, everyone else only talks about cross-border surveillance.
AANAL, but it is my understanding that if you cross the border you are going to possibly get a probe inserted in your anus that will come out of your mouth-- and that is perfectly legal.
But if the cops tried that on you while you were walking down the street, that had better have a rock-solid warrant.
Was the origianl issue not *domestic* warrantless wiretaps? (QUITE illegal-- but everyone conveniently forgets about it and starts talking about this non-issue international stuff).
So a "secret" court has a ruling about a "secret" wiretapping plan. And these "secret" things are able to make it into the media? Has the definition of secret changed since yesterday?
There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum. --Arthur C. Clarke
What's the punishment if they don't comply? Who would be the target of the punishment? Who would enforce this punishment?
I ask these questions, because I can't think of an incident in this past term in office where the Bush administration complied with any request that wasn't directly self-serving. Without a meaningful cost that could actually be enacted, I don't see this administration answering to anyone about anything that they wouldn't like to do already.
Ryan Fenton
The judge that signed this order is the same judge that presided over the Microsoft anti-trust trial after Thomas Penfield Jackson was removed from the case. She has apparently now become presiding judge over FISC. She certainly gets around.
This sort of behavior has been the standard operating procedure for our government for seventy years, unfortunately.
I was recently reading a couple of books on the history of the atomic weapons program in the US, particularly around the spy cases brought against a bunch of people involved.
A shocking number of known Soviet spies were unable to be tried because of the massive amount of illegal wiretapping that had been done against US citizens during that time. It wasn't until decades later that FOIA releases started to show just how many cases were quietly dropped to avoid it becoming public about the illegal surveillance and wiretapping.
The biggest difference now is via legal "loopholes" like Guantanamo Bay, and secret courts, people can be imprisoned without a trial or with a secret trial where the government can actually use the illegal wiretaps as evidence.
In my opinion, they're going after the wrong thing here. What do they hope to do? Stop the wiretaps? It'll *never* happen. What needs to be targeted is the illegal courts that allow them to make use of the illegal wiretaps.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Two weekends ago Bush kept Congress in session all weekend until the effectively eliminated the FISA court. Now all that has to happen is that once a quarter, Alberto "Lies like a rug" Gonzales has to NOTIFY Congress how many people they've spied on without a warrant.
nobody is buying your line any more. prepare for impeachment.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
It is amazing what a wonderful job we did in invading and occupying Iraq. Or are those ppl in an organized army with comparable equipment? The truth is, that Rifles and handguns DO help. We need to retain them.
With all that said, I have been an ACLU supporter over the years. Sometimes a member and other times not, but always a supporter. The real problem is that they really do not have a choice on the cases they take. They take those that are attacking our civil liberties even when it is disgusting (such as defending kiddie porn that was found via an illegal search or wiretap).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This story is tagged "slashkos". As if a story about the FISA Court objecting to unwarranted (pun intended :P) invasions of Americans' privacy is somehow a "liberal" issue.
I remember when "Conservatives" used to be the most sensitive Americans to government invasion of personal lives. When "Conservatives" used to swear to lay down their very lives to prevent "big government" from gaining unbalanced power over people.
That was a long time ago. Those "Conservatives" are dead, or sold out to the lust for power and the money it brings.
Today's "Conservatives" will sell any liberty for any illusion of "security". And even a geek blog like Slashdot can notice. "Slashkos" indeed.
--
make install -not war
You know, the ones who just a few months ago were calling for Bush's impeachment over "domestic spying"?
But when the rubber meets the road, they go and VOTE FOR what they called "unconstitutional" just a few months ago.
WTF?
If it was so "unconstitutional" and "dangerous" and such an "affront to liberty" and a gigantic "invasion of privacy" a few months ago, what the fuck are they doing voting FOR a law that specifically authorizes those exact same acts?
You obviously don't know Captain Splendid... :D
(Just kidding, Captain!)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
While overwhelmingly positive, this ruling still has to actually be complied with.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, the Administration refuses to comply. Who goes to jail, and who takes them? Is it the President? The heads of the various organizations that didn't comply? Nobody, since the Judicial branch can't really enforce anything without the cooperation of agencies under other branches of government?
I'd like to know, even if it's an unrealistic situation that they'd flat out ignore that sort of an order.
Being all up in arms about this stuff is fine. But I have SERIOUS concerns that people are SO foamed up at the mouth with Bush that when the next Democrat wins the presidency everybody will be so happy that nobody will pay attention like they are now.
