NID Admits ATT/Verizon Help With Wiretaps

Unlikely_Hero writes "National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has confirmed in an interview with the El Paso Times that AT&T and Verizon have both been helping the Bush Administration conduct wiretaps. He also claims that only 100 Americans are under surveilance, that it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a telephone number and suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue."

Comments

Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[IndustrialComplex]

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.

Unless

[chuckymonkey]

The President grants executive powers to do what he wants. Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with. When does the fear mongering to get broad reaching government powers end? I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 5 or so years due to it. Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical. I'm getting to the point where I want to purge the entire administration from the lowest congressman all the way up and start over. Take out the special interest groups, no corporate sponsorships for campaigns, and get rid of the all the harpy lobbyists. I'm just so sick of it.

Re:Unless

[QuantumG]

purge the entire administration Like Stalin did?

I think I hear the Secret Service calling you...

Re:Unless

[baldass_newbie]

Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.

Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.
We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.
We cut off their cash cow...of course they're pissed.

Same things happening with Russian and Iran.
You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?
Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.

Re:Unless

[monk.e.boy]

Hey, fed up with [windows|USA] why not try [Linux|UK]?

...and I bet this is never nodded funny by the Americans ;-P

Re:Unless

[anti-human 1]

I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 60 or so years due to it. Fixed. Remember the Red Scare? Shit, Prohibition? How far back should we go? Hell, we were probably fearmongored into breaking away from the British Empire.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just so sick of it.

And I'm going to sit here on my ass and whine to Slashdot until things improve!

Re:Unless

[MMC Monster]

The President grants executive powers to do what he wants. Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with. When does the fear mongering to get broad reaching government powers end? I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 5 or so years due to it. Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical. I'm getting to the point where I want to purge the entire administration from the lowest congressman all the way up and start over. Take out the special interest groups, no corporate sponsorships for campaigns, and get rid of the all the harpy lobbyists. I'm just so sick of it. It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal.

No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.

Re:Unless

[Rhaban]

We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history. Can you please remind me who put Saddam in place at first?

Re:Unless

[turbofisk]

Of course there is a lot of truth in this... France did have a lot of presence in Iraq and made a bundle, but the *people* are pissed about something else. Saying that the world is pissed out of envy and money is just pure bs. There is the whole spectrum your carelessly choose to ignore. How about invading a sovereign country, killing thousands of civilians and generally destabilizing the middle east even more while doing some cowboy shit about terrorists are behind every stone and thus any measure is ok. Generally you have polarized the world as well, either your with us or your against us. Saddam was a dictator and we can't have that... All while supporting other countries who are run by dictatorship. Of the top of my head: Using capital punishment on your own citizens is a biggie. Degrading taliban and terrorists to Enemy combatant and thus denying them the rights of the Geneva Convention. No trials either. By doing this, imo you have let the terrorists destroy what you are trying to defend - freedom. And at the same time those who are whistleblowers get the sharp end of the stick for doing just that, ensuring that illegal stuff doesn't pass. I'm from Sweden and there is a general resentment that just wasn't there during the Clinton era.

Re:Unless

[oojimaflib]

Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.

Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon. We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history. That's hypocritical demonstrated. Any volunteers for the others?

Re:Unless

[E 99]

Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with.

What he said was that they monitored less than 100 people inside the US. I think it's unlikely that those people include any US citizens.

Re:Unless

[E 99]

No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.

So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I shouldn't mention that the USA put Saddam into power in the first place.

Re:Unless

[dc29A]

What he said was that they monitored less than 100 people inside the US. I think it's unlikely that those people include any US citizens. You assume AT&T and Co. are telling the truth. Do we have any evidence that *ONLY* 100 people were spied on? You also assume that the people who were spied on where not US citizens.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

The President grants executive powers to do what he wants. Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with. When does the fear mongering to get broad reaching government powers end? I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 5 or so years due to it. Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical. I'm getting to the point where I want to purge the entire administration from the lowest congressman all the way up and start over. Take out the special interest groups, no corporate sponsorships for campaigns, and get rid of the all the harpy lobbyists. I'm just so sick of it.

I agree and concur. I ask you to please please please look for yourself into Dr Ron Paul who is running for President; he is the only pro liberty, pro freedom, pro constitution, pro privacy candidate. He is the only one who wants to shrink the Fed in all forms.
McCain already tried with his anti 1st amendment laws to regulate speech (money) in Washington and it FAILED. It only got worse under the corrupt Republicans and now, as we are seeing with the earmark game, corrupt Democrats. McCain himself has admitted his reforms failed!

The ONLY, yes ONLY, way to remove the special interest (be it healthcare to defense) in Washington is to remove the Money from Washington. Yes, the Fed must be made MUCH smaller and thus, the influence it has will wain.

The ONLY candidate who wants to do this is Dr Ron Paul. If you support Obama, Clinton (both took lobby money from RIAA), Guliani, McCain, Romney, neo cons et al, then you continue to support the status quo; a slide to larger, more invasive Federal government.

A full purge will not work, because the massive influence in Washington is still in place. Only by removing the money in Washington, will the size of the Fed be reduced, will the corporate and other special interest's influences wain.

An excert from one of Dr Paul's letters... http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1542

Freedom brings us all together. We can all agree on leaving people alone to plan and live their own lives, rather than trying to force them to obey at the point of a gun, as runaway government does. Instead of clawing at each other via the warfare-welfare state, people under liberty can cooperate in a unity of diversity.

There is no need to use government to threaten others who have different standards, or to be threatened by them. Looking to our Founders, our traditions, and the Constitution, we can build, in peaceful cooperation, a free and prosperous society. ...

Unconstitutional government has created a war crisis, a financial crisis, a dollar crisis, and a freedom crisis. But we don't have to take it. We don't have to passively accept more dead soldiers, a lower standard of living, rising prices, a national ID, eavesdropping on our emails and phone calls, and all the rest.

We can return to first principles, and build the brightest, most brilliant future any people on earth has ever aspired to. Help me teach this lesson. Help me campaign all over this country, in cooperation with our huge and growing volunteer army. Help me show that change is not only possible, but also essential.

Re:Unless

[spikedvodka]

No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.

So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war. no, that's not what the GP is saying. There would be no conspiring involved, because until the warrant was issued (and served) AT&T would have no way of knowing what was being said over their lines.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, can we stop using the word "we" as a substitute for "government"? Do you honestly not see the danger in labeling government decisions as "ours"? At best, "we" means "majority" -- and I hope I don't have to point out that even this is rarely the case. Hell, even "majority" only has to mean 50.1%. Hardly a case for using the blanket pronoun "we".

Let's cut to the chase. If you and the government were the same thing, then why does government need guns to control you? You don't need guns to control yourself, do you?

Re:Unless

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Oh you poor misguided canuck, I do believe you'll be singing a different tune when the Russians come for the oil buried under the artic. Yes, the parent poster was using the American definition of liberal, as in cares too much about what a bunch of european snobs(who care so much about carbon emissions, then use a fleet of private planes to fly to a mountain top retreat to hold a summit) think. Don't get me wrong the other party in the US is no picnic either, they've got God on their side.

Re:Unless

[BlackCobra43]

And you were selling chemical weapons to him during the iraq-iran conflict. What the hell is your point? We're talking about NOW, not 15 years ago.

Re:Unless

[b04rdr1d3r]

I am not going to comment on the rest of your post (others have already replied), but this "We've liberated the French two times" thing has got to be corrected. While it is an undisputed fact that France would never have been freed from the Nazis without the intervention of the US during WWII, the role the US played in WWI is much smaller... the US only entered the war in 1917, and did not send enough troops to achieve anything the Brits and the French (and the other allies) would not have been able to achieve (albeit at a greater human cost for their side, and with more time). The US contributed to the victory of the Allies in WWI, but certainly did not liberate France !!

Re:Unless

[ericrost]

You are single-handedly destroying (with your carpet bomb Ron Paul spam) any chance Ron Paul had with this crowd. I hope you're proud!

Re:Unless

[smilindog2000]

Well, here's an apology: I personally apologize for being an American and not doing more to stop our government from it's recent brainless actions, including invading Iraq, causing a rise in terrorism world-wide, and putting the breaks on democratic reforms in our own country, and others through our own terrible example to the world. I voted against Bush both times, donated $100, to the EFF to help them sue AT&T, and ran bushshitlist.org for a while, to help educate people about his mistakes. And I'm no Republican hater - my favorite president since I've been alive is the Bush Senior.

Fortunately, even we Americans eventually wise-up. Bush is the most hated president in America since I've been alive (early 60's). I don't bother running bushshitlist.org anymore, because even the National Enquirer now publicizes the stupidity of many of this administrations actions. I've found that Americans fall into several groups, and we have very little mobility between them. The 'religious right' is hard-core in the Bush camp, making up 18% of Americans, and the majority of Bush's remaining meager support. Both Democrats and Republicans split about 20% of Americans that I call "glass eaters": smart people who would rather eat glass than criticize a president from their own party. There are also plenty of stupid people in every country, and we Americans are no exception. You gotta love Brittney Spear's support of Bush, for example. You also gotta love the stupidity of the Dixie Chicks attacking Bush. The dumber of us let actors and performers affect our opinions, and we tend to elect them to high offices. Then, there's a minority of Americans who can make up their own minds, and have at one point supported a Republican or a Democrat, based on their performance. This last category is the largest group, but unfortunately the others tend to outvote us.

All that said, America is still the world's greatest country, in my not so humble opinion. We've just got some clean-up work to do.

Re:Unless

[workindev]

Simple. It was the Baathists who overthrew and exiled Arif in 1968 who put Saddam into power.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

What was hypocritical about it?

Well?

It's nice to toss around accusations like that, especially when you get modded up for it, but how about pointing to exactly what was hypocritical instead of relying on the oh so trendy anti-US sentiment?

I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a long time for you to support your accusation.

Re:Unless

[spottedkangaroo]

Dude, Clinton lied about BJ. We can't have people that LIE in POWER. Seriously.

Re:Unless

[why-is-it]

>Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.
Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.

If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

While there is an element of truth there, I'm not sure that is something to be proud of...

We've liberated the French two times

FWIW, French intervention was required in order for the American Revolution to succeed.

Besides, the Americans were YEARS late joining WWI and WWII. The US made an important contribution, but why the delay in getting involved, if these wars were so important? I believe it was Churchill who said that the Americans never get involved in a war until they have determined which side is going to win...

and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam

So? It is speculated that GWB's grandfather made his fortune selling ammunition to the Nazis. Arms manufacturers will sell to anyone with money. If they were ethically inclined in the first place, they would probably not be dealing in weaponry.

during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.

Fraud larger than Enron or Worldcom? I hope not, because the oil-for-food program was overseen by American administrators...

You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?

So, because they do something bad, it's OK for your government to do something bad too?

Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.

What a witty retort. I was going to make a remark that all neo-cons were inbred rednecks, but I suppose that would be equally understood as well.

Re:Unless

[the eric conspiracy]

A regime change supported by the CIA during the cold war to fill a power vacuum left by the French and British colonial empires when they no longer were capable of playing the role of superpowers in the mideast. Give me a break. Europe has been mucking around fighting wars in that part of the world since before the sack of Baghdad by the sons of Genghis Khan. When Europe finally self destructed as a power in the Middle East due self-immolation in WWII the US had to pick up the pieces to prevent the Stalinists from overrunning Eurasia. Now all of a sudden this was a bad thing to do? Give me a goddam break. If this is the grasp of history that is prevalent in Europe your educational system is MUCH worse than is generally believed.

We are having and will continue to have major stability problems in the Middle East because of the mess Europe left behind when they ran home with their tails between their legs in the 40's and 50's. Unfortunately, and as usual the US is left to pick up the pieces and pay the bills in both dollars and lives. Now we are hearing COMPLAINTS from the Europeans on how it is being handled? Well, it is YOUR mess, get in there and clean it up.

What a bunch of hypocritical idiots.

Re:Unless

[oojimaflib]

It was merely a passing reference to all the Military Intelligence (apologies for the oxymoron), military hardware and advice that the US has never, at any time, sold/given to Saddam Hussein. Especially not during the Reagan Administration (but including the other times when this clearly did not happen)

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is an undisputed fact that France would never have been freed from the Nazis without the intervention of the US during WWII Undisputed fact? Whoa, lay off the crack pipe.

The only reason the US stepped into the European campaign of WWII was to prevent Russia from liberating France (and rest of Europe).

Re:Unless

[orzetto]

We've liberated the French two times [...]

No you didn't. To begin with I do not think you (singular) served in both WWI and WWII, so stop bragging about "We".

In WWI the US had hardly a modern army to speak of. The US entered the war late and did little. It may be debated whether they tipped the balance, but it is a fact that Germany and Austria-Hungary were already at the brink of collapse in 1917. And anyway, Germany in WWI was just any nation at war, no better or worse than the other ones. They had not even started the war (Austria-Hungary did), so what's the point in talking of "liberation"? From what? In any case, the US sacrificed very little compared to the British, yet I don't hear the British whine so much about the French being ungrateful.

In WWII, most of the work to win the war was done by the Soviets. On any reasonable scale (soldiers dead, enemy soldiers killed, land lost, land gained, overall number of dead, ...), the Soviet Union sacrificed much more than the US, even counting in the Pacific theatre where only the US were active. The eastern front saw the two most bloody battles in human history at the same time (Leningrad and Stalingrad), each three times larger than the one in third place (battle of Wuhan). Had the US stayed out, France would have been liberated by the USSR instead of the USA, or it would simply have risen up and taken back sovereignty when Berlin would eventually have fallen to the Red Army.

So cut the "we saved the world"-crap. The reason the US emerged as a superpower after WWII was that they had gone through two world wars without a single enemy soldier on their terrain, and had entered only when the outcome was almost guaranteed. Just like Switzerland, the US found out that not having armies marching through your country is beneficial to the economy.

[...] the largest fraud in world history.

According to Transparency International, the most corrupt politician ever was Suharto, dictator of Indonesia. Do I have to tell you who installed the guy, let him carry genocidal policies including but not limited to the invasion of East Timor?

You don't think this hatred is idealogical or that these countries don't spy on their own citizens, do you?

I don't "hate America", I think people (Americans, French, Congolese, Tikopians) who refuse to hear criticism of their own country, stick by the motto "good or bad it's my country", or trust the government (any government) are stupid and a threat to democracy.

Re:Unless

[DavidTC]

We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.

We cut off their cash cow...of course they're pissed.

You need to do a bit more research. Their fraud with food-for-oil was our fraud. Consider the entire setup was somehow magically operating right through our checkpoints in Northern Iraq and the Gulf, and that the vast majority of the oil ended up with our oil companies somehow, there's a damn good reason that the investigation got shutdown at the UN.

The investigation lasted just long enough to pin it entirely on the other countries involved.

Well, on other countries opposing the Iraq invasion, and 'or enemies', oddly enough we seem to have let Australia completely off the list, despite recent evidence that has turned up that their government was involved at very high levels.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think that Tibet was the world's greatest country - now I think Vanatu is. I really don't think that any of the industrialised western countries are great any more.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

"...did not liberate France !!"

Well, about now we're certainly wishing we hadn't.

Re:Unless

[kalirion]

Can you please remind me who put Saddam in place at first?

But we had common enemies back then, and were therefore friends! Next you'll be telling me we shouldn't be arming Sunni insurgents (oops, I meant ex-insurgents) for their fight against Al-Quaeda!

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

"We don't like you up here in Canada either."

Um, so? That's like saying "we here in Yemen don't like you", you're insignificant, and hate that we're not.

Get back to me when your pissant of a country matters.

At least with global warming you have the possibility that your country won't be a frozen wasteland. And you'll have the US to thank for that.

Re:Unless

[gclef]

Fortunately, even we Americans eventually wise-up. In other words, Churchill was right:

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.

Re:Unless

[Laxitive]

Here's the thing, there's probably not much that you need to personally apologize for (I'm guessing here.. I don't know you, who knows). What's missing is a national, formal acceptance of fault. Many in your country need to let go of the idea that accepting a mistake on the part of their country is tantamount to pissing on their graves of their ancestors.

Without an explicit acceptance of what your country ended up doing wrong, there is little hope of avoiding a repeat of the exact same thing in some other context. How are you, as a nation, going to educate your children so that they don't fall for the exact same trap when some tragedy strikes their country when THEY are the electorate? How is it possible to do this when every single time someone brings up a criticism, some weasel pops out of the waxwork to distract attention towards irrelevant actions by others? How is your personal apology going to combat that?

Your attitude seems to be one of putting things behind you and moving on.. which is understandable considering the embarassing trauma I'm sure you are suffering from.. but this is the wrong reaction to have. At the very least, your country owes it to the millions of people whose lives were ruined in part because of its actions, to examine what went wrong, reconcile with it, and put in place measures to avoid it. And don't for a second let yourself think that this expectation is somehow limited to just America. Every country has that obligation. Some may live up to that obligation, and others may not, but whether or not some other country holds itself up to a high standard shouldn't be a basis for excusing your own. It may seem to many that America receives an unfair amount of attention on this front.. but for christ's sake.. you're the most powerful nation in the world. Your influence affects EVERYBODY.. so OF COURSE people are going to scrutinize your actions more than the actions of others. You should welcome that, and rise to the challenge, and not run up a tree like a flayed cat.

Also, don't take this as me personally addressing you. I am speaking towards general tendencies I identify in your country's population, in your media, in your national social identity.

Now, I'm not sure abut your claim about America being the world's "greatest country", but I'd agree that your country has a many qualities that others could learn from, and that you have great potential.. for both good and bad. Your history is full of examples of both, and pointing out the bad does not detract from the good. Likewise, pointing out the good does not excuse the bad (and neither does pointing out the bad in others), and does not excuse the need for an honest self-appraisal amongst your citizens on the role their country plays in the world. This is one area where your people have been far too lax.

Re:Unless

[cHiphead]

I apologize on behalf of all Americans.

That said, I haven't known many Canadians to be such condescending pricks, on such a direct personal level, congratulations on your uniqueness. Last time I checked, you crazy kids up there got sidelined and gave a big steaming pile of power to a pro-military, anti-socialist group of politicos, so get off your high horse, you're heading the way of the USA now, especially with good ol' Russia trying to claim swaths of the artic shelf for oil. Canadian military buildup here we go.

