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."
... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?
there are people who still believe in the Constitution out there. They have my support.
i'm glad to see someone still loves the constitution, but the aclu will fail as always
I am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.
...such complaints by the surveilled would be connected tenuously to terrorism.
Never trade freedom for security, nor security for freedom. You can increase both with a little thought and creativity. Now we just need to get those thoughtful, creative people elected. THAT is the challenge.
And be VERY specific about WHY you are doing so.
Money is all that most of them understand. Money gets them elected. Money gets them re-elected.
Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If this winds up going to the Supreme Court over the Right to Privacy, it could give them an excuse to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I'll see your cute truism and raise you a boiled frog allegory. Nobody is disputing the wisdom of conducting surveillance on Joe Terrorist in BFE. Its when the surveillance is somehow also conducted on Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedriver without bothering with little nitpicky things like warrants and Constitutional rights that sticks in one's craw.
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
People have been trading freedom for security for decades now - whether it's in the form of expanded FISA powers, or in the form of restrictive gun control, Social Security, etc. People set up the slippery slope whenever they decided that the Constitution should be ignored for their benefit, and now we all pay the price.
I'm curious how many people here have read the legislation instead of reacting to sound bites on TV. I mean, it does increase protection over what has been afforded since 2007, and while not the ideal of increasing protection back to pre-2001 levels, it at least restores some freedom.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Just because something makes sense doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can't make an end run around the Constitution. Don't like the way the Constitution prevents such and such? Amend the Constitution.
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means. But is there a legal definition of "terrorism" already? Something that clearly defines what a terrorist is, and under which someone can be charged for being terrorist?
We have clear definitions of "rape", what has to be done to make an indecent assault become "rape". We are quite clear what is "indecent assault". Murder, in all it's gradations from criminal negligence causing death to first degree premeditated murder, it is clear. We know what someone has to do to become murderer. Or rapist. Or thief.
But what does someone really have to do to become a terrorist? Be scary? Then everyone celebrating Halloween may be a terrorist. Being foreigner, and having ideas that oppose the American culture? Can't be enough to be a criminal.
It is really high time to define: what is a terrorist. Then, and only then, we can make this kind of laws actually work, without all kinds of unintended(?) side effects. Then also the risk of being thrown in jail just for being "a terrorist" without clear accusations can go. And of course, only when we define "terrorist" we can accuse people of actually being one, and judge them accordingly.
The rules change. The last i heard we are officially at war. ( and unfortunately will be for the foreseeable future ) During war, the federal government could even suspend the entire constitution and declare martial law, if they wanted/dare.
Not that i agree with doing it, but its an option that could make all this 'rights' stuff moot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Nobody is disputing the wisdom of conducting surveillance on Joe Terrorist
I am.
communication is like air and water. we don't meter THOSE out. if you breath, you have a right to air and water.
the same SHOULD be true of whispering in a friend's ear. even if one or both people are 'evil'. its NOT for us to decide who gets FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
we need to fix the social error of thinking that privacy is something that can be bought, sold, bargained for, and limited.
I know the reason people WANT to limit freedom of communication, but this will end up harming everyone much more than it will 'catch bad guys'.
sometimes, some things are SO basic - they should not be controlled or given limits. the ability to exchange ideas, even if we disagree with those ideas, should ALWAYS be allowed. period. no conditions.
stop trying to 'fix' the world by limiting things that should never have been limited to begin with.
(and if that does not make sense to you, lets see how long the threshold shifts from 'really really bad guys' to 'slightly bad guys'. you think only terr-a-wrists(tm) will be denied ability to communicate freely? think again. slippery slope and all that. it WILL happen as it IS happening to us all, right now.)
remove all wiretapping. ALL OF IT. no one should be monitored. and if 'stuff' happens, well, THAT is what you get from a truly free society. I still believe the benefits outweight the problems when you maximize freedom and treat all humans like humans.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane.
What's so onerous about taking the notebook to a secret court and having a judge sign off on the wiretaps? While you may object to the fact that unelected judges can tell other parts of the government that they are breaking the law, our entire legal system is built on the idea that unelected judges interpret the law. Its worth noting that law enforcement and intelligence personnel are not elected either.
Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means
This bill has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with saying whether or not the USA can spy on people in other countries who may be talking to people in ours. Right now, this is in the cause of "fighting terrorism", but it could just as easily be used against drug trafficking, counter intelligence, quite literally, all the stuff the CIA/FBI does.
Has anyone ever thought how much the government might be interested in monitoring the communications of people from China back to their homeland? The Chinese government essentially data mines all this stuff to get an aggregate picture of how the USA works, and I think we'd like to know what picture that they see.
This is my sig.
Your trust in the leaders selected by the Glorious People is noted and appreciated, tovarisch.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
5-4 vote is the only thing that'll preserve that bit of our constitution and freedoms.
There is no reason why "terrorists" should be treated differently, they are not worth it in either personal status, or the number of victims they make. Compare the number of victims of terrorism in the USA of the last, say, 10 years, with the number of victims from drug lords. Not convinced? Take the last, say, five years. See? Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!
Sometimes laws that have no chance of surviving the courts are supported as a form of pandering.
Nothing new in this case EXCEPT:
The Supreme court is corrupt and the republic has already fallen (making it just entertainment for the politically active.)
The population should be against it, so a move like this by Obama when he has a history of abstaining on this stuff is extremely interesting as to what really must be going on. We are not allowed to hear what he does; could be the CIA is feeding them more lies and Obama isn't wise enough (since he wasn't privy on the Iraq vote I never bought his line about always opposing the war.) OR certain powerful forces demand the passing of the bill and Obama serves or must kiss their ass.
No, I'm not a Hillary supporter. Hillary voted against it but I'm confident if she were in his shoes she would have voted for it FOR THE SAME CURIOUS REASONS.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.
The constitution is not a suicide pact
Sure it is. The people who wrote it were engaged in a revolution against the greatest superpower of their day. This superpower held a very dim view of such traitors, and those revolutionaries knew that if they failed they would surely die gruesomely at the hands of the English. As Ben Franklin said, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately." They were willing to die for the freedoms they enshrined in the Constituation. Why aren't you?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
The original FISA already allowed for that without being modified. The government already had up to three days after initiation of the tap to obtain a specific warrant. So why was this even needed?
IANAL, of course -- but when has that stopped anyone on /.?
However, I recall that it's still necessary to have an "actual case or controversy" where the plaintiff has a redressable wrong. "Maybe" and "could" don't count. Of course, the ACLU could cite the Court's ruling in the Massachusetts greenhouse-gas case to establish standing on behalf of people not yet born, but I think that only applies where a government body is acting as plaintiff on their behalf.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The 4th Amendment states:
Here is your homework assignment: Compare and contrast with the ACLU's Statement.
Next, start trying to understand the principles behind the 4th Amendment.
Money is the root of all evil?
is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.
Everyone on capital hill is still parroting that dot-bomb era bullshit about how selling bits is the future.
The private sector got real in 1999, and congress is preventing our recovery by helping copyright interests lay waste to anything that dares to grow in the information age.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Much as some people may dislike it, the fact is laws passed by Congress and policies set by the Executive branch have to pass Constitutional muster. That's part of the judicial branch's job, to ensure a check in the system to ensure the legislative and executive branches are acting within the constraints of the powers granted to those branches by the Constitution.
If the fourth amendment is too restrictive to deal with the realities of today's environment, then Congress is free to pursue modification through the process of Constitutional amendment. Until then, it is the duty of the judicial branch to uphold it as it stands.
Also, in reference to your privacy argument of terrorists vs. YouTube viewers, the Constitution grants and limits the powers of government. So while the government may be prohibited from performing a certain act, that doesn't mean it is applicable to individuals/corporations. If you think that is insane then I suggest you call your Congressman about the matter because that is where the problem lies, not in the judicial branch.
This used to be the way the U.S. government did it. Get some client government do the actual tapping and pass the info on to the U.S. Thus avoiding any pesky laws passed by congress. I guess this got to be too inconvenient resulting in the current controversies.
It is time to face up to the reality, that no legal sheet of paper can stop a foreign government from tapping.
Suits like this one, falsely encourage people to believe that legal pieces of paper can keep their phone conversations safe. Foreign governments and criminal organizations do not care what laws congress and the courts create.
If you require confidentiality for international communications, use end to end encryption and control both ends yourself.
Note that the last few times I flew, the planes were pretty much full. Hardly a sign that security regulations have impacted ticket sales all that much.