I predict that with the exception of some high-profile non-productive executive orders the next prez (no matter which party) will keep most the powers that Bush has acquired via executive orders.
I may sound jaded, but let's not delude ourselves.
they should get used to the government spying on them. they have no right to complain. Fuck them.
the FISA court has announced that it will be stepping down at the end of the month, for personal reasons. It claims to have been mulling over this decision for months.
To be honest, this is great, but... Doesn't the Protect America Act, which Shrub passed into law after Congress passed it (I think they did, didn't they?) as well that the FISA courts are not applicable anymore? Or did the Act cover something else in regards to warrantless (aka anti-4th Amendment) options for the President?
Actually this administration has said that the Judicial branch as a whole is an obstacle. They have sought to circumvent every level of the court system and complained about them publicly. Keep in mind that Federal Judges rotate through the FISA court on fixed terms there are no judges who are "just FISA". What this suggests is that many federal judges are pissed at being called at best irrelevant or at worst Anti-American. One would hope that Congress also discovers a spine at some point.
Including labeling fanatical Islamic terrorists who would kill them in a moment's notice "freedom fighters".
Including actively cheering for a US military defeat.
You CAN'T "support the troops" if you don't want them to win. Period. That's like claiming you're a Cubs fan but going to Wrigley and rooting for the Cubs to LOSE. That's not support - that more like sadism. Saying "support the troops - bring them home" just means you don't have the courage to back up your beliefs.
It's hard to believe there once was a time where true liberals understood that the US is not the greatest evil in the world, that there are things worth fighting and even dying for like freedom, and who wouldn't wouldn't even think of viewing potential good news indicating US military success as some sort of "problem for [Democrats]".
Your rant is based on unsupported opinion. Mine is based on demonstrable facts.
Personally, I'm not worried too much that the Bush administration will really abuse what they are doing. I do greatly worry abour what a future administration such as Hilary Clinton or Rudy Guliani would do with this power. Therefore, let the court stop it before anyone too authoritarian gets into office.
Fuck you and your fascist rationalizations, you fucking Nazi apologist.
In a decade your sort will be saying "but I didn't speak up, because non-geek issues didn't concern me."
As far as I can figure, the actual issue is that the Administration holds that the Patriot Act overrules the older legislation and that they are not bound by the FISA process. I tend to agree, since that was the whole point of passing the Patriot Act. It basically suspends part of the constitution and places the USA in a partial state of emergency.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
It has been pointed out multiple times that the *target* of the wiretaps are not US Persons. The *targets* are people outside the US. It has long been the job of the NSA/CIA to monitor foreign communications. There is nothing new here. The NSA wasn't involved in criminal law and law enforcement of people living in the US, so they never needed a warrant.
If you were to call a suspect that has his phone tapped under a warrant, *your* side of the conversation can be monitored. They do not need a warrant for both sides, just the side that they have cause to monitor. Furthermore, if you say something incriminating, the police could get a warrant to tap *your* phone.
The new thing that changed is that if the NSA captured a call to a person inside the US, the information could be used to get a warrant and further a criminal investigation. Previous to 9/11 this was a big no-no. When this started happening the FISA judges complained about it. They wanted groundwork before the FISA request. They felt that NSA leads are tainted. Here is an article that touches on this:
Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data
"The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen."
"All of these charges... [are] only helpful to partisans."
The charges are not raised exclusively by partisans, nor are the benefits restricted to to interested partisans.
"trampling over the Constitution and spying on everyone" materially abuses the people whose rights the constitution protects by disregarding those rights. Certainly there are people who scrape for every little bit of mud to fling at their chosen political opposition, but not all. Those abuses affect partisans, their [partisan] enemies, and all bystanders as well.
It seems likely that anyone who would frame objections to these abuses as partisan is either oblivious to the abuses, or a partisan himself.
Nice try, but no cigar.
There is no such thing as a Patriot Act, there is a USAPATRIOT Act, calling it a Patriot Act makes it seem like it has something to do with patriotism, which it does not.
..."blame Canada"
:-)
eh?
Be careful, or we'll sic the mounties on you...:-)
It's nice to hear that even the FISA court is demanding that the Administration respect the law - but there are two problems I see that keep me from feeling like this is going to make any difference.