Your whole country likes hockey. HOCKEY. Well, do I win the argument with my own nonsensical judgemental mouth flappery, eh?

Cheers.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think Americans need to feel more ownership of their government, not less. They're not distant monarchs, they are proxies for the will of We The People.

And if you don't feel like you own them: why not? How can this be fixed?

Re:Unless

[R2.0]

"Degrading taliban and terrorists to Enemy combatant and thus denying them the rights of the Geneva Convention. No trials either."

The Geneva Convention covers how SOLDIERS are to be treated after capture, and the rules for ARMIES to use while engaging each other, and some rules for treating CIVILIANS. And they provide definitions of what those entities are -wearing a uniform, command structure, etc. Under the Geneva Convention, the Taliban and insurgents are NOT "enemy combatants", i.e. soldiers. Nor are they civilians, in that they have taken up arms. They are unaddressed. In the past, that means that it was perfectly legal, under the Geneva Convention, to shoot them out of hand.

So, in essence, the Taliban are being treated BETTER than the GC requires, in that they are still alive and being accorded the rights of POW's. And since hostilities are not ended in Afganistan, they stay in Gitmo. Those rights, BTW, do NOT include a trial. POW's are to be held in humane conditions until hostilities are ended, and then repatriated. They are only tried for crimes - i.e. actions taken outside the rules of war.

So the Taliban fighters are in limbo - they are not soldiers, but are being treated as if they were in order to satisfy the sensibilities of citizens like yourself. Since they acted outside of the rules of war, i.e. shooting at folks and blowing shit up while acting outside of a military structure - they are subject to trial, but no set of laws exist to treat this situation. And on top of all of that, the current insurgency certainly isn't following the Geneva convention (basing among the civilian populace, targeting civilians), but the national forces are expected to do so.

The Geneva convention, as a means of regulating warfare, is broken. It was created at a time when the horror of war was thought to be massive armies slugging it out for political/nationalistic reasons. Now the situation includes entities that do not identify with a nation, using means specifically to inflict the very damage on civilians the Geneva Convention was supposed to prevent, and they then use that same convention to cover for themselves.

Re:Unless

[sconeu]

You mean the place where they have cameras on every corner, throw you in jail for anti social behavior (google for ASBO), and can throw you in jail if you forget your encryption keys?

Re:Unless

[Clandestine_Blaze]

No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.

So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war. You're taking the statement out of context. The OP was speaking in the context of the US Government AND the US Populace, not foreign ones. Here was the paragraph with that information:

It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal. Emphasis mine. It is generally accepted for the government to spy on foreign governments; the United States does it all the time and other countries do it to the U.S. as well. Furthermore, your example is flawed as the Japanese would have never discussed Pearl Harbor over AT&T lines, unless communications were being made to and from the U.S. at some point. Even then, the electronic surveillance statute allows the President to authorize surveillance without a warrant for up to one year only if it is for foreign intelligence information. So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Without A Court Order

The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.

*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3):
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments

US CODE: Title 50, 1801. Definitions

Re:Unless

[smilindog2000]

Yeah, we're kinda like one giant Microsoft Corporation :-)

Re:Unless

[compro01]

Hell, even "majority" only has to mean 50.1% of about 60%.

Re:Unless

[oliphaunt]

as usual the US is left to pick up the pieces and pay the bills in both dollars and lives.

Ok, but you're begging the question: why are we there AT ALL? Seriously, why bother? Who cares if it's a mess and they want to kill each other?

Oh, right, the oil.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell us again, little flower, about how the good ole' US of A saved Europe's butt during two World Wars....

I seem to remember you stayed out of each of them, making as much money as you could from both sides, until you could see which side was winning.

I don't think the Brits will forget how your industry was hand-in-glove with Hitler in 39-40, when they stood alone against the Russia/Germany/Italy Axis, and your ambassador said they were going to go under. Your main interest then was selling outdated weaponry to both sides - the Brits have only just finished paying the bill.

In WW1 I don't think you arrived in time for a single battle of any note. The Germans had just succumbed to the naval blockade and the American war was just a march on Berlin.

In WW2 you have a bit more claim to have helped saved Europe - not from the Germans, but from the Russians. The Russians won WW2, and were going to march straight across - having extra American troops meant that they only got half-way. But you never won a stand-up battle on your own over in Europe with a decent opposition - Monty had to rally you during the Bulge!

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious or just a troll? It is common knowledge that the US and Britian DID support Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq _during_the_Iran-Iraq_war That is only Wikipedia but there are many other documents to support this.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I would mod you up, but you know... They're watching...

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

If its for "The oil" Then I want to know why my gas prices are still so damned high in the US. The true answer is that we just can't keep our damn nose out of anything. Every president is trying to do something to be remembered by.

Re:Unless

[funkyloki]

Who says the government needs guns to control the population? They seem to be doing just fine with the fear-mongering machine that is the mass media to keep us complacent and controlled. BTW, "We" of the United States are the "government". We have the true power, but I think many of us have forgotten that. We are so afraid all the time, false fears mind you; terrorists are NOT lurking around every corner. So when we talk about the government of the US, we are talking about "We the people" because we put them in power, we elected them to office, and if enough of us did so, we could take them out.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, we Americans would be a lot off if we didn't have Cletus screwing his sister in W. Virginia. I know that is just a cliche and totally untrue of Americans in general. The problem is that we are inbred. We sit and slurp down what the government and media feeds and ask for more. We sit in our little communities and gossip about the important matter of the day and never look at issues from a national or global perspective. We Americans think all that matters is us. The government trains us from our youth to believe that we are the greatest country and we are all that matter. They train us to believe that without the US the entire world would just blow up. America has done many great things for the world but we have done many bad things as well. The adults do not teach their children to be free thinkers. They teach them to do what the education system tells them to do. To be good followers. Free thinkers are after all in America, "those damn tree hugging liberals". Free thinking and critical thinking is what is needed the most. Free to make up your own mind. Free to consider an issue and determine what you think based on your own morals and beliefs. Not what you are instructed to believe. The problem is that if we started now it would take no less than three generations to get to a point where Americans can think freely and shape this country to what it should be. What are the chances that the adults of this nation are going to start teaching their children instead of relying on the government to do it. I don't mean math science history and civics either. The day that Americans can start to think critically is the day that we begin to gain the respect of the rest of the world. Another thing is national unity. All these Americans with good national sentiment or just sheep. Anyone who truly loves the US would have serious questions about the administration, and all administrations. It is the duty of ALL Americans to inform themselves and to question the motives of their elected leaders. It is this blind trust/faith/belief that has been instilled in all of us from birth that has lead this country down the wrong path. Do I need to go on another rant about education? Fuck...... the more I write the more depressed I get. Why can't all you Americans wake the fuck up. It doesn't matter about your political affiliation. It matter that our Government is doing what's best for our country and it's people. I defy anyone to tell me that the last 50 years of American politics have been in the best interest of the American people. A good place to start would be voting. Although at this point I imagine I am preaching to the choir.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash for you buddy. You have the lowest gas prices in the US compared to every other developed nation in the world.

Re:Unless

[cayenne8]

"Ok, but you're begging the question: why are we there AT ALL? Seriously, why bother? Who cares if it's a mess and they want to kill each other?"

I'm not a history buff....I was going to ask why there was all this interest overthere way back when in the 30's-50's as another poster mentioned. I mean, oil from over there wasn't as big a concern back then was it?

I mean, I can see why there is a distinct interest NOW, due to the need for their oil. I'd dare say if we (the US) could get off the oil 'teet' of the Mid-East...would we just GTFO of there, and just let them have 'at it'? I cannot possibly understand why we'd have a need to deal with that section of the world at all (sans terrorism) if we didn't need the oil.

But really....in the past...why the heck was Europe so interested in that area? Nothing but sand, and muslim factions fighting each other....

Re:Unless

[Starker_Kull]

purge the entire administration

Like Stalin did? I think I hear the Secret Service calling you...

Sorry, that didn't deserve a Flamebait mod. It deserved 'Insightful' - almost every major revolution has occurred due to widespread dissatisfaction with the current (current in the country of revolution, just to be clear) leadership, and thus the temptation to just 'purge' the whole lot and let god sort them out is strong. It is also the essence of evil - once you give up on your responsibility to judge each individual as an individual, it becomes much easier for others to do the same... and that's when you get genocides and other enormities.

Much as I dislike the current bunch of Republican clowns in power, I would hate far more the destruction of the democratic U.S.A. that would occur if they were 'purged', in the Stalinist sense. I don't think that's the sense the GP meant it, but I thought the reminder was perfectly valid, and not 'flamebait'. Sheesh.

Re:Unless

[the eric conspiracy]

It started with the Crusades, and then as the Turks took over after the Mongols pulled out it became an issue of control of trade routes and economic growth.

At one time the Ottoman empire stretched well into Europe, including Greece etc.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of oil is the reason. It's the modern rich Oil Baron's reason, not the poor and middle class reason. We don't matter, except we pay the bills of the rich Oil Conglomerates. Who made the highest profit ever? The war benefits those in charge. Who gives a fuck about your gasoline prices? Definitely not them.

Wars are never really fought becaues the poor and middle class want a war. Poor people don't really matter in wars. It's the Rich Upper Classes that have the most to gain or to lose in a war. The middle class and the poor are just the tools that the rich man needs to fight their war. This has always been the case throughout all of history.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

You Ron Paul supporters need to pipe down. Anyone with any sense would never vote for a candidate who on one side of his mouth proclaims that he supports liberty and freedom, and from the other side is pro-life. I am sorry but if someone cannot see the problem with not supporting a womans right to choose then they have no place in government. Ron Paul included. So get back to me when he gets his story straight and actually supports what he says he does. In this country, women have equal rights to men. Including the ability to make their own choices.

Re:Unless

[iPaige]

Very well put.

Re:Unless

[smilindog2000]

I'd mod you funny, but I already posted :-)

Re:Unless

[funkyloki]

It wasn't AT&T that said they monitored less than 100 people in the US, it was the NID McConnell that stated that.

Re:Unless

[conspirator57]

"I'm not a history buff....I was going to ask why there was all this interest overthere way back when in the 30's-50's as another poster mentioned. I mean, oil from over there wasn't as big a concern back then was it?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_re lations#The_1950s_and_the_politics_of_oil.2C_a_tur ning_point

Yes. that's why we helped the Brits depose the democracy in Iran and set up the shah. The whole rationale was that the democratic government there wanted to boot out the British oil companies and run their natural resource exploitation locally on better terms for the locals. You know, a free market, not a demand-side imperial market. Small wonder that bit of hypocrisy (we claim to love democracy and to want to spread it, but topple it when the locals elect leaders that do stuff we don't like) earned us a dark place in the hearts of Iranians.

We've also done it in Latin America.

I love hearing interventionist conservatives claim we're spreading democracy and how that's such a good thing when our history is full of American interventionists toppling democracies. It's the elephant in the room that isn't spoken of: they'll blab platitudes about our noble objectives until those we're "helping" decide to do something we don't like. Then we find it more advantageous to throw them back into the tender mercies of despotism.

And for the record, I'm not a "lib" or "commie" or whatever loaded word you care to use because you disagree with me: I'm an independent with fiscally-conservative, anti-authoritarian, anti-interventionist, libertarian, and constitutionalist leanings.

Re:Unless

[soapthgr8]

Rather the GP would be raising the question.

Re:Unless

[oliphaunt]

Heh. and NOW I get mod points.

I guess the larger context is important; that is to say, the US has been involved for almost 100 years in trying to influence politics and stability of the arabian peninsula. Nobody can guess how much money we've pissed away on bombs and guns and bribing officials to try to make things more friendly to us there, and damn it all if it hasn't totally backfired every single time...

Of course, this time was going to be different, because that cowardly traitor Dick Cheney and his evil henchmen were going to do the job right.

Re:Unless

[Light_Wong]

The President grants executive powers to do what he wants.

First of all, the Constitution grants executive power to the president. If he steps beyond the constitutional limits of that power, it is the responsibility of the Congress to call him on it and, if necessary, impeach him for the abuse. That is why all elected federal officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They don't swear to protect the presidency or the interests of their constituents.

Seriously though, it shouldn't even really be one U.S. citizen that they do this with.

It is that way until the Constitution is amended. Get over it, or get involved in constructing and promoting an alternative.

When does the fear mongering to get broad reaching government powers end?

It never ends... The more important question is whether your Representatives and members of Congress are living up to their responsibility to protect the Constitution and your rights from people who use such techniques (Goebbels' style propaganda) in order to avoid democratic debate.

If Congress had held an informed debate over the U.S. unilateral invasion of Iraq, including the reasons and rationale for and against as well as the protential consequences, we'd most likely be living in a different world. (And many more Iraqis would still be here, too.) Then perhaps many of the questions around the subsequent abuses of power from the Bushies might have been avoided because the administration's use of Rovian style propaganda might have been nipped in the bud. As it is, this administration has done its best to hide their illegal actions from open scrutiny. Subsequently, it hasn't taken much to stall, stonewall or bamboozle this Congress while promoting the same abuses of warrantless surveilance that the the FISA Court was created to avoid, and little or no attention is paid domestically to what our pseudo-Texan cowboy president has done to the concept of international cooperation.

Fear is a tool in the hands of those who wish to use power indiscriminately and without opposition. The difficulty is in recognizing that the story teller is spinning a yarn. Bush has succeeded in convincing too may of us that we are under greater threat externally than he presents internally.

I'm so damned tired of it, and this country has slid so far downhill in the last 5 or so years due to it. Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical (sic).

Good... but if you think that members of Congress read Slashdot, then you are probably as deluded as any of the loyal Bushies who think they have done great things for "National Security" by subverting the Constitution, waging a massively destructive war in the Middle East without a plan or a clue, and outspending even Reagan. It's time to take your concerns back to your government, and tell them what you support. Aimless whining without thoughtful involved action is just aimless whining.

I'm getting to the point where I want to purge the entire administration from the lowest congressman all the way up and start over. Take out the special interest groups, no corporate sponsorships for campaigns, and get rid of the all the harpy lobbyists. I'm just so sick of it.

Good... When you actually get to that point, see if you can find an electable candidate who wants to support a reasoned alternative that will meet your discriminating sense to Constitutional justice. Then support their candidacy, and if elected, make sure that he/she/it knows your mind.

-- People ask me to predict the future, when all I want to do is prevent it. Better yet, build it. Predicting the future is much too easy, anyway. You look at the people around you, the street you stand on, the visible air you breathe, and predict more of the same. To hell with more. I want better. -- (Ray Bradbury)

Re:Unless

[blhack]

You're right, but we aren't talking about the price per gallon (or liter) of refined gasoline (which is HEAVILY dependant upon taxes), we are talking about the price per barrel of crude oil. The price of a barrel of crude has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY since the start of the "war for oil". And no, this is not some conspiracy by rand($corporate_entity); the president of OPEC has come out and said that they have intentionally released a limited amount of crude to market to artificially inflate the prices. Look at cities like Dubai and you will understand why.

Re:Unless

[jafac]

Hate to break it to you, but there were embargo violations happening throughout the 1990's with USA companies - with the full knowledge and acceptance by the US government. Illegal oil sales, weapons sales, and sales of "dual-use" equipment (things that could be used for one purpose, but also could be used in WMD development). These violations continued past Bill Clinton's presidency, through Dubya's, and ramped-up sharply all the way into 2002 during the troop build-up. In fact, Dick Cheney's company took part in some of these illegal activities, while he was CEO.

So - the argument that "sanctions weren't working" because of the evul cheese-eating French is completely bogus.

Sanctions weren't working because there was no will to make them work across the board.

If there's legitimate criticism to be leveled at the UN - here it is. They were strong enough to punish players like Iraq, Somalia, etc. But too weak to even criticize players like the US, China, Russia, and France. I don't think that's an argument for disbanding the UN. But the model under which it operates really needs to be re-examined in this post-cold-war era. Because it no longer functions effectively.

Re:Unless

[birdboy2000]

Kucinich and Gravel are both pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-constitution, and pro-privacy, unless you define "liberty" as "the freedom for business owners to do whatever they wish, worker's rights be damned."

Re:Unless

[jafac]

It was "For the Oil" - to KEEP THE PRICES HIGH.

If we had not invaded, international pressure was high to do something to ease the Iraqi people's suffering (end sanctions) which would have allowed Saddam to sell oil, which would have flooded the market, at a time where prices were already very near historic lows - (1998=$10/bbl. . . 2000=$20/bbl).

Since we invaded, and we invaded specifically in a way guaranteed to prevent the market being flooded with oil, oil prices have gone up. ($70-$80/bbl). An oil-producer's WET DREAM. The price has been driven up by speculation. Not actual production costs.

And, what business was George W Bush and Dick Cheney in before they ran for office?

The funny part is - the joke is on all the stupid rednecks who supported this war because they thought it was going to keep gas prices down. It was intended to do the OPPOSITE. Suckers!

Re:Unless

[E 99]

So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.

The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.

*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3):
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments

That would be fine if they updated the definition of Foreign Powers. The executive branch has the legitimate power and duty to pursue war-like activities against foreign enemy terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda. However the definition in the law you provided excludes such organizations. That is the problem.

Re:Unless

[Clandestine_Blaze]

So in your scenario, a warrant would not be necessary as long as those targeted were Foreign Powers*.

The only requirement then is for the Attorney General to make certification of the requirements - communication between foreign powers where no US parties would be involved - and present it to the House and Senate.

*Foreign Powers covered in the FISA are defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3):
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments

That would be fine if they updated the definition of Foreign Powers. The executive branch has the legitimate power and duty to pursue war-like activities against foreign enemy terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda. However the definition in the law you provided excludes such organizations. That is the problem. I see your point and you are correct there. And while the definition of Foreign Powers covers terrorist organizations, it does not apply to FISA:

(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

Al Qaeda would fall under #4. Interestingly, Hezbollah would be all three! I was actually responding to your example of Japan and Pearl Harbor, as the government of Japan would have fallen under #1. If the Government tried to spy on Al Qaeda, they would need a FISA warrant, I presume. Now why they would need a FISA warrant for a terrorist organization and not for a foreign entity such as a government is beyond me.

I agree that if we switched Japan with Al Quada, in your example, then things would be completely different.

Re:Unless

[icydog]

Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.

So is that like, really fat and hypocritical?

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Or are you a naive libera...oh, nevermind.