That has a lot more to do with the number of canceled flights, reduced seat capacity, ticket prices, and overbooking than any impact from security. As onerous as the security theater has become there really isn't a decent substitute for airline travel over long distances so it would have to get REALLY intrusive (think latex gloves) to seriously impact ticket sales volume.
It's not quite offtopic, folks... Roe v. Wade is pretty tenuous in it's basis on the Fourth Amendment (regardless on your stance on the issue, any argument that relies on terms such as "penumbras" and "emanations" to support it is pretty unstable).
Now I doubt that they stab abortion (or any other 4th Amendment issue) right off the bat if a FISA case were to come to court. But, The US Supreme Court has yet to really, truly define a Right to Privacy, because the Fourth Amendment doesn't specifically name it (it concerns security of one's homes, papers, possessions, etc... of which "privacy" is assumed to be among them, but not named or defined). Any definition (or re-definition) can shake up a LOT of cases that rely even partially on that Amendment.
Incidentally, the "F" in FISA will be a sticky obstacle... non-citizens do not share in US rights by default.
IIRC, there's a lot of legal precedent for FISA anyway... The Roosevelt administration's actions during World War II are loaded to the gunwales with examples and precedent - and that man fought with the USSC almost constantly.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
McCain abstained.
Abstaining on a bill that passes is effectively the same as supporting the bill absent some obvious conflict of interest. Since no conflict of interest exists here, McCain effectively supported the bill. If he opposed the bill he could have found a way to be present to vote no on the bill.
How exactly are you connecting FISA and Constantinople?
Furthermore, to reduce your argument to a meaningful state, you seem to believe that the rule of law is inadequate for the US Government. If that's the case, what options are left besides dictatorship?
The real problem you seem to have is that, for the first time in history, the people we trample on for resources and profit are actually fighting back. Here's an idea: remove our military forces from the middle east and see if the situation improves. However, in the language of conquistadors and colonialists, this would represent defeat.
It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents
The aclu seems to think that a us phone number confers us citizenship / permanent residency upon the answerer
does the bill require the prior determination that the person whose number is being tapped is neither a citizen nor a permanent resident? If not, it's not the ACLU that's doing any assuming. (BTW, where did that "permanent" come from anyway? And precisely to whom does the US constitution apply?)
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
He also hindered equipment upgrades, and now our soldiers are over in Iraq and Afghanistan using piss poor equipment.
GWB got us into an unnecessary war we've spent nearly a trillion dollars fighting and the quality of the equipment the troops have is Clinton's fault? Hmmm, think that trillion dollars could have been spent differently? Perhaps on equipment for the troops?
My biggest concern would be that these wiretaps would be used to promote one parties agenda. We have already seen how the administration has been "cleaning house" by going after democratic judges and attorneys, I wouldn't put it past them to use this to go after people who's views don't jibe with theirs. They used the National Security letters a few thousand times against people with no terrorist ties, and are not exactly transparent in much that they do, nevermind that they are taking away the right of people to have their day in court over the warrantless wiretapping that has already gone on, and new allegations of corruption pop up regularly.
A certain B. Franklin once said, to paraphrase, that one who would trade security for freedom, deserves neither.
Examples? I know of several instances where challenges to a law had to wait for an appropriate case, DC v. Heller being a recent example.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Yes, and nobody is trying to keep them from assembling. That doesn't give the Court subject jurisdiction, though, against the Constitution's restrictions on "cases and controversies" and the need for a plaintiff with standing.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If you knew anything about how the govt works then you would know that the military can NOT be used against the population on our soil. The National Guard is the only branch authorized.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
FISA amendments act of 2008 granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms also violates US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." I think the ACLU has a good case and I'll be watching it closely.
Infringement of the 4th is bad, and unauthorized. The law cannot stand because the just powers of government do not include the authority to infringe that inalienable right. But it is being handled (at least in part), in the way that it should be handled - the courts are now obligated to strike down the portions which violate the 4th. I say "in part" because I do not yet know what the punishment will be for those who voted to pass the law. I think censure is the minimum that can be accepted.
But the 4th is not the worst thing in this bill. The worst thing in this bill is the retroactive immunity.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a snippet from Obama's response:
[The FISA Bill] ... removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.