The first is that this administration just ignores laws and other governmental agencies/branches at will. They consider themselves above the law and act accordinly. They ignored congressional subpoenas, so I doubt that the FISA court is going to have any more luck - and that brings me to the second issue I have:
The second issue is that this could all be a show; that is how politics seems to work in the US. They very possibly could have worked this out in a back room somewhere and have to look impartial, but if there was true impartiality and true consideration of the law and respect for the constitution, for the country, for the people of the country, we'd never be where we are now.
You say you're comfortable with the way the gun laws are now... relatively unrestricted.
You obviously don't live in the U.S.
The issue at stake is really education and ethics.
People lack the fundamental pieces of information that allows them to realize the need for strict ethics and integrity.
Without some way of emphasizing the importance of these to the next generation, I see a long difficult road ahead for this country.
Join. Enough said.
J _donationhome
http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=F
There seems to be an organized move by the anti-gun crowd to mod offtopic everyone that discusses the ACLU's most glaring failure as a defender of the US Constitution. One should not even discuss the ACLU without reminding everyone of this apparently intentional abandonment of their self-assigned duties.
Many of the framers of the Constitution opposed the Bill of Rights because they feared that by enumerating these rights they might, by choice of words which could be misinterpeted later, lose those rights. Their fears have been proven at least in part correct, many times over.
Interesting that what's at issue here is enhanced powers given to the Bush administration by a Democratic Congress.
I'm astonished anyone can stop laughing long enough to discuss it at all.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
The government?!?!?!
You just don't get it, do you? The entire point of the Second Amendment is so the PEOPLE can protect themselves FROM the government. And yet there you go, proposing that we set up that government to "protect" the "privilege" to bear arms?!?!
If the right to bear arms is not a fundamental right, than the government can infringe it incrementally until it means nothing.
Furthermore, just because the Second Amendment includes an awkwardly worded justification clause (that wasn't awkward when it was written, BTW...) does not mean that justification is the only reason the Second Amendment exists. Then entire Bill of Rights is an enumeration of individual rights. Why would the Second Amendment be different, especially given that contemporary correspondence on the adoption of the Bill of Rights makes it clear that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms, including quite clearly handguns.
mod parent up
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Calling it a U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act makes it sound like it stands for something, which it doesn't.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. Awww, good news from Petraeus means Dem leadership will have "a problem" legislating US defeat in Iraq.
Didn't learn to read, did you? Or were both your brain cells already certain about that, so you "thought" you didn't have to?
Kinda makes the rest of your opinions worthless, doesn't it?
And of course, in response to a post that claims for libs it's all about "getting Bush", you go off on a rant about impeaching him, fabricating "mountains of evidence" about "how Bush illegally spies on Americans". That's a bit like threatening to kill someone who says you're violent, isn't it? Thanks for illustrating my point. Calling you a shit-for-brains after that demonstration of Bush Derangement Syndrome would be an insult to the grass a cow would have to eat in order to shit.
"Mountain of evidence"? Yeah, right, you sheltered, delusional little baby. Because when push came to shove, your Dem "heros" in Congress voted explicitly for allowing the NSA to do exactly the same thing they called "unconstitutional" and "illegal" just a few months ago. Bunch of demagogues, aren't they? They just voted for that, and you're still ranting inanities about how "illegal" it was. I wonder if that Dem Whip who thinks good news from Patreaus is "a problem" for Dems voted for it?
As if you really care about the troops.
And you're right, this isn't a Cubs game. The side you're rooting to win in Iraq stones homosexuals, denies women any education, and follows a literally irrational religion fanatically to the death, while treating any non-Moslem (and woman, for that matter) as subhuman.
Oh, yes it is. Along with being virulently medieval, misogynistic, and homophobic, Islam is literally irrational. Unlike Christianity or Judaism or damn near any other religion on this planet, when Islamic theology runs into a logical conundrum, it gives up and says, "It's the will of Allah!" Literally. Hence we have Allah himself changing his mind over the course of history, among other irrationalities. You don't see that in Christian theology, for example, where God is eternal, existing outside of time. (You'd probably piss your pants if you were to actually read the official Catholic Church position on human evolution, too, but since reading is not one of your strong points, I don't expect that.)
And you cheer that on to victory. You think we should just run away and hide. And those fanatics will just go away and leave us alone. What happens to the people of Iraq, then (even if you are right that the fanatics would then leave us alone - which we both *know* you're *NOT*)? How many millions of deaths will there be in the Middle East if we cut-and-run from there?