Oh how cutesy. Kiss my asshole, you smug Bushie lickspittle.

Re:Unless

[jagspecx]

Had the US stayed out, France would have been liberated by the USSR instead of the USA

You mean like the USSR liberated Poland?

Re:Unless

[sconeu]

Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical. Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon.

If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

Actually, until the end of WWII, the US was militantly isolationist. Had the Lusitania not been sunk, it's quite possible that the US might have sat out WWI. And it took a direct attack on US territories (Pearl Harbor) to get the US to formally intervene in WWII. Note the term "formally". The US had been giving informal assistance (see Lend-Lease) to Great Britain prior to that.

Re:Unless

[sconeu]

Oh, sorry, forgot the Zimmerman Telegram (re WWI).

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one area where your people have been far too lax.

Damned right. Thank you for the most rational posting in this thread.

Your point about refusing to acknowledge mistakes is dead on.

If a beloved relative is an alcoholic or engages in other self-destructive behavior, you do them no good by ignoring -- or worse, encouraging -- the situation. In my family's case, an uncle could not control his drinking. Yet, at any family party, he was given drinks just like any of the other men got. One alcoholic aunt especially, when admonished to make his drinks weaker, replied, "A man's got to have his drink. You don't want to humiliate him by treating him any different from the others, do you?"

Guess my ethnic heritage. Focusing on the phrase "his drink" will help.

So yes, the uncle did eventually die in a dump apartment on skid row, after exhausting the efforts of all in the family who would take him in for a length of time.

He managed to stay employed only because, being a plumber for the county streets department, it was as good as impossible to fire him. But I can guarantee you that, for the time he lived in my mother's house, it was no fun being awakened at two in the morning, when he'd stumble home from the neighborhood bar, then sit in the kitchen, loudly ranting and cussing out his bosses in the water department for an hour before falling into bed, still dead drunk.

In this respect, all the administration can find to do is to abuse as "unpatriotic" anyone who refuses to become a co-dependent in its self-destructive behavior.

Unbelievable -- the captcha for this posting is "refills".

Re:Unless

[SIIHP]

"I apologize on behalf of all Americans."

Not to be too rude, but fuck you, don't speak for me.

Thanks.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

We sit in our little communities and gossip about the important matter of the day and never look at issues from a national or global perspective.

What else would you expect from an electorate which put into the office of the president a drooling imbecile who thinks, in the middle of a war, that the two largest problems facing America are multi-million dollar athletes who use steroids to turn their nuts into raisins and Janet Jackson flashing her tit at us on TV? Behind that, the war comes in a pale, distant third.

Who in the fuck wrote that horseshit -- did the White House speech writers outsource the state of the union message to the celebrity gossip staff at People Magazine?

That was the most disgraceful state of the union message ever delivered and it should be posted in full on that bastard's gravestone, which should be in the form of a granite urinal.

Re:Unless

[mrogers]

Do we have any evidence that *ONLY* 100 people were spied on?

It's worse than that - the summary says that only 100 Americans are under surveillance, but the article says that "fewer than 100 people inside the United States are under surveillance under FISA warrants". FISA's jurisdiction only covers communication with or by foreign powers, so it's likely that most surveillance of Americans is governed by other courts.

Re:Unless

[cHiphead]

I apologizing for apologizing for you, and fuck you too, pal.

(Hi-Five! Go USA!) ;)

cheers.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck appointed you world cop, cockfag?!!

Fuck off and get over your self-proclaimed superiority you fascist expansionist creep! Who the hell asked you to interfere in any other country's affairs? Why the damned hell can't you fucking americans mind your own bloody business?!!

Re:Unless

[thej1nx]

Oh you mean like George Bush lied about those WMDs? i agree.

Re:Unless

[thej1nx]

*whooosh* .... looks like the sarcasm flew past you!

Re:Unless

[Torque]

Actually, just to be pedantic, Russia probably doesn't survive 1941-42 without Lend-Lease. We sent quite a few trucks and material to the USSR under the Lend-Lease act.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if any are citizens or native-born Americans, but if they are associated with the foreign terrorist organization, they are legitimate targets. However, if criminal charges were ever brought against any of these individuals, none of this military intelligence would be admissible, because that's where "due process" comes into play.

Hahahahahahahahaha -- you're a fucking scream -- tell that line of steaming weaselshit to Jose Padilla's lawyers.

Ohhh, hahahahahahahaha.

Ohhh, hahahahahahahaha.

Ohhh, hahahahahahahaha.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that ignorant? I mean your WWI argument does have some merits, but that kind of goes out the window with your incredibly ignorant WWII position. You are as bad with facts as the Bush administration. But on the bright side, thanks for making me laugh just one more time today!

Re:Unless

[Lawn Jocke]

>>Not to be too rude, but fuck you, don't speak for me.

>>I apologizing for apologizing for you, and fuck you too, pal.

Make love, not (flame)war!!!
(ducks)

Re:Unless

[iminplaya]

We cut off their cash cow...of course they're pissed.

Not really. They got the Libyan market back online. There's always somebody to pick up the slack.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd mod you funny, but I already posted :-)

You ignorant son of a bitch -- people like you are exactly what's wrong with America.

You prance around asserting that "the terrorists hate us for our freedoms". Well guess what, it's not the terrorists who are gradually chipping away at our freedoms, it's the Bushie lickspittles in Congress, as well as the FBI, DHS, DoJ and the motherfucking administration in general who are making the laws and regulations which are snuffing the Constitution.

There are presumably no Al Qaida operatives in policy-making positions in any of the organizations listed above.

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants to move to an English-speaking country with more sanity than the US, I think Canada or New Zealand might be a better choice than the UK.

Re:Unless

[SIIHP]

"cheers"

Hmm, this makes me suspicious, are you sure you're American?

Re:Unless

[xhrit]

>But really....in the past...why the heck was Europe so interested in that area? Nothing but sand, and muslim factions fighting each other....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game

Re:Unless

[discogravy]

"the beatings will continue until morale improves"

ATT / Iphone impact...

[aapold]

now I'm afraid to put subversive music on the damn thing.... oh geez, I had some Cat Stevens, that's like a red flag...

what do you do about searching without a warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

Several sys admins I know tell me that they routinely get phone calls from folks in the law enforcement community asking for copies of emails and other surveillance. When they ask for a warrant or a national security letter, they never hear back again. How cooperative are we supposed to be? I realize that 200 hours is a lot of work, but how else can we stop freelance investigations and abuse?

Due Process..

[lionchild]

There's a reason it takes over 200 hours to assemble what you need to get a wiretap warrant. Due proccess is meant to insure that honest people have privacy preserved, and that the resources we have are being focused on those who really are potentially criminial.

Is it perfect? No, probably not. But it's what we have setup now and short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.

Re:Due Process..

[downix]

Indeed. Due process is a concept often forgotten in this day and age, but it was one of the foundations that the United States were founded on. Do things right, or don't do them at all I say.

Re:Due Process..

[E 99]

There's a reason it takes over 200 hours to assemble what you need to get a wiretap warrant. Due proccess is meant to insure that honest people have privacy preserved, and that the resources we have are being focused on those who really are potentially criminial.

The problem is that this isn't being required for prosecuting criminals; it's being required for spying on enemies abroad.

Re:Due Process..

[machinelou]

I bet the Bush Administration's use of executive privilege is really starting to irk Al Qaeda. I mean, it's got to take what, 600 hours of martyrdom training just to get a single mission pulled off these days? Jeeze..

Re:Due Process..

[Anonymous Coward]

it's being required for spying on enemies abroad.

Except for the whole 100 Americans part. Which are only abroad if you're claiming that I leave the US when I enter my house, and are only enemies after a trial for treason as explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

Re:Due Process..

[lionchild]

If the lawsuits that "will bankrupt this [telephone] companies" are filed by enemies abroad, then I suspect that this wouldn't be an issue. However, these lawsuits are being filed by native-born Americans. So, that begs the question: Why are we not following Due Process for a native-born American, if we're only requiring this warrantless wiretap for spying on enemies abroad?

Re:Due Process..

[sigzero]

200 hours is a looooong time for something like that. FISA needs updating big time.

Re:Due Process..

[E 99]

If the lawsuits that "will bankrupt this [telephone] companies" are filed by enemies abroad, then I suspect that this wouldn't be an issue. However, these lawsuits are being filed by native-born Americans. So, that begs the question: Why are we not following Due Process for a native-born American, if we're only requiring this warrantless wiretap for spying on enemies abroad?

"Due Process" is the standard which must be adhered to when depriving an American of his life, liberty or property. It is therefore relevant to criminal prosecutions. It is irrelevant to gathering military intelligence. Foreign terrorists organizations have members and associates in the United States. The military intelligence community has a duty to spy on these individuals. I don't know if any are citizens or native-born Americans, but if they are associated with the foreign terrorist organization, they are legitimate targets. However, if criminal charges were ever brought against any of these individuals, none of this military intelligence would be admissible, because that's where "due process" comes into play.

Re:Due Process..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is therefore relevant to criminal prosecutions. It is irrelevant to gathering military intelligence.

Authoritative citation to Constitutional specification of this pulled-out-of-your-ass difference, fuckwad?

You're just another of the pantywaists who thinks that a handwave and uttering, "9/11 changed everything!" gives you and the rest of your fascist fucks the authority to declare any diminution of American freedom to be perfectly OK.

With shits like you on the loose, who needs Al Qaida -- you're the pisswads who "hate our freedom".

Re:Due Process..

[Anonymous Coward]

200 hours is a looooong time for something like that. FISA needs updating big time.

200 hours is a number someone pulled out of their asshole to make a point.

FISA has only rejected about eight submissions to them. Four were granted after re-submission, with "additional documentation".

I've heard that each submission is a stack of paper about five inches thick. (Yeah, just like my dick.) These things are more likely like the paperwork for a loan application -- a couple of inches thick of paper, all boilerplate, with a few names, dates, amounts and rates plugged in at print time. Probably take less than five minutes to pump out.

Lessee -- could the attorneys who present these things really be so good as to have only eight questioned out of some 50,000 filed? If they're such consistent winners, one of two things should happen -- either the government should put them in charge of something important like anti-trust lawsuits against the likes of MS; or some smart corporation should hire then out of government for 100 times their going salary.

Let's admit it, folks, there's a lot of shuckin' and jivin' and fancy footwork going on here, but none of it takes 200 hours. Nor does any of it have a thing to do with due process, as envisioned by the founding fathers.

ECHELON

[Anonymous Coward]

has you by the balls anyway, so it's irrelevant.

My guess....

[A beautiful mind]

200 hours? I bet he's just simply lieing or uses some bullshit metric.

Re:My guess....

[coinreturn]

He probably means 200 man-hours, like 20 people working 10 hours. BFD!

Re:My guess....

[AtariDatacenter]

Despite your typos, I'd mod you up if I had the points. I didn't see them specifiy if it was wall clock hours or man hours. (I suppose you could further argue that they don't specify if any part of the man-hours are counted again for a different warrant, or if these were dedicated and discrete man hours to this. Much less how far down into the indirect support roles are included.)

So 200 hours could mean that someone entered something onto a screen in a computer system in five minutes and it was done. But they go back and count the time it takes to maintain the system, the techs to actually do the work, the approval process with multiple people, etc etc.

Or it could mean that from the time the process started, it takes 8 days for the wiretap to be in place.

Either way, I think this is a number used to create an impression rather than to convey any meaningful information.

Re:My guess....

[Doobian Coedifier]

From Wikipedia:

When the Attorney General determines that an emergency exists he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISA court, after which the Attorney General or his designee must notify a judge of the court not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. So it takes zero days for the wiretap to be in place. Once the AG authorizes it, they can start the tap and have 72 hours to submit the warrant request to the court. I fail to see the problem with the current setup.

IANAL.

Re:My guess....

[cold fjord]

It is 200 man hours. If you just stop and think for a minute, and include the terms law enforcement, legal procedure, paperwork and documentation, lawyers (lots of them), courts, and federal government in your thought process, it will start to make sense.

Testimony of F.B.I. Agent Harry Samit in the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial

Q. Could you tell us what the -- would you describe for us what the process was then for you to go about procuring a FISA warrant back in August of 2001?

A. Once my investigation had convinced myself and supervisors, other agents working the case with me, that probable cause existed to believe that the subject of that warrant -- of that search was acting as an agent of a foreign power, then I would prepare an electronic communication, an EC, and supporting documentation that would go to the Radical Fundamentalist Unit, or the FBI headquarters unit that was overseeing that investigation. They would, they would take that information, they would add whatever type -- whatever information they could to amplify their request, and then they would take it to a headquarters unit, FBI headquarters unit called the National Security Law Unit, comprised of lawyers whose expertise is in the area of national security law.

They would review it to ensure that probable cause did, in fact, exist to establish that that person was acting as an agent of a foreign power. When that was in agreement and the FBI agreed that the application had merit, it would then go to the Department of Justice, OIPR, Office of Intelligence Policy Review, where it would again be reviewed by attorneys, this time in the Department of Justice outside the FBI, and again, when all parties agreed that probable cause existed, it would go forward to the FISA court in the form of a declaration.

Q. And, and even when the application goes to the FISA judge, the FISA judge still has the decision whether to approve it or disapprove it; is that right?

A. That's correct. There's many points along the way where it can be forwarded and not forwarded. The ultimate person who decides is a FISA court judge......

Q. All right. And can you explain why it is that, you know, based upon your knowledge and your training, that there is this difference between all the different layers that are necessary for the FISA warrant as opposed for the lesser scrutiny on a criminal search warrant?

A. Because of the -- it just precludes any even illusion that there's a possibility that the FBI could abuse the intelligence investigation process.

Q. And when you talk about abuse, what do you mean by that?

A. I mean if there's not enough information to, to establish a criminal case, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General have set up guidelines to prevent the FBI from applying for intelligence techniques to circumvent that lack of evidence.

Q. The idea being if you don't have enough for a criminal warrant, you don't use the ruse of going to get a FISA warrant when you couldn't have gotten a criminal warrant?

A. Yes.

So 200 hours could mean that someone entered something onto a screen in a computer system in five minutes and it was done.

I doubt that there is much of anything useful involving either classified data or the courts that you could do in 5 minutes. Combine the two and guess what happens?

Either way, I think this is a number used to create an impression rather than to convey any meaningful information.

The number is both meaningful and it should create an impression: there is tremendous overhead to the classified warrant system. From that you might conclude that forcing the use of warrants when they aren't legally required is a bad thing that wastes resources, eats up precious time, reduces the effectiveness of surveillance, and generally makes it harder to deal with terrorists trying to kill us.

Re:My guess....

[Anonymous Coward]

So it takes zero days for the wiretap to be in place. Once the AG authorizes it, they can start the tap and have 72 hours to submit the warrant request to the court. I fail to see the problem with the current setup.

IANAL.

No, but if you can't see the problem, URAjerkoff.

Not at all misleading...

[kennylogins]

If I'm not mistaken they can start the tap and apply for the warrant retrocactively within a few days. I'm sure they didn't mean to be deliberately misleading or anything. :/ Par for the course from Faux and our beloved dictators.

Re:Not at all misleading...

[Sczi]

Yep, I've heard that too. The retroactive warrant is part of why I think this whole thing is a huge steaming pile of dung on the govt's part. The FISA court is so incredibly lenient that there is almost zero reason why anyone should have a problem with it. However, if you were to get a temp warrant based on clearly BS information FISA would wring some neck when they found out, and that's the part we need.

"Federal agencies can submit retroactive search warrant requests up to 72 hours after they begin surveilling someone. In 2002, for instance, Attorney General John Ashcroft personally issued more than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants -- permitting agents to carry out wiretaps and search homes and offices for as many as 72 hours before the feds requested a search warrant from the FISA court. He used such powers almost a 100 times as often as attorneys general did before 9/11."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard17.html

dunno how authoritative the above is, but I've heard similar from several sources

/Let the eeeeeeeaaaaagle sooooooaaaaaaar

Um, wha?

[downix]

200 hours to get a FISA warrant? No, the FISA system is pretty well documented. If you come to the judge with the right level of evidence, it takes a matter of a pen stroke.

They might be claiming it takes 200 hours to get that level of evidence but that is very misleading. It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant.

Re:Um, wha?

[OpenGLFan]

Agreed. They're not doing 200 hours (or even 200 man-hours) of paperwork -- it shouldn't take a Master's Thesis to get a FISA warrant.

In fact, the admission that they have to spend an additional 200 hours gathering evidence is a clear admission of wrongdoing on their part. Our Constitution provides security against arbitrary searches and seizures; if it takes 200 additional hours to gather enough evidence to form a mere suspicion of wrongdoing, then the initial justification for the wiretap must be fairly flimsy.

Re:Um, wha?

[moxley]

I agree. The 200 hours is probably how long it takes to distort/twist or even fabricate (as this administration has been caught doing before) the evidence, (or torture it out of someone).

In fact, to me this whole interview/release of information was done as damage control; it reeks of it. I think the entire purpose of the interview was to get that one line out there, about how it's "less than 100 people" - but since we know that they are recording and data mining ALL communications, I think that is bullshit.

If they can do it to one American citizen, it can happen to me or you.

I still think that most of the public has no clue how dangerous of a situation this country is in. We have lost our republic. The only question in my mind is: how long will it be before we're under complete tyranny? I think this will occur after the next big terror attack, which could be any day now.

Re:Um, wha?

[Clandestine_Blaze]

200 hours to get a FISA warrant? No, the FISA system is pretty well documented. If you come to the judge with the right level of evidence, it takes a matter of a pen stroke.

They might be claiming it takes 200 hours to get that level of evidence but that is very misleading. It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant. Absolutely. And if it really is taking the government over 200 hours to get a FISA warrant, then something within the process is bottlenecking the entire operation and needs to be corrected. Instead, the alleged 200 hours is being used as an excuse to ignore the whole process.

Perhaps they are using all of the hours involved in the case up to and including getting the warrant as part of their calculations, which would be grossly misleading. I'm just speculating here, but those hours spent doing research would have to happen regardless of whether they are aiming for a warrant or not. Getting the actual warrant should be presenting evidence to a judge, allowing the judge time to decide, and then getting a signature. If that takes more than 72 hours then I would love to see some non-confidential evidence documenting this.

Re:Um, wha?

[cold fjord]

It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant.

Really?