Let me rephrase that: "removes an important tool for the American people to petition for redress of grievances."
Here is a snippet from Senator Maria Cantwell's response:
Congress should respect judicial review and not take away the only opportunity for redress available to American citizens for potential overreaching by this Administration.
Petition for redress is a right. Our rights come before the authority of the government and cannot be infringed by it. It is a right which the just powers of government do not authorize them to infringe. Hence these 73 people (69 Senators against, 3 not voting, and The President) have failed in their oath to defend The Constitution.
But what is worse is the particular right that was infringed. The right to petition for redress is the last peaceful step we are allowed for correcting our government. The largest group by an enormous margin on Obama's site is the anti-FISA group. That's the soapbox. We nominated a person who promised to fight immunity. That's the ballot box. And this retroactive immunity removed the jury box. There is time for this to be corrected, but it is an incredibly dangerous place for us to be. It is like the old DEFCON rating from the cold war. We are hanging at the last peaceful step. With every fiber of my being I hope that we can find a peaceful way out of this, because I cannot bear the thought of the next responsibility with which our founders charged us.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
What are you talking about? The constitution was written 6 years after the revolutionary war was over.
Obama was smart to vote for this, even though he opposed it!
1) It would have passed anyway without his vote
2) McCain abstained, so Obama can hammer him as being 'weak' on terrorism and bring more Republicans away from the McCain camp.
It's just like any other tactical game. If you give away something that doesn't matter (a vote on a lost cause) to gain something valuable (a weapon against your opponent) then you're playing a smart game.
Perhaps you mean the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, 4 years after the end of the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
I understand "chilling effect" but I don't know if it creates standing.
Well, it's all armchair quarterbacking from two IANAL types anyway. We'll see soon enough I suppose.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
You'd have to draw the line just right, but I can see how it could be done.
The actual case is that I had something (the right to be secure) which the constitution explicitly granted me. Congress took it from me by passing the present law which provides a path around the constitutional protections. It is redressable by declaring the law void and unconstitutional.
Many similar sounding cases fail because the plaintiffs can't show that the were actually personally effected (wiretapped, jailed, whatever). But were they law being runs up against a positive requirement (equal protection, security, etc.) it should be much easier to establish standing.
For example, if they passed a law saying that it was OK to cook Scientologists and eat them for dinner, any Scientologist should be able to mount a challenge against that law as a violation of their right to equal protection, even if they haven't been eaten. They have a right not only not to be eaten, but to be protected from it by the law.
Likewise, we have a right not only to privacy, but to be secure in that privacy. The present law is a direct assault on our constitutionally granted security.
--MarkusQ
To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane.
What's so onerous about taking the notebook to a secret court and having a judge sign off on the wiretaps? While you may object to the fact that unelected judges can tell other parts of the government that they are breaking the law, our entire legal system is built on the idea that unelected judges interpret the law. Its worth noting that law enforcement and intelligence personnel are not elected either.
What makes civilian judges qualified to rule on military matters? Moreover, they aren't held accountable when America's enemies succeed, the elected branches are. If you think that the law enforcement and intelligence personnel under the President's command are abusing their authority and aren't being held accountable, vote for a different President or even ask your Congressmen to impeach him but understand that not everyone is going to agree with you and many of us will interpret your actions as undermining the Commander-in-Chief in wartime. We tried using the civilian courts to prosecute terrorists and the man who led the prosecution of the 1993 WTC bombers says it's the wrong approach.
Civilian criminal lawyers and judges are tasked with prosecuting crimes after the fact. Intelligence gathering is designed to intercept enemies before they act, before they've broken the law and/or committed acts of war. Civilian courts are the wrong tool for the task at hand, unless you think that losing a few city blocks now and then to terrorism qualifies as acceptable losses. What scares me is that I've talked with people who believe that it is. I'm not looking forward to the Iranian theocracy acquiring nukes.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Thomas Jefferson said: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
Wonder how long it'll take this post to be modded down like my last one. But we all know that the left doesn't censor...
It is time to face up to the reality, that no legal sheet of paper can stop a foreign government from tapping. Suits like this one, falsely encourage people to believe that legal pieces of paper can keep their phone conversations safe.
This has nothing to do with foreign governments. You are attempting to muddy the waters with arguments unrelated to the issue at hand.
