Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging FISA
Wired's Threat Level blog reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Recently passed by both the House and Senate, FISA was signed into law on Thursday by President Bush. The ACLU has fought aspects of FISA in the past. The new complaint (PDF) alleges the following:
"The law challenged here supplies none of the safeguards that the Constitution demands. It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents without identifying the people to be surveilled; without specifying the facilities, places, premises, or property to be monitored; without observing meaningful limitations on the retention, analysis, and dissemination of acquired information; without obtaining individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; and, indeed, without even making prior administrative determinations that the targets of surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism."
It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier.
Yeah we should have demanded that Clinton get off his lazy ass and take a fucking risk and ignore the advice his legal team gave him, and issue an assassination order on Bin Laden, and kill anyone else who associated with him. Then maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened, the patriot act wouldn't exist, this new fisa law wouldn't have any merit, the protect America act wouldn't be in existence, but as we all know Clinton was a gutless spineless president who failed his job in so many ways.
Yeah go ahead mod me down to troll go ahead and show your inability to accept the truth and the facts that you are presented with. Way to go mods guess you are severely blind. I dont give a shit. You mod anything down to troll that you do not agree with or do not even care to think about. Can't think critically or logically? Then maybe you shouldn't be online.
The government can't win for losing in this situation. Either they are impeding on perceived Constitutional protections or it fails in its Constitutional directive to protect its citizens. Which one takes precedence? I don't see any way for a compromise that can accomplish both.
As far as I know, there is no Constitutional right to privacy. The government, however, is specifically directed to protect its citizens. Courts are already spitting on the the second amendment. It says in black and white that citizens can bear arms. Period. It is not up for "interpretation". Where is the ACLU here?
If you read the Constitution, you can see that it was written in such a way that there is no need for interpretation. It was written in lay terms for the time so that everyone could understand it. Believe it or not, it actually means what it says. It's a very simple document that creates the government, sets out the responsibilities of the government and limits the power of the government it created.
I don't understand people who want to limit the ability of the government to protect us. Was the lack of communication between local police, the FBI, and CIA during the Clinton years, which led to 9/11, not a big enough eye opener?
The ACLU is a private enterprise with its own agenda and does not care about the safety of U.S citizens. It's no different than "big oil" or "big business" that it is so fond of going after. The only difference is that "big business" is after money and the ACLU and its ilk is after power and control. It, along with environmental groups, is a mouthpiece for socialist movement in the U.S. The ACLU was not elected by the people and does not represent the people. It has no respect for the Constitution, but relies on it when politically expedient.
Now 4 Million people are in Times Square, and the attack goes off which is a series of IED's and various other explosive devices killing say 1 million people and injuring 500K more. Which half of them die due to New York City's hospitals being unable to handle the capacity. What do you say about "Protecting the rights of Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedriver, Peter and Ulysses did this so they could get money to help pay off their mounting debt.
Bullshit, the ACLU doesn't love the constitution, they love their specific pet bits of it. Always have.
hopefully you won't ask the US supreme court to comment on the definition terrorism, since they are a Catholic majority and seek to defer to the Pope on all matters, and the Pope says terrorism is disagreeing with him:
Vatican calls verbal attack on Pope terrorism
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0211344020070502
Cry me a freaking river. The law passed because it was the right thing to do to protect this country. Like it or not, we're at war. Grow up.