But after 9/11, the criticisms came from a different direction. It was revealed that FBI agents failed to get a FISA warrant to search the computer of al Qaeda suspect Zacarias Moussaoui before 9/11, because they felt the FISA process was too difficult. Inside America's secret court

Do you care to read up on the hoops you actually have to jump through to get a FISA warrant? Search for "928" and start reading at line 14.

Testimony of F.B.I. Agent Harry Samit in the Zacarias Moussaoui Trial

The judge might be able to "easily" approve the warrant, but the data collection, procedural safeguards, and general administrative overhead is a considerable burden. Compounding the problem is that people keep trying to expand the requirement for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to get a warrant when it isn't Constitutionally required.

Re:Um, wha?

[cold fjord]

In fact, the admission that they have to spend an additional 200 hours gathering evidence is a clear admission of wrongdoing on their part.

No, it is a clear statement of the overhead of dealing with lawyers, procedures and documentation, courts, classified data, and multiple layers of review.

100 americans denied due process

[bugi]

Only 100 Americans? That's 100 Americans denied due process, even secret due process.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[folstaff]

It didn't say 100 Americans. It said 100 people living in this country. They are most probably not citizens and they are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.

Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that it is not 100 Americans, it is less than 100 people in the US. That is a subtle, but important difference. It doesn't necessarily make it right, but it is significantly different than 100 Americans. This topic has enough disagreements on principle, that it is important to get the facts right. That difference that I pointed out makes a difference as to what principles are violated (or not)by this wiretapping. Mis-stating the facts makes it harder to find common ground. Mis-stating the facts also increases the likelihood of people dismissing valid arguments because they no longer trust the person making them to not distort things.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[bugi]

Darn, I don't know why I keep expecting accuracy from stories posted to slashdot. Grr.

However, even ignoring the rights of non-citizens, I must wonder how many of those "100 people inside the United States" are citizens. Why don't they just say 100 non-citizens if that's what they mean? Do they apply due process, even secret due process, to citizens?

Re:100 americans denied due process

[tomstdenis]

First, non-citizens are afforded, or supposed to be afforded, most of the same rights as citizens. For example, you have the right to protection from unlawful search and seizure, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, etc. Actually, it was only until fairly recently that non-citizens also had the right of habeas corpus. This is required to prevent retaliation from other nations.

Most people confuse being asked to do something with being told to do something. For example, they CANNOT compel you to give fingerprints [as a tourist] to the USA. They just can't. By that same token, entry is NOT A RIGHT for non-citizens/residents, and they can send you packing. But people confuse that with "oh look see, we don't have the 4th amendment here!" Which is just not true.

Second, the unibomber was a citizen. Most neo-nazi, skinhead, kkk, and other violent organizations are also made up of citizens.

Third, stop watching FOX news. Their garbage is spewing out of your brain.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Put me in jail because I was born in another country.

I know another guy who had a similar idea in the middle of the last century, he just took it a few steps further.

Stop the alarmist bullshit. Not every foreigner is a terrorist, treating them like terrorists doesn't improve matters.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[folstaff]

Second, the unibomber was a citizen. Most neo-nazi, skinhead, kkk, and other violent organizations are also made up of citizens. And what shared trait exists between your examples and islamist extremist? They want to change the US to their world view and are willing to kill people to do it. Because these people are citizens and in the US, we have recourse. The kkk has been sued nearly into oblivion. The unibomber is rotting in jail.

Isn't it reasonable to listen in on someone from a foreign country in the US communicating with known terrorists in the Middle East? How much of that conversation are you willing to miss? If it is your duty to protect US citizens (their lives and privacy), does that change your answers?

Re:100 americans denied due process

[spikedvodka]

It didn't say 100 Americans. It said 100 people living in this country. They are most probably not citizens and they are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.

Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.

Funny... I don't remembering anything in the constitution that says that "civil rights are only for citizens" my understanding was that the laws applied equally to everybody in the country, Citizen, visitor, illegal alien.

I find the concept that "They are not entitled to the same rights as citizens" a very common, and disturbing concept.

That being said, there are some very specific rights, that are explicitly awarded to citizens (see the 26th amendment), for example the right to vote. the fact that other rights don't explicitly state that they are for citizens, would very strongly imply that they are for all people in the country

Re:100 americans denied due process

[tomstdenis]

No it isn't reasonable because you don't create a civilized society by acting uncivilized.

Sure, if you know for a fact that some dude is a terrorist, or deals with people you know for a fact is a terrorist. All go. But if you just think they are ... where does it end? Oh, muslim, must be one of them A-rab terrorist.

More so, how do you want to be treated when you visit other countries? "do unto others as ..." sound familiar?

Anyways, tourists in the states HAVE RIGHTs despite what the local population might think.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[E 99]

Yes, non-citizens are generally afforded the same legal protections.

However, as the NSA is not conducting criminal investigations, that is entirely irrelevant. If you think a foreign enemy agent in America shouldn't be spied on without a warrant, you need to stop watching CNN. Their garbage is spewing out of your brain.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[tomstdenis]

If you KNOW they are spy, then deport them from the country. The problem is laws like this are used to survey people you "may think might be" enemies.

The "we have to act all tough to defend our lives" is nonsense. You don't see Canada, or most of Europe randomly violating the rights of people, yet I don't even know the last time there was a terrorist attack in Canada, oh maybe the FLQ in the 60s/70s.

And yes, Canada has a "spy agency," but I have yet to read about them violating peoples rights.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[E 99]

If you KNOW they are spy, then deport them from the country.

Why? The point is to gather intelligence on the enemy.

The problem is laws like this are used to survey people you "may think might be" enemies.

No, it's used to listen in on conversations amongst networks of terrorists and their associates. Some of their associates will not be terrorists, so you won't learn anything valuable from them. It's not about the innocence or guilt of any particular individual; it's about intelligence gathering. It's a basic fundamental activity in defending any nation. All developed nations do it and have a duty to do it. There's nothing different or unusual about the way that the US does it. Aside from being more technologically advanced than most, and having greater resources than most, there is nothing that distinguishes the activities of the US spy agencies from any other country's. There is no country in the world, where if the spy agency is tracking an enemy into the country, they will turn off their tracking equipment because he's in their country now and to continue tracking him would violate his rights.

And yes, Canada has a "spy agency," but I have yet to read about them violating peoples rights.

I suppose Canada's spy agency gets a person's written permission before they start spying on him. And, of course, warrants from judges.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[tomstdenis]

It's nice to know people have no fundamental problem with every aspect of your life being probed, tracked, traced, etc. Because that sort of power has NEVER been abused before. Ever.

It's true that virtually everyone is not a target of government. My life for instance, probably has never popped up on any radars beyond some faceless name on an passenger manifest here or there. I'm not paranoid into thinking that some dude at the NSA is watching my every move. But imagine, I had a dissenting opinion. How that could be abused. Imagine if the databases were [and they are] managed by third party private firms who as we've seen from public leaks can't keep a secret to save their lives.

There are problems beyond the slippery slope with constant surveillance. And that people like you are so willing to allow them to do whatever they want "in the name of security," is just sad.

Stories like V for Vendetta, while fantastic and fiction, are also warnings of what happens when people don't take safety and security into their own hands.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[jahudabudy]

And yes, Canada has a "spy agency," but I have yet to read about them violating peoples rights.

See!! Just more proof that the damn Canadians are sneaky bastards! Their shit runs so deep, we've never even heard about it.

<sadly necessary JOKE disclaimer>

Re:100 americans denied due process

[compro01]

they are not entitled to the same rights as citizens. how do you figure that? a quick grep of the US constitution doesn't find the word "citizen" in any relevant amendment. i do see many instances of the word "person" though, so i think they'd fit that definition, unless the courts have ruled that "person"=="citizen" and not "person"=="random human being in this country".

Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. i thought that the 9/11 guys were American citizens. or were they just here on legitimate visas? i forget and i can't find any info on it through the firewall and filtering here.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[compro01]

That is a subtle, but important difference. how so? AFAICT, all relevant amendments don't specify that one must be a citizen to possess the rights so enumerated, being as they use the word "person" rather than "citizen", so they're legally identical. i believe the only rights specific to citizens would be those like voting, running in elections, etc.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[E 99]

There are problems beyond the slippery slope with constant surveillance. And that people like you are so willing to allow them to do whatever they want "in the name of security," is just sad.

Er, I've never advocated constant surveillance, or blanket or non-targeted surveillance, or the NSA or CIA doing "whatever they want." I only advocate that the spy agencies have the power to spy on foreign terrorist organizations, just as they do foreign governments, wherever they are operating, without involvement of the judicial branch.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[folstaff]

Citizens have rights and responsibilities that non citizens do not. Otherwise, anyone who crosses the border in Canada has the same rights as someone who was born in and lived their entire life in New York. The most important of which is non-citizens can be deported.

9/11 murdering hijackers, not citizens. If I remember correctly, most were here on expired Visas.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[compro01]

The most important of which is non-citizens can be deported.

which i believe is still supposed to require due process in the form of a deportation hearing.

as for the hijackers, as i said, i wasn't sure without references. thanks for correcting.

Re:100 americans denied due process

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.

Carjack you, shoot you randomly, shoot your kids at school... that's what you do to fellow citizens. Unless you're Timothy McVeigh!

While it's technically true that legal residents of the USA who are not US citizens strictly speaking have fewer rights than US citizens above the age of majority, such as the right to vote in US elections, they are protected by the Bill of Rights and the other self-evident rights enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, US citizens who are below the age of majority have fewer rights than an adult resident who is not a US citizen.

Still using that tired, sad old line?

[Sunburnt]

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.

This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored. Presumably they know that they're targets of one of the world's most technologically advanced intelligence agencies. That's not even counting the fact that most recent incidents of terrorism have been homegrown, and as likely to be about abortion or good ol' anti-government paranoia as they are about U.S. support for Israel. If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system.

Every time the courts point out that the Constitution might have some bearing on this administration's actions, the "dead Americans" flag gets waved. Nothing new here.

Re:Still using that tired, sad old line?

[TubeSteak]

If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money [wikipedia.org] that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system. I think you misunderstood.

He's not saying the legal system is overburdened. He's saying it requires 200 man hours (8.33 days) to "assemble" the paper work and proof needed to go before a judge and get a warrant.

In other words: it sucks they have to do so much work in the name of due process.

200 hours isn't an excuse to shortcut the Constitution, and unless they're actually going out and doing investigative work as part of those 200 hours, IMO they need to get a consultant to help them streamline their processes. They must have some serious inefficiencies going on.

Re:Still using that tired, sad old line?

[Richthofen80]

This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored.

Wait, so because potential terrorists know their conversations are monitored, we shouldn't bother monitoring them? that's a pretty weak argument. Yes, terrorists and their funders/enablers etc code their conversations, but the codes can be cracked. Conspirators and criminals still need to communicate, and it would hurt, not help, an investigation to not monitor them.

During the second world war, each side knew the other was monitoring the communications of the other. but the communications were valuable to the war efforts, so each side eavesdropped, and eventually broke the codes. Just because the Germans or Japanese knew the Allies were intercepting their communications doesn't mean that intercepting them lost any value.

Re:Still using that tired, sad old line?

[Sunburnt]

He's not saying the legal system is overburdened. He's saying it requires 200 man hours (8.33 days) to "assemble" the paper work and proof needed to go before a judge and get a warrant.

Ah, I hadn't considered the figure as man-hours. If the guy needs more staff, isn't it his job to get them? I'm sure Congress would have an easier time authorizing more hiring then trashing the Fourth Amendment.

Of course, that assumes they find it difficult to do so in the first place. Oh well.

Re:Still using that tired, sad old line?

[Sunburnt]

Wait, so because potential terrorists know their conversations are monitored, we shouldn't bother monitoring them? that's a pretty weak argument.

That's not my argument at all, so I don't see why it's relevant.

Where, exactly, did I say that we should not be monitoring potential terrorists? There is already a mechanism for doing so (that doesn't fall afoul of the Constitution). We should be using that, and if it's taking Mike McConnell's people too long to do their jobs, then maybe it's time for competent management.

Also, I take issue with McConnell's waving of the "dead Americans" flag. My point is that the terrorists assume their conversations are monitored whether we explicitly state it or not, so accusing Congress of killing Americans by their concern with the monitoring program's constitutionality is...sadly, just more typical rhetorical shitheadedness from this adminstration.

Just because the Germans or Japanese knew the Allies were intercepting their communications doesn't mean that intercepting them lost any value.

That's my assertion as well. Mike McConnell, on the other hand, disagrees with you.

Re:Still using that tired, sad old line?

[mwlewis]

Yeah, but what you missed is that when you reveal your methods, the terrorists can take counter-measures designed to thwart your methods. It can be as simple as, stop talking on a sat-phone (as bin Laden did in the 90s when it slipped out that we were listening to it). Having the other side suspect what your intelligence gathering methods are is one thing, but confirming them is another thing entirely.

Re:Still using that tired, sad old line?

[Sunburnt]

Yeah, but what you missed is that when you reveal your methods, the terrorists can take counter-measures designed to thwart your methods.

Except that, in this case, none of the operational details are up for discussion, merely the requirement that a warrant be obtained for surveillance that involves a U.S. party.

Having the other side suspect what your intelligence gathering methods are is one thing, but confirming them is another thing entirely.

Right, except that (as I stated) this is something that would never have been in doubt, regardless of Congress' deliberations. The only disclosed difference between this program and the government's normal wiretapping of international calls is the lack of a warrant requirement, and it's not like terrorists are privy to the secret warrant-granting of the FISA court, anyway. The folks who claim that our eavesdropping on international calls is some sort of revelation have short memories.

Of course, the most ridiculous aspect of this whole affair is the administration's position, which boils down to: we'd love to preserve Fourth Amendment safeguards, but we're just too darn busy, so we need to give the Pres and the AG unlimited discretion in this matter. There's a name for a political system that vests constitutional authority in the hands of a single person and his courtiers, and it sure ain't democracy.

Yeah, I'd suggest they cooperate, too...

[RiffRafff]

...if I was in his position (National Intelligence Director). Unfortunately, if they promise one thing and then do the opposite, telecos are going to be sued. That's pretty obvious, I should think.

AT&T and Verizon have both been helping the Bu

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, like they hindered the previous administrations....

Trustworthy

[rocketjam]

You can trust us.

100 current, or 100 total?

[bugi]

Is that 100 presently under surveillance? or 100 total who have been under surveillance?

Re:100 current, or 100 total?

[Anonymous Coward]

what they meant to say was only 100% of Americans are under surveillance

Re:100 current, or 100 total?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slight error in the quote, that should read:

100% under surveilance

Have a nice day, citizen

Captcha: drafts

A few names from the list...

[schmaustech]

Here are a few names of those 100 being monitored:

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry and Carrot Top.

Immunity?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

He also ... suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue.

Yes, of course. Putting big business above the law is a tried and tested way to ensure their continued complian^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgood behaviour and respect for the law.

(My current sig feels particularly appropriate today.)

Re:what do you do about searching without a warran

[morgan_greywolf]

Fsck that. Someone comes to me from law enforcement or from anywhere in the federal government asking me for copies of e-mails, my first response is going to be "Warrant?".

What are they going to do? Put me in jail for exercising our Constitutional rights? Bring it on! Hope you have fun with the media circus and the ACLU breathing down your necks.

Separation of Powers

[E 99]

FTA:

But when the ruling had to be renewed in the spring, another judge saw the operations differently. This judge, who McConnell did not identify, decided that the government needed a warrant to monitor a conversation between foreigners when the signal traveled on a wire in the U.S. communications network.

This is insane. Besides the fact that no sane individual would come to that conclusion, no one but the legislature has the legitimate power to make that decision. The administration has sworn a duty to disregard unconstitutional declarations of judges on this or any other court. If this administration won't stand up to that responsibility, I can't imagine any other administration will in this day and age.

Re:Separation of Powers

[jfengel]

I'm not so sure it's insane. The way we guarantee that the NSA isn't spying on us (as opposed to the FBI, who is allowed to spy on us) is by saying, "You don't tap wires anywhere within the US, period." If you start letting them tap wires within the US and they wink and say, "It's OK, we know that there are only foreigners on the line" it's a lot harder to verify that the NSA is following the rules.

The concern isn't really about whether or not they're allowed to spy on foreigners. We're all pretty happy to let them spy on foreigners. But the CIA and NSA proved in the 60s and 70s that if you don't keep an eye on them they'll also spy on American citizens. It was terrible behavior in the past that puts them in this bind today.

Since then it's been loosened to the point where they're allowed to get a warrant after the tapping has been done, which is actually a huge concession to them. It lets them put a tap on anybody, even in the US, and it's an opportunity for them to "accidentally" tap American citizens if they choose. I really don't think it's too much to ask, even if it requires 200 hours of work.

Re:Separation of Powers

[Anonymous Coward]

The administration has sworn a duty to disregard unconstitutional declarations of judges on this or any other court.

Negative. The judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter what is and isn't unconstitutional, NOT the executive.

Here We Go Again

[Anonymous Coward]

A complete Bitch Fest.

What the hell does this have to do with "News for Nerds"?

The unanswered question...

[Jason Levine]

Any Bush supporters out there? Ok, asking for a Bush supporter on Slashdot is probably like walking into a Microsoft board meeting and asking how many people run Linux. ;-)

Still, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same series of question and I have yet to get a reply from any Bush supporters (even when there are Bush supporters replying to the topic). The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.

Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)

Re:The unanswered question...

[Saint Aardvark]

Bingo. I don't like what Bush has done -- but I would not trust anyone, including myself, with that kind of power. I've got my political heroes, but I'd be just as nervous about giving them this ability.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jason asks:

Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?

If it meant that we could capture and kill terrorists who are intent on killing us (i.e. Wahabbanists and their ilk) before they can collect on their 70 virgins - then yes!

What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.

I trust the military/CIA/NSA/etc lifers to do the right thing for the country as I've known many during my careeer. In spite of what Kos and others say, the President does not have unlimited power. Bush does not control hurricanes or the economy. Neither will Hillary when she becomes President. The machine can and will drag it's feet when necessary.

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

Any Bush supporters out there? Ok, asking for a Bush supporter on Slashdot is probably like walking into a Microsoft board meeting and asking how many people run Linux. ;-)

Yes, I'm a Bush supporter. Also, Linux sux. ;-)

Still, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same series of question and I have yet to get a reply from any Bush supporters (even when there are Bush supporters replying to the topic). The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.

Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries. It's a basic constitutional power as commander-in-chief. Would Hillary abuse it? It would probably take her all of 20 minutes to start wiretapping Republican congressmen if she thought she could get away with it. But if she did, someone would hopefully inform on her, and she would get impeached. But the legitimate power to spy on our foreign enemies without involvement of the judiciary is fundamental to the office, and I wouldn't change that, no matter who the president was.

Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)

Yes, the checks and balances in the Constitution are essential. But making up new ones that aren't in the Constitution is less constructive. (For example, in what you said, the courts do NOT have the legitimate power to arbitrarily strike down a law.) Besides shared powers, which are many, there are other powers which are isolated within a single branch. One of those is the power to command the military, including military intelligence, which is vested in the president. The check on this power is in the legislature. They established the NSA, the CIA, and the military branches themselves, and the rules under which they operate. In its daily operation, the president has sole command of these operations, including spying operations, but the legislature can yearly adjust funding, as well as modify various regulations which govern these organizations. No where in this balance of power is the judiciary involved. For them to take over any part of this power, or for the legislature to attempt to transfer any of this power to them, is an abuse of the Constitution.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good lord do you need a civics class. Just because lil' bush and lil' rove say it's true doesn't make it so.

Re:The unanswered question...

[workindev]

The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.

Absolutely. While I may fundamentally disagree with Hillary Clinton (along with most of the other Democratic contenders), I do believe that she had good intentions and wants the best for the country. I don't think she would abuse it, just as I don't think that the Bush administration is abusing it.

Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)

I think you are seriously mis-characterizing the policies of the Bush administration. Nobody has given the Executive Branch "unchecked power", and the Bush administration hasn't asked for it. The so-called "warrantless wiretap program" came with the blessing of both Judiciary committees in the legislature, and is subject to regular review by those committees. Even the FISA court agreed to let the program continue. There is nothing "unchecked" about this, so not only would I be comfortable with future administrations conducting these kinds of searches, I sincerely hope that they do.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Jtheletter]

(For example, in what you said, the courts do NOT have the legitimate power to arbitrarily strike down a law.)

The parent poster never used the term arbitrary, nor implied it, you added that to support your own argument. The courts do indeed have the power to strike down a law if it is unconstitutional or overly broad, etc.; however it must be brought before the court by someone with proper standing, i.e. someone who has been harmed by or prosecuted under said law. To claim that the courts do not have this power is not only wrong, but easily refuted by over a century of case law.
The problem at hand with the FISA issue is that the wiretaps are being used on Americans, located in America. It is not the cases of purely foreign wiretaps that people have issue with, it is the unsupervised use of them against NON-foreigners that is the problem. And the fact that the administration knowingly and willingly sidestepped mandatory FISA regulations early on in the process? Are they to be left completely unaccountable for that? You seem like a reasonable person who accepts the rule of law, however you also seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the very laws and checks you are advocating and believe in have already been breached. Also, the justification for expansion of powers along the lines of "we've stopped/will stop lots of crimes but we can't tell you about any of them" is hardly an acceptable reason for a government supposedly of and for the people. Do you disagree that a system of checks and balances cannot properly function if one side is completely cloaked in secrecy?

Re:The unanswered question...

[hacker]

(Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)

Gosh, I hope so... seriously.

Millions of Americans have died over the last 300+ years defending the liberties and freedoms that make this country great. I certainly hope more people will put their lives on the line to preserve it (and I don't mean the soldiers fighting in Iraq, who are just warm bodies being put into the oven over there to stoke the War Furnace).

Re:The unanswered question...

[jahudabudy]

You know, if you truly want to support Bush to this crowd, maybe you should try be a bit less straw-like in your support. That kind of thing typically irritates intelligent people. Since a sib has pointed out another instance, I'll limit myself to this:

Jason posted Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?

you responded Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries.

Pretty subtle, except that this debate is based around the fact that Americans (as represented by the EFF) are suing ATT/Verizon. Not foreign adversaries. Americans. That's the crux of the issue. American citizens claim that they have been monitored by the US government without due process being followed. If true, that is almost certainly illegal & unconstitutional, despite the Administration's claims of privilege or national security. If it is not, I feel that Congress needs to address whatever legal loophole allows such actions. Others have stated they feel the same. You have avoided voicing your opinion on the matter, choosing instead to weigh in on an orthogonal issue. Which is no more relevant to the discussion at hand than my pizza topping preferences.

Re:The unanswered question...

[huckamania]

"The problem at hand with the FISA issue is that the wiretaps are being used on Americans, located in America."

Are you suggesting that Americans can never be wiretapped? Wiretaps are not illegal, they are a recognized tool used by both law enforcement and spy agencies. It takes a warrant, except under some conditions, one of which is when somebody in America calls somebody outside of America.

The Bush position is that it is not always an American making a call from inside America. Only an idiot would attempt to argue otherwise. Therefore, it is permissable to tap those calls, up to the point that they make a determination of who is talking. If your argument is that any call inside America can not be tapped? That's a pretty specious argument.

There is also established precedence that the remedy to an illegal wiretap is the inadmissablity of the wiretapped conversation into evidence. That is, they can't use it to prosecute you.

I'm okay with that.

Re:The unanswered question...

[avatar4d]

The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.

You make a good point. It's like the government is a big Chess game to them and we are all the pawns.

If you haven't heard by now (you probably live in a cave), you should check out: Ron Paul

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking scumbag. It never was unsupervised, and it wasn't unlimited. However, since the NSID is classified, you're just spewing made up bullshit. If you know what the directives are, then your'e read in and prohibited from disclosing them. So you go shut the hell up with your leftist shrilling. Yes, I've worked for the NSA. Yes, you're full of shit.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has given the Executive Branch "unchecked power", and the Bush administration hasn't asked for it.

You're right. The Bush administration has not been given unchecked power, nor have they asked for it. They've simply taken it.

Re:The unanswered question...

[antibryce]

I'm glad someone pointed this out (and I wish I had mod points, as you'll probably won't get many with this crowd.) If you call someone who has a tap on their phone the feds don't need to get a warrant to listen to your call, since you're talking to someone they have a warrant for. If you call someone outside the US (or they call you) the feds don't need a warrant to listen in on that person's calls.

It seems insane to me that people don't think intelligence and law enforcement agencies should be allowed to listen in on calls outside the US when it's entirely possible for any country the lines pass through to listen in.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Jtheletter]

The Bush position is that it is not always an American making a call from inside America.

The Bush position is that they don't need a warrant before, they don't need a retroactive warrant after, and they don't need a warrant ever in such cases. This contrary to the law as it stood at the time. I am NOT saying all wiretaps are/should be illegal, or that all wiretaps involving Americans are/should be illegal. What I AM saying is that there WERE legal requirements in place, through FISA to handle these instances and they were completely ignored by the administration. ILLEGALLY. Why is it so hard for people to understand that for the rule of law to work and be upheld ALL PARTIES must be equally subject to the law. NO ADMINISTRATION should be allowed to pick and choose where and when they will follow the law, and when they are caught simply say "we thought it should work otherwise". Well too bad, then change the law BEFOREHAND, do not sidestep it and ask for forgiveness later. In some instances it turns out to be no big deal, but eventually it WILL BE. Eventually they will commit some act that is NOT forgivable after the fact and then it's too late.
The argument about the urgency of a situation being a roadblock to changing the law is baseless. FISA was designed to allow retroactive warrants, which the administration could have applied for but never bothered to. And the wiretapping that went on outside of FISA rules went on for a period of YEARS so there was certainly plenty of time for them to begin changing the law to be in line with how they wanted to conduct operations. The fact that no changes were even proposed until AFTER the program was publicly outed shows that they had no intention of following the law. This only makes one wonder, how many other laws are being ignored in the name of fighting terrorism that we don't know about yet? How many of those are abuses that should never be allowed to occur?

There is also established precedence that the remedy to an illegal wiretap is the inadmissibility of the wiretapped conversation into evidence. That is, they can't use it to prosecute you.

To think that prosecution in a court is the only thing those logs can be used for is naive. To think that the court may even be a remedy in all cases is also naive thanks to recent events like the passing of the 2006 Military Commissions Act and the Jose Padilla ruling.
Even if you agree with the Padilla verdict, the fact is that he was held in US custody for a period of years with no due process for charges that ultimately were never even brought against him. The charges he was convicted of recently were not the ones that the US used to justify his arrest and detainment and suspension of habeas corpus. Only after it became apparent that the SCOTUS was likely to rule against the government in regards to his detainment was he moved to the civilian system. Keep in mind this is a US citizen, regardless of the crimes he is charged with he is guaranteed constitutional protections which were denied until the government's hand was forced.

Re:The unanswered question...

[illumin8]

No where in this balance of power is the judiciary involved. For them to take over any part of this power, or for the legislature to attempt to transfer any of this power to them, is an abuse of the Constitution.

You need to read the constitution. The judiciary is the final check on whether a law is constitutional or not, and they have the sole discretion of striking down a law, even if the the legislature voted for it, and the president signed it. They also have the power to interpret how laws are to be enforced, which means, yes, when the president gets caught with his hand in the "wiretapping without warrants" cookie jar, it is their constitutional obligation, duty, and responsibility, to smack him down for it.

The fact that you're a Bush supporter, and believe the judiciary has no power whatsoever is very telling. It means the propaganda you've been reading is effective, and that is reason enough for me personally to be very fearful of our country; a country in which people can be controlled by the mass-media to believe that the very constitution itself is not what it seems.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before someone points out that above poster got brainwashed:

    He is right. I worked for NSA too.

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

Jason posted Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?

you responded Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries.

Pretty subtle, except that this debate is based around the fact that Americans (as represented by the EFF) are suing ATT/Verizon. Not foreign adversaries. Americans. That's the crux of the issue. American citizens claim that they have been monitored by the US government without due process being followed. If true, that is almost certainly illegal & unconstitutional, despite the Administration's claims of privilege or national security. If it is not, I feel that Congress needs to address whatever legal loophole allows such actions. Others have stated they feel the same. You have avoided voicing your opinion on the matter, choosing instead to weigh in on an orthogonal issue. Which is no more relevant to the discussion at hand than my pizza topping preferences.

The NSA has the legitimate power to spy on our foreign adversaries whether or not that involves hearing the conversations of American citizens at the same time or not. Americans are suing, suggesting this is a violation of the law, but it is not a violation of the law, because the targets are foreign terrorist organizations, which the Constitution gives the executive branch power to conduct warfare against. The concept of "due process" does not apply, because this has nothing to do with criminal prosecutions of Americans. No American's life, liberty, or property has been deprived. Spying on foreign adversaries is not an orthogonal issue -- it is the activity in question, which happens to include listening to some Americans (or at least people residing in America).

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

The parent poster never used the term arbitrary, nor implied it, you added that to support your own argument. The courts do indeed have the power to strike down a law if it is unconstitutional or overly broad, etc.; however it must be brought before the court by someone with proper standing, i.e. someone who has been harmed by or prosecuted under said law. To claim that the courts do not have this power is not only wrong, but easily refuted by over a century of case law.

The OP simply said "strike it down" without qualification. What the courts can do legitimately (must do) is decide cases based on the law, the highest law being the Constitution. So, if it's not qualified in terms of preferring the higher law to the lower law, no, the court cannot simply "strike down laws". They can only apply the laws as written. Anything else is an abuse.

To claim that the courts do not have this power is not only wrong, but easily refuted by over a century of case law.

If you're looking at the last century or more of case law, you're looking at a whole lot of practice that has nothing to do with the constitutional legitimate power of the court.

The problem at hand with the FISA issue is that the wiretaps are being used on Americans, located in America. It is not the cases of purely foreign wiretaps that people have issue with, it is the unsupervised use of them against NON-foreigners that is the problem. And the fact that the administration knowingly and willingly sidestepped mandatory FISA regulations early on in the process? Are they to be left completely unaccountable for that? You seem like a reasonable person who accepts the rule of law, however you also seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the very laws and checks you are advocating and believe in have already been breached. Also, the justification for expansion of powers along the lines of "we've stopped/will stop lots of crimes but we can't tell you about any of them" is hardly an acceptable reason for a government supposedly of and for the people.

If constitutional laws or checks have been breached, I am against it, but I do not believe that to be so. Particularly, I do not believe the FISA law to be constitutional in most applications. It is a legislated redistribution of constitutional war powers from the executive to the judicial branch. I don't know whether the president quite shares that view, but to the degree that he does, he has the sworn duty to refuse to execute that law. For the constitutional system of checks and balances to work, each of the three branches has the independent duty to uphold the constitution, and refuse to carry out the unconstitutional actions of the other branches.

Do you disagree that a system of checks and balances cannot properly function if one side is completely cloaked in secrecy?

I think that's a reasonable argument. That is why the Congress has select committees that review the classified functioning of the intelligence agencies they've established by law, such as the CIA and the NSA.

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

The judiciary is the final check on whether a law is constitutional or not.

You need to read the Constitution.

They also have the power to interpret how laws are to be enforced

You need to read the Constitution.

The fact that you're a Bush supporter, and believe the judiciary has no power whatsoever is very telling.

I believe the judiciary has the power given it by the Constitution and no other. A belief that Jefferson, for example, shared, and went to his grave shouting to people like you who wished to turn the judiciary into the new monarchy.

Yes, my respect for the Constitution is a big reason why I'm a Bush supporter. He is one of the few in Washington who understands the scope of the crisis that has come from destroying the constitutional form of government, and he can therefore be counted on to nominate SC justices who likewise respect and follow the Constitution.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Jason Levine]

I didn't mean that the courts could arbitrarily strike down laws they didn't like. Just that the courts have the ability to strike down laws passed by Congress and approved by the President. In fact, the courts have sort of an internal checks and balances system. If one court were to arbitrarily strike down a law, there's a good chance it would be overturned on appeal.

"I don't know whether the president quite shares that view, but to the degree that he does, he has the sworn duty to refuse to execute that law."

This is treading into dangerous waters. If a President feels a law is unconstitutional he can veto it. But then, if his veto is overridden, and the courts uphold the law, the President can just ignore the law and proceed as he sees fit? What use do we have for Congress and the court systems then?

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that certainly elevated the level of reasoned discourse. I imagine the GP has been convinced by your flawless logic and will quickly shut the hell up just to give you the last word.

Re:The unanswered question...

[mabhatter654]

Imagine if Bill Clinton used these powers to find hot young interns to blow him..... All hell would brake loose.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems insane to me that people don't think intelligence and law enforcement agencies should be allowed to listen in on calls outside the US when it's entirely possible for any country the lines pass through to listen in.

It's entirely possible for US citizens to be assassinated in any country they pass through. Should the US government therefore be allowed to assassinate Americans abroad? Or do US citizens have some rights that the US government may not breach, regardless of where those citizens are located, and regardless of how other governments behave?

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it that the right to privacy means nothing to you, dumbass?

Here is a clue, dumbhead... the government is welcome to spy on any foreigner in or out of America. All nations do that kind of spying. Nobody is protesting against that. Hell, even the foreigners pretty much understand the reasons and expect it.

And Government can happily tap away the telephone lines of Gen. Musharraf for example, to determine whether he has any secret pacts with the terrorists. If you as an american citizen happen to call him up, and your conversation gets recorded, well tough luck... they were actually listening to Musharraf's phoneline, not your phoneline.

One can stretch this a bit and might even okay the listening of *all* foreign calls going outside usa without a warrant. After all no specific american citizen is being targetted.

Problems happen when this law gets used to eavesdrop on the specific phone lines of *American* citizens, without a warrant... even when they are making in-country calls only. Does the Government seriously think all its citizens are traitors and terrorists?

Which part of above is too hard for your thick headed skull to grasp?

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, a president who openly admits that he lied about WMDs to his own people? That is some respect for the people and the constitution

You are a retard.

Re:The unanswered question...

[illumin8]

You need to read the Constitution.

Wow you're a fucking tool, aren't you?

I believe the judiciary has the power given it by the Constitution and no other. A belief that Jefferson, for example, shared, and went to his grave shouting to people like you who wished to turn the judiciary into the new monarchy.

Ok, since you still don't seem to understand the constitution, let me quote it for you:

Article III, Section II (Judicial scope of power):

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Doesn't sound like a judiciary that has no power now does it? That's right, they have the power to decide constitutionality of ALL laws, treaties, etc. Jefferson and the founding fathers knew the importance of a judiciary that could occasionally put a stop to things that are unconstitutional. You would be wise to accept that the judiciary may just be the last thing standing between us and a totalitarian, fascist state that would make us all slaves.

Re:The unanswered question...

[illumin8]

... people like you who wished to turn the judiciary into the new monarchy.

Had to respond to this as well. How can the judiciary be a new monarchy when they are appointed by our very elected representatives? Sounds like a representative democracy to me.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if she did, someone would hopefully inform on her, and she would get impeached.

Fuckin'-A slick!!!!! Let's stop abusing the guy who ratted the Bushies out on the warrantless wiretapping shit and start the impeachment proceedings against the commander-in-thief this afternoon. I'll move to fuckin' DC if that's what it takes to get a ticket to the hearings.

Re:The unanswered question...

[Jtheletter]

f you're looking at the last century or more of case law, you're looking at a whole lot of practice that has nothing to do with the constitutional legitimate power of the court.

Then where would you suggest we look? At yesterday's docket? You just ruled out the entire history of the court as being the place to look for case law, that makes zero sense. In addition, you seem to want to refute my statement yet agree with me, the SCOTUS has the power to strike down a law, specifically if it is unconstitutional. Gee, didn't I say EXACTLY that in my post? "The courts do indeed have the power to strike down a law if it is unconstitutional or overly broad, etc" Oh yes, yes I did. The OP did not qualify his use of the phrase "Strike it down" because it was mentioned in passing to support another point. The fact is it is a correct statement without specifying all the cases when it is and isn't true, there are valid cases where the SCOTUS can strike down the law, we agree on this, let's move on.

If constitutional laws or checks have been breached, I am against it, but I do not believe that to be so. Particularly, I do not believe the FISA law to be constitutional in most applications. It is a legislated redistribution of constitutional war powers from the executive to the judicial branch. I don't know whether the president quite shares that view, but to the degree that he does, he has the sworn duty to refuse to execute that law.