Are you going to accept responsibility for those millions of deaths? Somehow, I doubt it, given the history of what happened after the US abandoned South Vietnam to its fate. Yeah, the anti-war Left has taken responsibility for the killing fields there, haven't they? How many millions died in Southeast Asia after the Communist takeover?
And you're willing to do it all again. Just to blame it on Bush.
Shit-for-brains indeed. You don't deserve freedom.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
What it comes down to is you WANT the US to lose in Iraq and be forced to withdraw. Just to hang it on Bush. And the resultant chaos and regional or maybe even larger-scale warfare that may damn well go nuclear (if the US flees from Iraq the Iranians will try to "wipe Israel off the map" - just like they SAY they're going to....) where maybe millions die, you'll ignore.
Just like dolts like you utterly ignore the consequences of the US withdrawal from Vietnam.
Come on. Address that. Tell us how having the US pull out of Iraq makes for a better and safer world. Do you really think the Iranian mullahs will stop supporting Hezbollah and their goal of wiping Israel out? If feckless fools like you force the US to withdraw from Iraq, the only thing standing between Israel and the genocide of millions is the IDF and their nukes.
That'd be great, wouldn't it? On one side, the only democracy in the Middle East. On the other, a bunch of medieval fanatics fighting to commit genocide. With nukes on both sides. But you probably want Israel wiped out, don't you?
BTW, you're the one who doesn't understand Vietnam. The US and South Vietnam actually defeated the Viet Cong insurgency, and forced the North to sign a peace treaty (by finally taking the gloves off via a B-52 Christmas...). Of course, useful idiots like you forced the US to abandon South Vietnam three years later just like you're trying to force us to abandon Iraq. So in 1975, post-abandonment, South Vietnam fell to a conventional invasion from the still-backed-by-the-USSR North.
Which, even though you refuse to admit it, led to the deaths of MILLIONS in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
And you want to do it all over again.
Simply to salve your irrational belief that the US is a force for evil:
But the Vietnam War was too profitable for US corporations and Cold War fearmongering to Republican cowards like you to pass up.
Thanks for giving us another display of your irrationality. You REALLY believe that crap, don't you? I guess with the sounding-board circle-jerk of DU and DailyKos where like-minded fools make for a nice echo chamber, such delusions are rampant and hard to resist, no? And you truly think you're smarter than everyone else for it, too. What a fucking naive, deluded twit you are. You , the sheltered little suburban twit who can't survive outside your cocoon, have figured out that the entire world is run to benefit a few rich men in the US. You've been sleeping with the Elders of the Protocols of Zion under your pillow. And you're way too stupid and sheltered to even realize what an insult that really is.
You've never been to the Middle East, have you? YOU are the one who doesn't know what to do outside your sheltered little life, where you don't have to deal with any consequences from your decisions.
And even funnier, you think you're BRAVE for having the courage to post such crap under a pseudonym.
Iraq ain't Vietnam. This time, the driving force behind the fight isn't the last classically imperialist empire (which is EXACTLY what the USSR was - the Russian Empire with a cute name that gave all the leftist useful idiots hard-ons.), it's a fanatical religion that has painted a target on naive kafirs like you.
If we run from Iraq, those jihadis won't stop - they will keep coming. Backed by Iranian nukes. They won't be stopped by talking to them, any more than Hamas and Hezbollah have been stopped from continuously trying to wipe Israel off the map (you really need to understand dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb to understand the TRUE roots of the Arab-Israeli war. Do you?).
If we run from Iraq, we cede control of the Persian Gulf region to Iran and a regime that literally
So we should have stayed in Vietnam and lost even worse there too, right, Anonymous loser Coward?
The "good news" propagandized in that WP article is a lie that the White House has already written, regardless of who signs it. But that doesn't penetrate to your shit-scared brain, because all you want to hear is Republican lies, rather than the brutal reality of the butchery you re responsible for, you and the Republicans you worship.
You Republicans have already lost in Iraq. You've taken the greatest army ever assembled, and wasted it on an impossible task: forcing Iraq to work, after destroying it, and ignoring everything wrong with it. Everything that everyone outside the Republican Party told you would make it impossible. But you failed, and destroyed Iraq, and have destroyed much of America, too. And somehow that's the fault of the people who tried to stop you.
You have no standing to say anything worth hearing about war. You act like it's a videogame. How come you are not fighting in Iraq? Because it's "somebody else's problem", right?