Foreign governments and criminal organizations do not care what laws congress and the courts create.
So, into which category do you put the current administration? I vote for the second.
Well, it didn't just spring into being out of thin air. By the time it was adopted the war was over but it was still the end product of a line of documents which essentially were glorified suicide pacts.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
FISA was passed back in 1978 after the Nixon abuses. This bill, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, sought to legitimize the President's warrantless wiretapping program that was illegal under FISA - because that's what FISA was designed to prevent! President Nixon did the exact same thing this administration is getting away with. I guess Congress actually had the balls to rein in abuses of power back in the seventies, even with the Cold War, the Soviet Union, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation hanging over them.
It appears that Congress today has turned into a gaggle of cowards.
Israel=General Ripper US=Buck Turgidson
I don't see anyone here saying that you can't tap Joe Terrorist's phone. What's so hard about getting a warrant to do it? You can even get a warrant up to 3 days after the fact, so if you have to tap the phone now, you can. The whole thing is unreasonable - there needs to be oversight on the program.
...not gods.
Whatever the founding fathers intended, two hundred-plus years of American law has placed a completely different spin on the 4th amendment.
Which is the only way for the Constitution to remain viable, since the human beings who authored the Constitution had no idea what the world would be like in the 21st century. We can conjecture what the founding fathers might have though about FISA, but that's as meaningful as chicken-bone voodoo. Unfortunately for Originalists, Thomas Jefferson did not write a missive on whether email traveling through servers in the US requires a judicially issued warrant.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I don't like the ACLU- at all. Their communist roots and goals are not even close to being in line with me or this country. But they are occasionally right by accident, as it is in this case.
Monitoring/invading/eavesdropping/stalking without a warrant is pretty much what separates us from the socialist toilets, dictatorships, and European countries of the world. It is completely illegal. No matter how much the executive branch wishes the Constitution didn't exist, it does- and it is the Supreme Law of the land.
The FISA bill has no check or balance. It observes no warrant or oversight by another branch of government. It is completely illegal. It is in fact laws like the above that inspired our founders to overthrow the government, and start a new one.
1) I do not support torture
changes to...
2) Who the fuck are you, where am I?! DEATH!!
McCain's tune-changing has been going on for years...he's flip-flopped more often than Obama. Besides, at least Obama can remember shit...like who the players are in Iraq, and what the fuck he voted on.
Blar.
We are a nation of laws. Those that break the law should be held to account. The Bush administration has flouted one of the bedrock laws of this country and Congress' reaction to these crimes is to retroactively make them legal.
Can you tell me exactly what freedoms are being restored by this new FISA law? Does the new law guarantee that this president or the next wont use this as a precedent to allow him to ignore any provisions (of any law) that he doesn't like?
This is not the perfect being the enemy of the good. This law is just a smokescreen.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
They were already hit by the bad foreign policy and idiotic travel restrictions after 9/11. Remember when all those tax dollars were just handed out to them? Remember when the profitable private corporations didn't save for a rainy day and the US citizens gave them free money to keep operating?
Now they're feeling the economic pinch resulting from poorly waging ill-advised wars.
So they're going bankrupt AGAIN.
I suppose they'll get bailed out again...on my dime...yay!
Blar.
[stares at water bill]
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Find me an independent candidate and an active people and we'll be in business then! ;-)
-Matt
P.S. Seriously folks, the two-party system (and its extensive range of funders) has this wrapped up -- they pick your candidates. You want change you really have to change the two-party system - there's no way around this at this stage.
It applies to the government.
The problem is, the definition of "constitutional muster" is presently "wreck the citizen's lives until (if indeed they can) drum up the money, time, and evidence of being screwed by said law and force it through multiple layers of courts until 9 politically filtered individuals can use logic like 'shall not infringe' means 'infringe all you want' and 'regulate commerce between the states' means 'regulate commerce WITHIN the states' and 'shall make no law' means 'make all the laws you want' and 'no law... shall be passed' means 'lets pass those laws!'"
There's no check at ALL upon congress creating unconstitutional laws. That's a severe flaw in the system. Such a check would require punishment for violating their oaths, at the VERY LEAST, and it would also require a FUNCTIONING supreme court, which we absolutely do not have.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Mod parent up please. Mod parent of parent down. Sacrificing freedom for security will earn you neither because it is impossible to have security without freedom. In a balance of security and freedom, erring on the side of freedom is always preferable, because once the trend toward totalitarianism begins, it is difficult to reverse.