You mean in the EXACT same way that congressional war powers were transferred to the executive branch by the open-ended use of force legislation made by the congress? I will point out that that was NOT a declaration of war, something that ONLY the congress can do per the constitution. For your argument to hold water the President's nullification/ignoring of an unconstitutional law/redistribution of powers requires that he also not accept anything less than a full declaration of war from the congress before assuming his role as commander in chief. Without that declaration technically he cannot assume war powers PER THE CONSTITUTION. Any examples trotted out about the (mis)use of the armed forces by the president without a declaration of war historically are almost totally for operations lasting under 5 days and involving less than 100 troops. Mostly they were nothing more than displays of force without actually engaging in battle. The scale of the current engagement is irrefutably full blown war in cost, commitment, and scope.
In addition there are already prescribed methods of how to deal with a perceived unjust or unconstitutional law, and NONE OF THOSE METHODS ARE IGNORING THE LAW. The President does not have the power to simply ignore any law he disagrees with regardless of the reason. The law must be challenged or changed, not simply ignored, otherwise it is still breach of law. Try telling a cop arresting you, or the judge in court, on charges of minor drug possession that you disagree with the law therefore you may ignore it at will. As a citizen of the US, and an employee of the people, the President does not entertain such a power either, nor is presidential nullification of a law (other than veto) encoded in any US law or the constitution. I would very much like for you to demonstrate the portion of law that grants the President the power to ignore any law he disagrees with. And simply pointing out he took an oath to uphold the constitution does not suffice. Upholding the constitution requires following the processes outlined in that document itself. I would also point out that various abuses by this administration run counter to the argument that the current President is upholding the constitution in all of his actions, there are many cases which in fact demonstrate breaches of the constitution. Specifically prisoner abuses and removal of habeas corpus for detainees is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, which the US is a signatory thereof and that agreement supersedes any other law as it is an international tre

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, in what you said, the courts do NOT have the legitimate power to arbitrarily strike down a law.

Judicial review is well-established.

The check on this power is in the legislature. They established the NSA, the CIA, and the military branches themselves, and the rules under which they operate.

And the commander-in-thief routinely overrides the written law of the Congress with his bullshit "signing statements". When he uses the "unitary executive" horseshit to additionally cut the courts out of the process, he symbolically wipes his asshole with the Constitution by revoking it's stipulation of three equal branches of government.

If that doesn't conform to the strictest definition of a tyrant, nothing does. History (and some people with adequate balls) have not dealt kindly with tyrants.

... but the legislature can yearly adjust funding ....

... of black budgets, which they're not allowed to review??? Yeah, cut funding and they'll use the cuts to fire the janitors and hire more wiretappers.

What flavor of Kool-Aid (tm) do you favor?

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

For the constitutional system of checks and balances to work, each of the three branches has the independent duty to uphold the constitution, and refuse to carry out the unconstitutional actions of the other branches.

For the constitutional system of checks and balances to work, the president must first abandon his bullshit idea of the unitary executive, which effectively collapses all three branches into the single person of the president.

In his present behavior, he's just playing chess with himself. And cheating while he's at it.

Uhh, on second thought, he's just playing with himself. While the troops burn.

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

Judicial review is well-established.

How well-established something is has no bearing on its legitimacy. Judicial review is legitimate insofar as it is a matter of applying the law of the Constitution to the case being decided in preference to the law of the legislature. It is completely illegitimate insofar as it is a matter of applying their own sense of values to the law, or substituting their own law for either constitution or statutory law.

And the commander-in-thief routinely overrides the written law of the Congress with his bullshit "signing statements". When he uses the "unitary executive" horseshit to additionally cut the courts out of the process, he symbolically wipes his asshole with the Constitution by revoking it's stipulation of three equal branches of government.

No, the president has used signing statements to do what all presidents should do -- put on paper the executive position on how the Constitution applies to the law being enacted. As the whole premise of the constitutional system is that none of the three branches should further the extra-constitutional actions of any of the other branches, every president Democratic and Republican, should include such statements as they apply to laws. Failure to do so makes future constitutional claims much more questionable, and allows for ad hoc claims that are disingenuous. I sincerely hope that the next president, Democrat or Republican will keep up the practice, as the mere fact of it furthers the understanding of people of how the Constitution describes the checks and balances.

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

You mean in the EXACT same way that congressional war powers were transferred to the executive branch by the open-ended use of force legislation made by the congress? I will point out that that was NOT a declaration of war, something that ONLY the congress can do per the constitution. For your argument to hold water the President's nullification/ignoring of an unconstitutional law/redistribution of powers requires that he also not accept anything less than a full declaration of war from the congress before assuming his role as commander in chief. Without that declaration technically he cannot assume war powers PER THE CONSTITUTION.

You may want to re-read the Constitution. It places no such contingencies on the president's command-in-chief power, nor connects it in any way with the power of Congress to declare war. The check of the power of command-in-chief is in the power of Congress to raise armies and to fund them. The president was fully the commander-in-chief of the armed forces before, during, and after the "authorization of force" was passed. Passing such an "authorization" is good (although it should not be called that) because it formalizes the fact that the government is united in its intentions. But to believe that it is somehow necessary for the president to authorize his Constitutional power is completely unfounded. Such "authorizations" are relatively recent. Washington and Jefferson both (if memory serves) went to undeclared war without them, against Indians in the West and Muslims in the Mediterranean. In some, but not all, of those conflicts, Congress passed resolutions declaring their concurrence with such actions, but they were never framed as "authorizations," or declarations of war.

The President does not have the power to simply ignore any law he disagrees with regardless of the reason. The law must be challenged or changed, not simply ignored, otherwise it is still breach of law. I would very much like for you to demonstrate the portion of law that grants the President the power to ignore any law he disagrees with.

I've never suggested the President can ignore a law simply because he disagrees with it. Just like the Judiciary, the president must obey the law, and the Constitution is the highest law. If a law of Congress is at conflict with the law of the Constitution, the law of Congress not *may*, but *MUST* be disregarded in favor of the Constitution.

I would also point out that various abuses by this administration run counter to the argument that the current President is upholding the constitution in all of his actions, there are many cases which in fact demonstrate breaches of the constitution. Specifically prisoner abuses and removal of habeas corpus for detainees is prohibited by the Geneva Convention, which the US is a signatory thereof and that agreement supersedes any other law as it is an international treaty (this is true, go read on how treaties work). And in addition to the Geneva Convention, portions of the 4th and 5th amendments are breached by these abuses as well, not to mention the supremacy of habeas corpus as codified by English Common Law (800 years old) which the Constitution itself is predicated upon.

I don't know what you mean by "prisoner abuses." Do you mean you believe that the president ordered the National Guard to form captured prisoners into naked pyramids?
As for the rest, you are being manipulated by extreme rhetoric which is not based on fact. 1) Habeas corpus has never, by any country, in the history of common law, before or after the Geneva Convention, been automatically extended to all prisoners of war. Nor would it be wise to start doing so now. 2) The Geneva Convention legally applies to "lawful enemy combatants," not "unlawful enemy combatants." 3) Everything the administration is doing in re enemy combatants is precisely as prescribed by the law of Congress, specifically the

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

Because the hold office for life, and are unaccountable for their actions to the people or to the people's representatives.

Re:The unanswered question...

[E 99]

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Doesn't sound like a judiciary that has no power now does it? That's right, they have the power to decide constitutionality of ALL laws, treaties, etc. Jefferson and the founding fathers knew the importance of a judiciary that could occasionally put a stop to things that are unconstitutional. You would be wise to accept that the judiciary may just be the last thing standing between us and a totalitarian, fascist state that would make us all slaves.

Did you read what you quoted? Do you know what a case is? Do you think that a case and controversies are laws? Do you need me to diagram that sentence for you?

Nothing in the Constitution has given [federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them... But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch
--Thomas Jefferson, 9-11-1804

Re:The unanswered question...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems insane to me that people don't think intelligence and law enforcement agencies should be allowed to listen in on calls outside the US when it's entirely possible for any country the lines pass through to listen in.

Ahhh, yes -- by descending to their level, we will surely demonstrate to them our love of liberty for which millions have already died.

FOAD, lunatic.

Understandable Misunderstanding

[Spamsonite]

There is understandably a tremendous amount of misunderstanding by the American people about how collection targets are designated, and there is a large body of law that governs how the process must take place. While it is true that almost any transmission of data, voice or otherwise, through this country can be monitored, the sheer scale of daily communications quickly renders random sampling useless. Call records are not call recordings - can you imagine just how much storage would be required to save for posterity the billion or so phone conversations that happen each day in this country? Even running a simple query on a database containing recent activity (not the conversation, just the fact that a call happened) can take hours. It is simply not done, both for time and practicality reasons - and because collecting on a non-designated target is very highly illegal.

Every intel collector and analyst is trained from day one in the law, whether they be military or civilian. They can all quote the name and contents of the document that governs the ways the NSA and our government may designate intel targets both within and without our own borders. Anyone who collects on a target that has not been sanctioned from on-high, even if it is his or her own phone number, is on a fast track to prison.

The targets that are being monitored within our own borders are so because the trail from overseas led back here. Known terrorists, affiliates, fund raisers, materials providers, etc., made calls to people here in the USA, or people in the USA called them. The foreign phone would already be under surveillance, and of course the connection to the USA should raise questions for any sane law enforcement agency. The law provides for monitoring US citizens in this and other very narrowly-defined cases, though they must still be officially designated as targets, which is not a simple process. Even the warrantless taps only give a day or so of leeway, the government must prove in a hurry that they really need to be listening in or all data must be purged.

And perhaps the most important reason that you can go through your day without worrying if someone is listening in to you asking your Aunt Bea to bring her special blueberry pie to the family reunion is that analysts are Americans and have Aunt Bea's too, and they have the same expectation of privacy that you have. If they participate in a big-brother system that monitors our populace at a whim, then it's only a matter of time before that system grows and starts to eat its own.

The intel community is a very paranoid place - both about what others are doing, but incredibly more so about that activities of its own members.

Re:Understandable Misunderstanding

[LukeCage]

Why exactly should we believe what you say? What evidence is there of this? Without a warrant, no one knows why or who they government is monitoring. No one knows the programs are in place. Millions get poured into the "national security" coffers and we have no idea how and why this money is used.

You could easily say in 1968, "Oh don't worry, this stuff is very complicated, we are only using it to protect America from Moscow." Surprise, surprise, by the middle of the 70s it's been revealed that in fact intelligence has been taken on all kinds of people, from Martin Luther King to Nixon's political enemies, far outside the scope of what most Americans find reasonable. That's why we passed the FISA law in 1978, all it says is that you need to get a warrant from a special court to eavesdrop, and you can do it retroactively. This is simply to keep a record and keep tabs on government surveillance. Since 2002 our president has admitted to openly defying this law, which is a felony. It's really that simple.

Re:Understandable Misunderstanding

[illumin8]

The targets that are being monitored within our own borders are so because the trail from overseas led back here. Known terrorists, affiliates, fund raisers, materials providers, etc., made calls to people here in the USA, or people in the USA called them.

Are you sure about that? Because I've heard Patriot act powers are being abused to wiretap people that merely protested the war. See this article: Is the Pentagon spying on Americans? This is being reported in the mainstream media, so what scares me even more are the abuses which haven't been made public.

I think you'll find the warrantless wiretapping we've found out about so far is just the tip of the iceberg. The only things we know about are what has been leaked by concerned insiders. How many more crimes and injustices has our executive committed behind closed doors that we don't even know about yet?

We should be afraid... very afraid... of our government, not of faceless, nameless terrorists that mean to do us harm.

Re:Understandable Misunderstanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Call records are not call recordings - can you imagine just how much storage would be required to save for posterity the billion or so phone conversations that happen each day in this country?

Ummm, about as much as the administration wants to require ISPs to retain with their latest request for an unfunded mandate?

P.S. -- you don't wiretap a call record -- you wiretap the entire call contents.

wHY ADMIT?

[redelm]

Do you think the NID just let this slip? Of course not. He's whining and preparing an excuse for the next missed intelligence.

The fundamental problem is that civil liberties are barely permit after-the-fact punishment of criminals. Many get off because their liberties were violated. That's OK, because the criminal justice system doesn't need to convict everyone, it just needs to act as a deterrent.

Using the criminal justice system to prevent wrongdoing [terrorism] is not what it was designed to do. Preventative vs investigative. Airtight vs failure-tolerant. It requires unusual actions and far greater intrusion into liberties (esp privacy). Some [frightened] people are willing to sacrifice others liberties (and perhaps their own). Others are not. A fundamental conflict between different people. Politicians can exploit this and choose whichever side they wish.

Personally, I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.

Re:wHY ADMIT?

[spikedvodka]

Man, I wish I had mod points... I think that is the most insightful comment I've seen in the entire debate about the "war on terror", and the subsequent erosion of civil liberties.

You last sentence is the root of the whole issue:

Personally, I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful. I think you've hit the nail right on the head... and I think I just found a great slogan for a protest sign (and a new .sig)

Re:wHY ADMIT?

[aproposofwhat]

Damn - I just read that as 'I will not become felafel'.

Nearly blew coffee all over the keyboard!

Re:wHY ADMIT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn - I just read that as 'I will not become felafel'.

Nearly blew coffee all over the keyboard!

Calm down. Lose the coffee. felafel |= fellated.

In any case, if you become felafel, you have indeed let the terrorists win.

The Key: Under FISA warrants

[Anonymous Coward]

He said spying on 100 people under FISA warrants. The issue is those they are spying on without a warrant. The issue is the dragnet style data collection they use.

A simple lesson needs to be taught

[kwandar]

... put their executives in jail. I wouldn't stand by and acquiesce to illegal activities, why should they be allowed to, irrespective of who asked?

Re:A simple lesson needs to be taught

[cold fjord]

I wouldn't stand by and acquiesce to illegal activities, why should they be allowed to, irrespective of who asked?

Maybe because it isn't illegal? A warrant isn't required for everything done by law enforcement.

Illegal surveillance of Americans

[harshmanrob]

Who are these Americans that are under surveillance? What a load of crap. No America citizen should be under surveillance by the government unless they got these people on film building bombs or something or records proving they plan to commit terrorist acts.
Nixon pulled this when he was in office. Misusing the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans who did not agree with the Republican party.
I cannot say the Democrats are any better. Clinton used the IRS to harass those he hated as well.
I said it before and I will say it again...if I get one of those National Security Letters, it will be posted right here on slashdot.org and I will take out an Ad in the local paper, get it on dailykos.com, anyone who'll take it. I ain't afraid of these Republican/Christian government fucks.

Re:Illegal surveillance of Americans

[Merk]

No America citizen should be under surveillance by the government unless they got these people on film building bombs

So... they shouldn't be under surveillance, unless there's surveillance footage showing them building a bomb? This surveillance footage showing them building a bomb, where exactly would it come from?

There are reasonable reasons to have someone under surveillance. If someone has done minor illegal things but nothing major, but there's a strong possibility they may do something major, I have no problem if they're under surveillance. For example, if someone uses a fake ID to get into a bar, that's no reason to put them under surveillance. If someone uses a fake ID to buy tons of dangerous chemicals, and there's a reason to believe they may do something dangerous and illegal with those chemicals, I have no problem putting them under surveillance. Surveillance allows you to not only find what other illegal things someone might be doing, but also who else they may be working with. Of course, some theoretically neutral entity should make the decision about whether the surveillance is justified, like a judge, a court, a jury, etc. Saying that nobody should be under surveillance is going a bit for, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Illegal surveillance of Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

[I will] get it on dailykos.com, ...

Big mistake since kos' founder, Mr Zuniga, is a CIA operator.

Re:Illegal surveillance of Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Some country you have where apparently your own citizens are plotting its destruction and planning terrorist activities.

So basically from your argument, what you are saying is that there are lots of traitors amongst Americans? Tsk! Tsk! I pity you for living in such a country then, that is not even sure of the loyalty of its own citizens. heh.

HEEEELLLLLLL NO!

[spikedvodka]

suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue." If a company illegally gives information (hypothetically about me) to the government, as part of an illegal plan. Not only should I be able to sue their pants off (to the point where I can pay not only for my kids' college education through to 5 PHDs, but also afford to pay to have an OC-3 line run right to my house) but they should be brought up on criminal charges.

Enough already with this "You so something bad for us and you're safe" bit.

Soap (check) -> Ballot (Check) -> Jury (Forbidden by Law) -> Ammo?

I'm not one to advocate for violence, but ya'know... when you have eliminated the impossible (or ineffective in this case) whatever remains...

this makes me mad

Re:HEEEELLLLLLL NO!

[E 99]

If a company illegally gives information (hypothetically about me) to the government, as part of an illegal plan. Not only should I be able to sue their pants off (to the point where I can pay not only for my kids' college education through to 5 PHDs, but also afford to pay to have an OC-3 line run right to my house) but they should be brought up on criminal charges.

Based on what damages? I'm just curious. If you found out that AT&T helped the NSA listen to your phone calls, would that cause you $1 million in emotional damage or something?

Re:HEEEELLLLLLL NO!

[spikedvodka]

Based on what damages? I'm just curious. If you found out that AT&T helped the NSA listen to your phone calls, would that cause you $1 million in emotional damage or something? Based on the theory that civil rights are priceless

Re:what do you do about searching without a warran

[Saint Aardvark]

I'm stealing this from training I went to at LISA last year: you tell the LEO (law enforcement officer) politely, but firmly, that as company policy you're happy to help, but all such requests must be directed to the legal department.

The legal dep't will look at it and decide what to do, and then you do it. They know their job, you know yours; they don't make decisions about storage capacity or OS support, and you and I don't make decisions about constitutionality or legality. And if/when you've got the information they're looking for, you pass it back to the lawyers and they hand it over to the LEO.

This covers your ass, your company's ass, and the LEO's ass (assuming you or your friends aren't being socially engineered). Any LEO should be happy to talk to the lawyers.

Now, all that said...I realize that this leaves out questions of conscience. If Mark Klein hadn't had spilled the beans, we'd have been a lot longer finding out about this problem. But as a rule, I think those situations are rare; most law enforcement stuff is <handwave>your garden variety stuff -- robbery, fraud, yadda yadda</handwave> (sorry, no citation to back that up) -- and the odds of being involved in something truly offensive is pretty slim. I hope it stays that way.