I've been to the Mideast. I've spent time in Egypt, Israel and Turkey. I was headed to Iran before you assholes blew up the world. I was headed to India before you assholes let Osama attack us. I've been to dozens of foreign countries, even lived for years abroad. So shut up. Really. SHUT UP. Your endless running your coward mouth, repeating the nonsense your Republicans pump you on your talkradio and cable "news" shows are all just TV bullshit, not reality.
You want to impress me, go fight in Iraq. Of course you won't - you're a coward. So just shut up while we clean up after the mess you baby elephants have left wherever you've grabbed the power. And watch as we protect you from the hornets nest you insisted on kicking the last 6 years.
Coward.
--
make install -not war
What's wrong? Can't you tell us all how much better a US withdrawal from Iraq will make the world? You can't answer any of my questions, you won't address the millions dead. And you have the gall to call me a coward, while you are afraid to answer my questions?
You've got a nice list of talking points and ad hominem bile, but no real answers.
Got the balls to ask yourself why you can't answer my questions? Why can't you tell us how leaving Iraq to the Iranians bent on getting nukes and destroying Israel improves the world? Or are you afraid of the answer you'd have to give yourself?
And you still have Vietnam all wrong - the US defeated the Viet Cong insurgency. South Vietnam fell to a conventional invasion from the North, which still had support from the USSR. And please, tell us all how stopping the deaths of the millions who died after the US abandoned Vietnam at the urging of feckless fools like you would have been WORSE.
You know what? I'm FOR something - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sums it up well. And those are worth fighting for.
You? You're defined merely by what you're AGAINST. You've made it clear you think the US is a force for evil when you spouted that line of childish invective about war being waged just to enrich an imaginary cabal.
And you're literally willing to support a course that will not make the world a better place and could result in the deaths of millions simply to hang a defeat on George W. Bush.
You are FOR nothing. You won't even look at the results that would flow from your desired US defeat in Iraq you're so fixated on what you're AGAINST.
All you can do is call me names. You dare not even try to address my questions, you're so insecure. What kind of nonsensical, delusional world view can't even address a question?
Indeed, Congress and the courts did lay down pretty clear and well-crafted guidelines as to when wiretapping, etc., would be "reasonable" (even against US citizens). It's 50 U.S.C. 1801-1811, 1821-29, 1841-46, and 1861-62, better known as -- wait for it! -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. Despite recent accusations, this law has been functional and well-settled for nearly 30 years, updated occasionally as new technologies have demanded. The President has openly admitted to authorizing warrantless wiretaps in direct and obvious violation of FISA, which is (by the way) a felony under that statute. Asked specifically if he needed new tools to fight the Bad Guys, he assured Congress and the American people that he in fact had all the tools he needed -- assurances made at the exact same time he was willfully disregarding a settled statute.
The only relevant fact is that the President of the United States, by his own (proud!) admission, has repeatedly committed explicit felonies under well-established law -- that he has arrogated to himself a monarchical power not granted him by the Congress, by the Constitution, or by the people.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
FISA: We require you to respond to the ACLU request.
White House: Very well, our response is "Fuck off, traitors."
FISA: The requirement has been technically fulfilled, the best kind of fulfillment.
Is this guy wrong, too? With Congress poised next month to look at U.S. progress in Iraq and a vote looming on U.S. funding for the war, Baird said he's inclined to seek a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond what many impatient Americans want. He also expects Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees U.S. troops in Iraq, to seek a redeployment of forces. "People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," Baird said. He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment.
"Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:
"One, I think we're making real progress."
"Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility
As for Vietnam, riddle me this, Batman: Where'd the Viet Cong get those tanks that rolled into Saigon. T55s, they were, IIRC. And when, oh when, will your delusional ass address the millions killed after the US abandoned Vietnam?
If you're so right about the war in Iraq, then why haven't the Dems who control the House stopping funding it? ALL funding bills originate in the Pelosi-controlled House of Representatives. I bet that cramps both your brain cells.
Does it even occur to you that you just might be WRONG?
Because I bet you were so damn happy when the Dems won Congress with a promise to end the war in Iraq. Well, why the hell haven't they? Maybe because it's the WRONG thing to do?
You people screwed up Iraq, and Vietnam, too. Now you're worshipping a cartoon bully. Who cares what you say?
Sick bitches or the sickest bitches? Who cares.
Goodbye. I only wish I could add "good riddance", but you people are herpes. At least we're not letting you be AIDS.
--
make install -not war