Immunity ? Why ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm mis-understanding something here, but why do those TelCos need immunity in the first place ?

If there is nothing wrong with their cooporation to the requests of the "Bush Administration" or other gouverment agencies they have got no nothing to worry about (Hmm .. where have I heard that line before ... :-) )

But if they actually are performing an illegal act by their cooperation than they should be punished just like any other citizen who would do anything of the same.

Mind you : those TelCos are one of the last lines of defence to our privacy/right not to be harassed, and they should take that responsibility very serious.

To add it all up this indemnification looks to be nothing more than a way to get TelCos to agree much faster to even clearly illegal requests, as they than have nothing to fear anymore.

Am I nuts or has tinfoil really become necessary?

[bjk002]

short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.

When did we the people give permission to a company (ANY company), the right to spy on us? IANAL but my god everything I do know about law treats a corporate entity as a person when it comes to political speech, etc... How can one person legally spy on another? Short answer: They CAN'T!!

This is NOT about due process at all, this is about constitutionally protected RIGHTS! Where is the outrage? How can we be sitting here on /. even having this conversation? We should all be in the streets of DC shutting the capitol down until this S**T is resolved. Have we become so comfortable in our lives here in the US that we really just don't care anymore at all?!?

The NID and his cronies can get these warrants retroactively, due process only enters into it after our rights have been violated in the first place. STOP CRYING ABOUT HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THE WARRANTS! What the **** does that have to do with the color of the sky? I don't care if it takes you 40000000000000 hours to get your warrants, I pay taxes to pay for that. But I guess I'm another nut job who cries every time the wind blows. Fine...

I won't be unreasonable. I'll live with retroactive warrants.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll live with a company of my government's choosing being allowed to conduct surveillance on me without consent or due process.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll pretend I don't notice camera's in every public place, satellites looking down on my every move, and a government funded spy agency directed at its citizenry.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll choose not to remember that my president (or any of his friends) are at any time able to label a citizen as an Enemy Combatant and lock them away without access to the courts.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll shut my mouth while the president is allowed to conduct war againsst anyone he chooses, regardless of intent or purpose, despite the will of the people.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just swallow my frustrations as my government provides HUGE tax incentives and monies to HIGHLY PROFITABLE companies run by friends of political figures.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just not pay attention as our government writes more and more laws in an attempt to control behavior and actions of it citizens.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just ignore that more and more of our citizens are being locked away in prisons for arbitrary crimes and that our prison system has a greater percentage of the population housed within those prisons that any other time in history.

I won't be unreasonable. I'll just look the other way as we round up classes of citizens and non-citizens and place them in camps so as to protect the public.

...

I won't be unreasonable. I'll be quiet as our once great and noble country is thrown away at the behest of those who have managed to dupe the public into believing that they are at all in control of themselves anymore.

I cry for our children and the mess we have ALL made.

Re:what do you do about searching without a warran

[spikedvodka]

Fsck that. Someone comes to me from law enforcement or from anywhere in the federal government asking me for copies of e-mails, my first response is going to be "Warrant?".

What are they going to do? Put me in jail for exercising our Constitutional rights? Bring it on! Hope you have fun with the media circus and the ACLU breathing down your necks. No... Gitmo isn't a jail. It's a detention center for "terrists" and they'd probably say that you were "supporting terrists" and have you made an unperson

But Americans WILL indeed die

[BlackCobra43]

Only WITH the FISA, they'll get to die of torture/self-inflicted starvation while wearing an orange jumpsuit in Club Gitmo while under "suspicion of terrorism". It's much nicer. I mean, who the hell woudl think that the FOreign Intelligence Suveillance act would need to stay restricted to surveillance of FOREIGN nationals? By the way, War is Peace and we have always been at war with Oceania....

Purjury or Aid & comfort?....

[tinkerghost]

The NID & his cronies have layed down a lot of depositions & testemony in court where they've claimed that confirming/denying these allegations would aid terrorists. So do we get to charge them with purjury since the NID just confirmed it within a week of spouting the line in court, or do we get to send the NID to Gitmo for aiding terrorists?

How sad some of you are

[svendsen]

The ones that think that this is ok disgust me. You say we must prevent the next attack, we must save innocent lives. News flash for you we are all going to die. Another news flash for you in America you are thousands of times more likely to kill yourself because of your poor eating, poor lifestyle, no exercise habits then you are by a terrorist.

Yet we will sacrifice your rights and others to be protected from the slim chance of dying via terrorist but if anyone then wants to stop you from eating bad, banning smoking, forcing you to exercise you will scream bloody murder.

Why will you give up your basic fundamental rights to "feel protected from the bad guys" with barely a chance of it every happening but will kick and scream if we want to remove the cigarette and big mac from peoples mouth that kills 1+ million a year?

Re:How sad some of you are

[knewter]

Because fuck you, it's my big mac.

Re:How sad some of you are

[Spad]

And fuck *you*, they're my rights

Re:How sad some of you are

[knewter]

Yeah, if it wasn't clear I was pro-individual-liberty with my big mac comment, I guess I'll just try to state that unequivocally. I feel strongly about your rights. I would fight for them, not because I love you but because I love truth and justice. Similarly, I would fight for your or anyone else's right to eat a big mac if you'd like. That is all.

You're claiming this is from experience?

[bigtrike]

How many times has your local water plant been destroyed by non-citizens?

Re:You're claiming this is from experience?

[Skagit]

Not a water plant, but how about the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK on April 19, 1995?

Re:You're claiming this is from experience?

[quantum bit]

Which was destroyed by, oh wait, a US citizen.

Amendment IV

[Doc Ruby]

Amendment IV
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.

Re:Amendment IV

[Pumpkin Tuna]

I'm not sure where you got that "Amendmentive" thing from, but it sound like liberal, aethiest, terrist talk, and it might even be French. Do you realize what will happen if our police and army have to wait for a warrant? Think of the CHILDREN!

Re:Amendment IV

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the joke, but please...... when using sarcasm to point out something that is funny, please realize that the US is filled with people thinking exactly what you just wrote. My fear is that someone will read that and think of it as +1 insightful. wow..... I am scared of the general American intelligence way more than I am of any terrorists.

Re:what do you do about searching without a warran

[LuxMaker]

What are they going to do? Put me in jail for exercising our Constitutional rights? Bring it on! Hope you have fun with the media circus and the ACLU breathing down your necks.

Possibly put you in gitmo where you will an ermm.... have an accident, never to be seen again. Just another missing person I suppose.

Re:what do you do about searching without a warran

[spikedvodka]

Very good point, Any *Honest* LEO should know to go straight to the legal department anyways.

So that makes it OK?

[FatSean]

The French did it so it's cool if we do it? I used to try that argument when I was 10 years old, and nobody was falling for it then either.

Care of a little 1992 movie called Sneakers.

[conspirator57]

"Are you interested in C TECH ASTRONOMY?"

"We're interested in all kinds of astronomy."

Re:Care of a little 1992 movie called Sneakers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Setec. You need both 's'es.

Big Brother immunity clause

[Anonymous Coward]

"suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue."

Actually, no. Either the [government] activity is legal or not, no need for special protection. If a telco is worried about lawsuits, I'd suggest challenging the legality/grounds for the cooperation request, or face the music. The government, the telco, and the general population are equally bound by the same laws. In theory anyway.

A nice fat Big Brother immunity clause would be convenient though. "Ummm, no officer, I didn't actually break into the car, a guy with an official badge asked me to search it for him." It''s not difficult to see how that could get out of hand.

BAD SUMMARY?

[AtariDatacenter]

The truth gets lost when you try to reword officials in this adminstration. I can't find links to what was actually said, but here is what The Washington Post and other sources have reported. My emphasis added:

"Law enforcement officials are targeting fewer than 100 people in the United States for secret court-approved wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, the top U.S. intelligence official said in an interview published yesterday."

Given the clever wordplay of the Bush administration, should we assume that there have been 100 wiretaps, or should we believe they're being clever with their words (again) and there are 100 wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, but an unknown number of warrantless wiretaps for other purposes?

Re:BAD SUMMARY?

[Spy der Mann]

wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks

Oh c'mon (i know it's not your argument, but it's ridiculous). The govt detected Osama's activity way ahead of time, don't tell me they relied on wiretaps for all their intelligence. And yet, they let it happen all because of stupid paperwork. What the US needs is smart people in the agencies, not more paranoid wiretapping laws.

Besides - wiretapping hasn't stopped drug traffic and we know how heavy it is. Do they expect us to believe that by allowing wiretapping, terrorist activity will magically vanish?

Besides, smart criminals wouldn't use open phone connections. They just need to go to a rented appartment (or meet outside the US), plan things ahead of time, and nobody will notice. Or do you think 9/11 was planned by phone? "Hey, Osama! What if we crash the WTC tomorrow? Sounds cool! Let's do it, yay!"

Idiots.

Re:BAD SUMMARY?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Law enforcement officials are targeting fewer than 100 people in the United States for secret court-approved wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, the top U.S. intelligence official said in an interview published yesterday."

It's not a worldplay. What it's said is that less than 100 people in US are being monitored with primary aim to disrupt terrorist network.

Everything else is speculation on your part. There could be thousands wiretaps that are with other goals...or not. Or, the rest is unauthorized... Or...

That is why transparency is important. And, everything else is just soundbites.

Only 100 Americans?

[Orion Blastar]

I guess I am too boring for them to listen in on my calls.

AT&T and Verizon cooperate, eh? What if the terrorists use a different long distance network instead?

Re:Only 100 Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful. I have a friend who ordered perscription drugs from Canada. The box arrived with a note from DHS and no drugs. Two weeks later a letter arrived at his home telling him they'd been tapping his phone. This happened during the last 3 months. I imagine a lot of this is going on.

All from ordering perscription drugs from Canada. I'm sure if he's not stopped soon, our whole democracy will fall. Of course, the damage done to it by Bush and Co. will probably kill it long before then...

Re:Only 100 Americans?

[Orion Blastar]

Strange I got friends who live in Illinois who get Canadian Pharmacy Prescriptions mailed to them without any DHS interference.

It also isn't DHS policy to tell someone that their calls are being monitored. I mean what is the point of a warrantless wiretap if the person you are tapping knows they are being tapped?

Something about your story seems fishy, plus the fact that you posted as anonymous coward tells me that I have a hard time believing what you posted.

Not It!

[splatter]

Whew.... did I say that in time? I'd hate to be that 100.

Lawsuits

[phoenixwade]

I don't really care if the lawsuits go through or not.... But, I do believe that if we REALLY cared about these lawsuits, we'd change providers. Nothing is going to tell the business world we want our rights respected like taking our money from those that do not to those that do.

This is the reason the current administration is so secretive, they feel that the American people wouldn't stand for some of the things they are doing if it was known.

They feel that they have to do it whatever way they are doing it to do it right.

Therefore, the American public doesn't need to know.

Although I don't agree, I have to say there is some merit to this idea. This is our fault, though, not the administrations. We, as a whole, have a lemming mentality. The group is easily manipulated by fear, and by spin. It's too much to ask for, I suppose, that the average American spend as much time thinking about personal rights and freedoms as they do on a new car purchase. Come to think of it, I don't want that either. I was looking for an example of something the average Joe would think on a lot before making a purchase, and the realization hit me that we, again as gross averages, buy cars, hire doctors, buy food.... All on impulse.... I'm so depressed....

My girlfriend just pointed out that we spend a lot of time thinking about Celebrity sex. I could use that as a comparison.... Now, I'm REALLY depressed...

Re:Lawsuits

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it but Americans get the government they deserve like in all democracies. In the modern world, democracy is heralded as the pinnacle of government but tyrrany of the majority is just as bad as tyranny of the minority.

I'd rather have liberty which means decentralization and self governing republics which, ironically is how the USA was started. Ever since Wilson and his democratic vision for the world we have been led to the world's most bloody wars in the entire history of mankind. They didn't call it "World War" for nothing.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Sir Winston Churchill

Re:Lawsuits

[Phroggy]

Uh, have you forgotten that these companies have a monopoly on local telephone lines?

In some cases, you can switch to a CLEC, which will rent a cage in AT&T/Verizon's central office and pay them to connect your phone line to their equipment. They'll even let you keep your existing phone number (which the CLEC also pays AT&T/Verizon for). But I'm not 100% sure AT&T/Verizon don't have a way to tap these lines too, if the NSA asks them to. Besides, most people don't understand that this choice is available (because "the phone company" was a monopoly for a long time, although the names have changed several times as the pieces of Ma Bell have gradually reassembled themselves), and in many cases, the choice simply isn't available (for example, depending on where you live, there may not be a CLEC that offers service at your CO). On top of that, Verizon has been fighting to keep CLECs out - they cut a deal with the FCC so if they switch you over to FIOS, they're no longer required to allow CLECs to offer you phone service. I'm sure AT&T is working on the same, if they can get their heads out of their asses long enough to do it.

So to recap, your options are:

1) Switch to a CLEC (if one is available) and hope AT&T/Verizon don't just tap it anyway
2) Switch to a cell phone (but not from the two largest cell phone networks!)
3) Switch to VOIP over a cable modem (and say goodbye to reliable 911 service)
4) Move (and hope Qwest doesn't reverse their position without telling anyone)
5) Use AT&T/Verizon (they'll tap your phone without a warrant)

Not quite as simple as "if we really cared, we'd change providers," is it?

If you believe 100, then you believe...

[tom_evil]

...everything else this administration has ever said, like about NOT doing warrantless wiretapping.

An ACLU lawyer contacted a friend of mine last year regarding their lawsuit to stop the warrantless surveillance program, because his phone number was listed on a portion of the tapped phones lists that had been leaked to the ACLU, or that they had acquired. The only thing he could think of is that he took part in a protest on a university campus once in 2004 and had been arrested for petty disorderly conduct.

So you tell me, if his phone was being tapped, do you really think they are only tapping 100 people?

Terrorism == trojan

[redelm]

Thank you for the kind words.

I've come to think of terrorism as trojan exploiting a bug/feature in homo-sapiens wiring/OS:

For thousands of generations as gatherer-hunters, homo sapiens has been optimized in an information-impoverished environment. So we react quickly and strongly to news of any threat. Those that didn't, didn't survive.

Terrorism is a modern (~100 yrs) invention. It was not as effective in antiquity simply because far fewer people would hear of the fear-inspiring event. Electronica has changed that, yet humans have not evolved any innate statistical or weighing sense.

The question still remains: what to do? 911 casualties cost about 700 million waking-hours. Far more than that in fretting afterwards. I suggest we rely on herd dynamics and ignore any threat unless directly imminent. Prevention is like the lottery, net negative payoff. But our wiring/OS won't accept this. No patch for the bug!

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[Steeltalon]

Personally, my favorite commercial from that movie was "The Freak: It won't just scare you. It'll [procreate] you up for life!"

SSH requires photo ID at HostGator, others too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just signed up for an account on HostGator.com which is extremely popular it seems. They advertise ssh. But, once you purchase the account you notice the ssh is not working.

In fact if you want to use ssh you have to complain, then they tell you they require you to send a national photo ID to "verify your account" those are the words, as a requirement for enabling ssh on your account.
This is after they have already gotten your down payment by credit card which verified fine.

I asked what was the rationale, and is this a Homeland Security thing, or what? They did not answer but were adamant. I wonder if the administration has been quietly ordering all ISPs to do this. Never had it happen to me before.

Wait, there's an NID?

[Mercano]

Wait, there's really an NID? I thought it was just something they made up for Stargate and staffed with former Star Trek cast members.

Re:Wait, there's an NID?

[Unlikely_Hero]

heh, NID = National Security Director NID != National Security Directorate

Ya...Stargate fucking rules

Re:Wait, there's an NID?

[An ominous Cow art]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess that 'I' stands for 'Intelligence', not 'Security' :-).

Re:Wait, there's an NID?

[Unlikely_Hero]

um.........why...whatever do you mean good sir? I wrote intelligence both times!!!...
where's the stupid edit button??...they've got to have an edit button!

Evidence of Abuse.

[twitter]

You are lost in specifics of legitimate business and have missed evidence of political abuse of process. The ties between corporate and government intelligence allow routine, unreasonable search. Government agents are also being used for political purposes though illegal wiretaping and other programs. You might have noticed the screening portion of Bush "crowd control", where political opposition is excluded from public events. Detailed records are being kept for innocent Americans, and we have dipped so low as to spy on our own churches. These unAmerican practices were expressly outlawed in the wake of Watergate and other scandals. The president who signed those laws, claims they are being broken. This is a waste of your money and it will be used against you in business. Ultimately, this kind of abuse is all about economic advantage.

Re:Police State?

[kennylogins]

Truth, justice and the American way, which means waiting til the train goes off the tracks to fix it.

Re:The unanswered question... still

[Anonymous Coward]

> the legitimate power to spy on our foreign enemies without involvement of the judiciary

This was not the question. Spying on foreign nationals in other countries has never been in question. Even spying by the UK on Americans for America isn't in question. The question was about the ability of American secret services to spy on Americans in America without a warrant. Please answer that one. Hint; if that's allowed Hillary would be able to keep it sufficiently within her loyalists that you'd never have to find out about it.

"Dead Americans" is a Lie.

[twitter]

Members of the FISA think Bush has done more harm than good.

Federal Judge Resigns From Spy Court, Three More 'Deeply Upset' ... The Bush administration's decision to sometimes bypass the secretive U.S. court that governs terrorism wiretaps could threaten cases against terror suspects that rely on evidence uncovered during the disputed eavesdropping ... unprecedented resignation from the government's spy court by U.S. District Judge James Robertson as an indicator of the judiciary's unease over domestic wiretaps ordered without warrants under a highly classified domestic spying program ...

"This was definitely a statement of protest," agreed Scott Silliman, a former Air Force attorney and Duke University law professor. "It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority."

In this case, the "Dead Americans" flag should be thrown in the face of those who support abuse of process. When you abuse the legal system for political and economic advantage, you debase the system and impede it's function. The further from rule of law you get, the less justice you will see. A corrupt system is an expensive farce.

Re:"Dead Americans" is a Lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, the "Dead Americans" flag should be thrown in the face of those who support abuse of process.

No, the sons of bitches should NOT have the flag thrown in their faces -- the motherfuckers should be strangled with it.

well, let's see just how much storage...

[Anonymous Coward]

1440 minutes in a day, maybe 100kB for one minute of phone quality voice recording. that's 144MB for 24 hours of recording one person. 301,139,947 people in the US as of July 2007, let's round that to 300m for the sake of this hypothetical situation. so 300m people, 144MB to record each one all day, that's 43,364,152,368mb to record every person in the country for a single day. so we're looking at around 43PB, right? ok, at consumer market prices for hard drives, say (around) $200 for 1TB, that'd cost $8,600,000 a day to record every single person in the country for 24 hours with a fresh storage array every single day (which is completely unnecessary, you just need to keep the recordings that hit keywords).

for comparison, we're currently spending $200 million a day in Iraq.

Re:well, let's see just how much storage...

[KevinIsOwn]

The amount of variables you leave out of your post is so amazing that it's almost not worth replying to. Do hard drives just magically listen to phone conversations, or is there any other hardware connecting them to the telephone system? (And admins, and blah blah it's pretty obvious you've low balled the number by several orders)

Re:well, let's see just how much storage...

[Anonymous Coward]

STORAGE, idiot.

Downsize DC

[sydbarrett74]

I also urge everyone to look at Downsize DC and sign some petitions.

Sloppy Mistake or Sly Lie

[toddhisattva]

From the article,

McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. From the submission,

He also claims that only 100 Americans are under surveilance The submitter assumed, or purposely misinterpreted, "100 people inside the United States" to mean "100 Americans." The first is a sloppy mistake, the second is a deliberate lie.

There are many people inside the United States who are not Americans. The communications laws (IIRC from my work and play in the industry) use the broadly expansive category "US persons" which means anybody physically in the country.

There are green card holders and other legitimate workers, resident aliens of all kinds, and illegal aliens, just to name a few.

Other non-American inside the USA include students, tourists, and Democrats.

Re:Sloppy Mistake or Sly Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Other non-American inside the USA include students, tourists, and Democrats.

Democrats are Americans -- they're living proof that in America we're all free to be as stupid as we want to be.

Re:Sloppy Mistake or Sly Lie

[redmond_herring]

Oh please! Not this tired old line again: "Other non-American inside the USA include students, tourists, and Democrats."
Can we please stop the "un-American(tm)" drivel? Can't you offer us something more constructive, perhaps contributing to the conversation, rather than lowering yourself to simple name calling?

Back on-topic. Why has the National Intelligence Director decided to drop this little nugget now? This is not something that you would accidentally slip into a conversation with a reporter.

Re:Sloppy Mistake or Sly Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Other non-American inside the USA include students, tourists, and Democrats.

And the lowest class of all -- smug mother's-ass-fucking sons of bitches like you.

Re:Sloppy Mistake or Sly Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are Americans -- they're living proof that in America we're all free to be as stupid as we want to be.

And Republicans are living proof of the truth of the rumor that the Indians were fucking the buffalo.

Morons, it's DNI ... not "NID"

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you come up with "NID"?

The correct title and the name of the associated organization is Director of National Intelligence -- DNI .

How do you refer to the FBI? As "BIF" ?? I think not.

Re:Morons, it's DNI ... not "NID"

[Phroggy]

Where did you come up with "NID"? Stargate, apparently.

Comply according to due process, ok, else NO

[Anonymous Coward]

If a company is legally required to comply with authorities, and those authorities have presented them with seemingly valid (I'll allow a little room here for them company not realizing it if they are being lied too) warrents/etc, then I do think they should be immune to lawsuits... but that the lawsuits should then fall on whatever authorities "forced" the company to comply.

If the company is voluntarily discriminating against its workforce, then it should be liable for that. If the company is voluntarily violating its customers privacy, then I think they should be liable for that too.

However, I also think they should be allowed to present to the Jury *why* they felt they should help the authorities.

Personally, I doubt many people would have a problem with helping the government wiretap someone who is legitimately under suspicion of conspiring/commiting terrorirm. On the other hand, if they are helping the government to wiretap everyone, in hopes of catching terrorism, then I think they need to be slapped with a hell of a lawsuit, to make them and anyone who looks like them, think twice about the idea.

The misunderstood issue...

[daveschroeder]

No, the issue, which is commonly misunderstood, is that:

- Monitoring for foreign communications does not require, should not require, and will never require, a warrant, which brings us to:

- Monitoring of foreign communications where both ends are outside of the United States, but where the passage of the traffic through equipment within the United States is incidental should not require a warrant;

- Monitoring of communications where the target of said monitoring is (reasonably* believed to be) outside of the United States should not require a warrant, regardless of where the other end of the communication is (even if within the United States);

- Monitoring of US citizens as targets within the United States requires a warrant, and always has.

And, to answer your question, I'm not a "Bush supporter" in the vein you're probably looking for, but yes, I believe that these capabilities should absolutely exist under the next administration as well. The United States has always had the ability to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant, and that should always be so. Whether one end of the conversation is within the United States, or neither end is but the traffic incidentally travels through equipment physically within the United States, is - and should be - irrelevant.

That is not to say that the so-called Protect America Act of 2007, the six-month temporary legislation which allows this, is perfect, or isn't overly broad. But the capability to continue collecting foreign intelligence without being encumbered by FISA is crucial. Then you might ask, "Well, where are the checks and balances, then?!" Indeed, where are the checks and balances for any foreign signals intelligence collection? Should all foreign SIGINT now go through a court and warrant process, just to "make sure" it's "really" foreign SIGINT? If you believe so, you're woefully misguided.

For a very brief and simple overview of the issues this addresses, see this Newsweek article.

* "Reasonable" has a standard here - it's not just someone making an arbitrary assertion. Since in today's electronic world it is virtually impossible to guarantee beyond a shadow of any doubt that a particular target may be outside of the United States, it must be reasonable to believe that they are. I know people like to think that the attorney general can just "declare" someone as being outside of the US, and commence monitoring. No. They must, by all appearances, actually appear and be believed to be outside of the United States by any reasonable assessment. And again, let me guess: "But where are the checks and balances?" To repeat, where are any such "checks" any any other foreign intelligence gathering? The difference here is that sometimes, traffic may be increasingly traveling through the United States. Instead of choosing to be hamstrung in foreign SIGINT collection just because major communication trunks happen to pass through the US, I'd choose the option of using that to our advantage. It's flat out foolish not to.

Won't be a customer

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to change my service provider to Verizon, but after reading the story I will not. I feel so strongly about this. It is immoral down to the core of what being an American is suppose to be all about.

Re:Police State?

[compro01]

In a real police state, speaking "truth to power" earns you a trip to a prison, mental institution, or a ditch in an empty field.

I'm not saying they're there yet. I'm saying they're working on it still. Rome wasn't built (or destroyed) in a day.

Engineering hours

[HiggsBison]

(10 hours to write it up and run it past a judge.)

"Ach! Captain! It'll take at least a week!"

Immunity for violating the Constitution?

[ivanmarsh]

I don't beleieve that there is anyone in the U.S. government with the power or authoirty to grant immunity for a violation of the Constitution.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.

And now we have government authority, backed up by guns, to not care.

FTSummary ... suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue.

And I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.

What's the problem with this?

[smitth1276]

According to the article, there are warrants for the 100 people who are under surveillance in America. This is completely inline with what the Bush administration has said from day one.

Warrant? Whats a warrant?

[PPH]

He also claims that only 100 Americans are under surveilance, that it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a telephone number

That's nice. But the Bush administration (With the recent help of Congress. Thanks a lot. What the hell did we elect you Democrats for in the last election?) doesn't need warrants.

What the hell does "on a telephone number" mean? The current state of the art includes the ability to sweep communications for 'patterns' like all calls to/from overseas numbers regardless of the specific number. And why only address phone numbers? Quite a bit of what is being monitored is digital communications like e-mail, IM, access to certain web sites, etc. Again, this is done by sniffing entire communication links for source/destination addresses, specific content, etc.

The telcos shouldn't be given a 'get out of jail free' pass for cooperation. They need to comply with the law. Trouble is, the law pretty much says: When the Administration asks for something, that's all the justification they need.

Interesting note: I was listening to an (NPR?) program about politics in Iran. They called an Iranian advocate for democracy living in Tehran for a short interview. He admitted that he had to be circumspect with some of his comments because, as he put it, 'The government here listens to all international telephone calls and monitors the communications of those that are under suspicion of political activism.'

I just thought to myself, "Hey. The same happens here."

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.

Which bit, exactly? I've read it many times, and I still can't find a bit that says it's not constitutional to tap somebody's phone if you have a warrant. In fact the fourth amendment makes it explicitly constitutional to violate people's privacy in far more fundamental ways, such as searching their person or possessions, if there is a good reason to believe that this is essential for the wellbeing of the state.

I know it's fashionable these days to pretend that anything the Bush administration does is unconstitutional, but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about the document that our great nation is founded upon.

Empty rhetoric

[Tungbo]

is all it is. That should be obvious from the interview where all he talked about were the FISA process and the rough order of magnitude in terms of people being monitored. Yet he repeatedly trotted out the line about "this will cost some American life."

How can terrorists make use of such information to increase the danger to the American public?

Secondly, if he REALLY believes that such data are dangerous, WHY IS HE DISCLOSING THEM to a newspaper and allowing them to publish it ?!

Looks more like a CYA job to me....

Based on what damages?

[jeko]

You're right. A million for violating My Beloved Bill of Rights is ridiculous. I think a more reasonable figure would be the entire gross worth of both the Bush and Cheney families, as well as all assets and accounts receivable of AT&T. I might consider accepting such a paltry sum if it came with tearful, prostrate apologies from all concerned.

Since we're on the topic of dead Americans, I come from a military family. My kin and I have served, sacrificed, bled and died for the rights and freedoms we have in this county, and we did it before the damn GI Bill came into being. When someone dares to even touch those rights, we don't think we should be given money. We think those responsible should be made to face us in combat.

How much are our rights really worth? So far, for my family, two Worlds Wars, Three Police Actions and still counting...

Re:Based on what damages?

[E 99]

You're right. A million for violating My Beloved Bill of Rights is ridiculous. I think a more reasonable figure would be the entire gross worth of both the Bush and Cheney families, as well as all assets and accounts receivable of AT&T. I might consider accepting such a paltry sum if it came with tearful, prostrate apologies from all concerned.

Since we're on the topic of dead Americans, I come from a military family. My kin and I have served, sacrificed, bled and died for the rights and freedoms we have in this county, and we did it before the damn GI Bill came into being. When someone dares to even touch those rights, we don't think we should be given money. We think those responsible should be made to face us in combat.

How much are our rights really worth? So far, for my family, two Worlds Wars, Three Police Actions and still counting...

I certainly admire your family's service to your country. But please bear with me here. Let's say you found Osama bin Laden's phone number, and you decided to call him up to tell him what a sonofabitch he is. The NSA detects a call to Osama and records it, even though they can see it originated in the US. They send the recording to the CIA, where analysts listen to it and concur that Osama is indeed a sonofabitch, and proceed to the next call. Please explain which of your precious rights were violated. The only remotely plausible one I can think of would be the right to be free from "unreasonable searches". However the duty of the executive branch, and the NSA in particular, is to eavesdrop on the enemy. While you are clearly not the enemy, hearing your end of the conversation is part of their necessary and reasonable duties, by which they, like you, serve and protect this country. Do you really believe it is unreasonable for military intelligence to eavesdrop on our enemies when they are communicating with someone inside the US? If not, which of your rights was violated?

Re:Based on what damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're on the topic of dead Americans, I come from a military family. My kin and I have served, sacrificed, bled and died for the rights and freedoms we have in this county, and we did it before the damn GI Bill came into being. When someone dares to even touch those rights, we don't think we should be given money. We think those responsible should be made to face us in combat.

Damned straight!

And since most of these pantywaisted bedwetters never served in the armed forces (in this, I include the commander-in-thief), I believe you should have plenty of time for a few beers after the operation.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[davester666]

I suggest they should all be executed for undermining the Constitution.

Which bit, exactly? I've read it many times, and I still can't find a bit that says it's not constitutional to tap somebody's phone if you have a warrant. In fact the fourth amendment makes it explicitly constitutional to violate people's privacy in far more fundamental ways, such as searching their person or possessions, if there is a good reason to believe that this is essential for the wellbeing of the state.

Um, isn't this controversy about: a) them NOT getting warrants for the wiretaps and b) listening to American phone calls [because foreigners have no rights].

Re:Police State?

[Lithdren]

Idiot. I realize you're a troll, but I hear this argument enough to bother responding.

Just because you dont have them knocking at the door right now, doesn't mean this sort of activity wont lead to it in the future. This is what needs to be prevented. You cant just allow a goverment to get to that point, and THEN do something about it. Only an idiot would lie there and let it happen.

An idiot like yourself, clearly.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[sconeu]

Wrong source. That's Lily Tomlin's "Ernestine the Phone Operator" from Laugh-In.

Basic Civics. Again.

[jeko]

Son, there's a reason why we separate the Police and the Military. There's a reason why we separate the FBI and the CIA. There's a reason why, traditionally, the US Military has been forbidden to carry out operations inside US borders.

Law Enforcement is meant to keep the peace, to preserve Justice within our Society. Look at the sculpture around our court houses. A police officer is supposed to uphold Justice by enforcing the Law. This means Police Officers should believe, under our finest traditions, that "better a thousand guilty go free than to imprison one innocent man."

Soldiers are not concerned primarily with Justice. Soldiers, while they do have "rules of engagement" and the desire to avoid civilian casualties, exist to Kill the Enemy.

I once had a grizzled old retired Texas sheriff tell me with pride that while he had "smacked the fear of God" into many men, he'd never once had to kill. He was proud of that. "Every time I touched my weapon, I knew eventually I'd have to look his Mama in the eye..."

That is an excellent cop. Cops should err on the side of caution.

Soldiers shouldn't. The job of a soldier is to make sure every one of his buddies goes home, and if that means blowing the rubble higher, so be it. Soldiers shouldn't be happy until the enemy is three times dead before the engagement starts.

Once you allow soldiers to begin operating domestically, even for the best of reasons, you have opened the door to an eventual coup. Good cops should look at a crowd and see fellow citizens. Good soldiers should look at a crowd and see a target-rich environment. The only way the Constitution can survive is to never mix the two.

By the way, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Eisenhower happen to agree with me on all of this. The Founding Fathers didn't even want a standing army, calling it incompatible with Liberty, and the last thing the man who defeated the Third Reich said to us as he entered retirement was that Washington's nightmare was coming true.

BTW, as far my phone call to Bin Laden -- I'm a US Citizen. That means my phone calls are my own damn business until a judge says they aren't. Before the judge says they aren't, Law Enforcement better have some damn good reason to think I'm doing anything other than calling Bin Laden to ask if he has Prince Albert in a can. You wanna tap the Sultan of Brunei's phone calls? Go get 'em, boys. You wanna tap the calls of a US Citizen without a warrant? Seems to me you just became the enemy of the Constitution that my family has sworn to protect.

Of course, let talk about the real problem here. You're afraid some bad man is going to come along and mess with you, and you want someone to protect you.

Yes, there are real bad men in the world. Yes, I have seen the Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and Dua Khalil Aswad videos. I think all adults in the Western World should. It puts things in context. We really are dealing with mindless savages. Yes, more than 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001. I saw the second tower fall on CNN, and my brother-in-law saw them fall in person from a good distance. Yes, there are men who have committed their lives to destroying my country, and when they chant "Death to America," I believe the mean it literally and I take it personally.

But I also know that 46,000 died at Gettyburg alone, and our Constitution survived. Pearl Harbor took 2,300 lives and damn near our entire Pacific Navy, and the Bill of Rights survived. Hell, the Third Reich, the Japanese Imperial Navy, the Soviet Union -- these were enemies worthy of the bullet. You can feel proud fighting someone who can field a Panzer tank, a Mitsubishi Zero or a Mig.

Who are we fighting now? Oh, yeah, men so callow they can't handle backtalk from the women, men so clumsy they can't figure out a kitchen knife won't cut through bone in the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg videos, men who are so afraid of women they have to gang up on a young girl to bash her head in with a block in the Khalil video, men whose tactical g

Re:what do you do about searching without a warran

[charlesnw]

Very well said. And yes you are correct in that the majority of LEO RFI (upwards of 90%) are for garden variety crimes and not related to national security. I have been involved with a number of LEO RFI related to money laundering and other financial crimes. All rather rotuine and boring. Also a lot of anti fraud investigations (people had credit cards compromised and used and the ILEO needed transaction records for court cases). If you work in finance/retail, your organization really should have a policy for handling LEO engagement. Well finance or retail institutions that do any sort of volume.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[mrogers]

In fact the fourth amendment makes it explicitly constitutional to violate people's privacy in far more fundamental ways, such as searching their person or possessions, if there is a good reason to believe that this is essential for the wellbeing of the state.

Not true. The Fourth Amendment requires search warrants to specify "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," and there must be probable cause for a search. It does not authorize surveillance dragnets, even in the name of national security, which is what many people suspect that Verizon and AT&T have facilitated.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[myyrk]

Which bit, exactly? I've read it many times, and I still can't find a bit that says it's not constitutional to tap somebody's phone if you have a warrant.

Reread the article and pay attention to the warrantless part, it means without a warrant.

Reread the constitution and pay attention to the warrant part, it means with a warrant.

Put the those together and come up with two, not three.

but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about the document that our great nation is founded upon.

but all I can say is that I'm saddened and disappointed that so many Americans understand so little about reading comprehension.

Re:Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting...

[jwo7777777]

[because foreigners have no rights]. I hate this justification for immoral action.

How can we "...hold these truths to be self-evident..." but effectively create a second class of person by changing our code of conduct when dealing with them?

How can it be ok to not obey our own laws when dealing with a foreigner, but hold a US citizen responsible to obey US law when they are outside of the US proper (look it up ... you can be charged with a crime under US law if you do it on foreign soil ... even if it is legal on that foreign soil according to the foreign laws)?

It is an abominable double standard, even when fighting terrorism.

What good is it to sacrifice and defend democracy when it must be abandoned when threatened?

To paraphrase Tolkien: The blood of the founding fathers is all but spent.

Ron Paul would abolish the illegal wiretapping

[SonicSpike]

Ron Paul would not be in bed with the telcos and would minimize governmental intrusion into our lives. Check his record, see who funds him (here is a hint - $99.97 of his donations are from individuals)