You dare to mention the ACLU and the Constitution in the same sentence?
The ACLU doesn't give two shits about the Constitution, and they never have. Thanks to the ACLU's reaction to the D.C. v. Heller decision, many more people are finally realizing that the ACLU's true purpose is to champion causes of the Left, and nothing more.
Yes, Heller was a 5-4 decision. But the important point is that all 9 Justices (in the opinion and the dissents) agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual, not a collective right. In other words, the ACLU's position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right was unanimously refuted by the Supreme Court.
The ACLU could've excused themselves from the whole Heller debate by pointing out that many organizations exist to defend Second Amendment rights. In other words, they could've simply said that they were going to leave the task of defending Second Amendment rights to already-capable hands. But no; the ACLU just couldn't resist weighing in on Heller by taking a dump on the Constitution--the very document they claim to so stridently defend.
The ACLU is beyond contempt. It serves only to intercept donations that, if not for ACLU's hypocritical existence, might have actually gone to organizations that do defend civil liberties, instead of to a muckraking mouthpiece of the Left. They do not deserve respect (let alone support) in any form.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier. yeah but at least the ACLU is trying
I don't know if it's justified but I have more respect for someone who says they were wrong than someone who says, "I never said that."
When has Bob Barr ever sought to limit the number of babies that women can have?
Yah, the very game he claimed he wasn't going to play.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Lets just say that I think it can be done, but not violently, with weapons, etc. Rather, you'd need to overthrow the foundation of our current government, which means our economy. I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal. But if revolutionaries want to have a shot in the dark of causing major changes, then they're going to need economic support, and working with the US dollar is just making them a part of the system they're trying to overthrow.
As far as implementation, I'm sure it's possible to have something like a freenet bank where accounts can be verified, so there's only a limited amount of currency in the system, and then you'd need alternative markets that support the currency.
In my opinion, it's completely ethical, just illegal, but I guarantee you: they'll attack first.
I'm as surprised as you are that you weren't modded down. I'd hardly consider myself left wing, and the thought-patrol modding on this site is impossible to ignore. Maybe the note at the bottom won over their hearts.
Civilian judges can't determine military matters, except to the extent that they may break our laws. If judges cannot enforce laws on the military, then there is no point in passing laws that effect the military because they are impossible to enforce. If we want congress to have the ability to pass a law preventing our soldiers from ripping out enemy combatants' fingernails, we must also concede to them the right to legislate on military matters in general. The executive has broad, but not unlimited, power over the military. Judges are qualified to interpret the law whether military or civilian, criminal or civil, etc. Incidentally, FISA judges are specially selected for their ability to rule on these cases.
Your point about criminal courts prosecuting after the fact conflates two functions of the court; criminal prosecution on the one hand and regulation of government on the other. Prosecuting terrorists post facto is hardly an effective prevention tactic, but that is not what is at question in this case. What is at question is their ability to put checks on law enforcement and intelligence operations.
Your idea that elected leaders should be able to do what they want, since the fact of their election means they have the will of the people behind them, negates the need for a constitution at all. If we trust elected leaders with absolute power to enact the will of the people, why bother setting aside rights and procedures? However, in a constitutional democracy, elected leaders do not have the right to deprive us of our privacy rights any more than they can deprive us of our right to own a firearm.
I've got no problem with the idea that during wartime, and within reason, some rights can be temporarily suspended to allow the military to wage an effective war. However, without a declaration of war or any legal way to designate whether or not we are in a war, all measures taken must be considered permanent. Can you envision an act of congress officially ending the war on terror? Would all the rights we suspend to wage this war then come back? I find that doubtful. As such, I consider any argument that takes 'given we are in a war' as a precondition to be irrelevant. If we are in a war now, I can't picture circumstances under which we will NOT be in a war.
Rhetoric about losing all of our freedoms because we strictly upheld a few is severely misplaced in the current conflict. We do not face a threat to our existence from terrorism. If we suddenly suspended all military and intelligence operations, our enemies would still lack the power to take over the country. Economic mismanagement, poor education, bad governance, and the gradual erosion of our constitution are much greater threats to our freedoms and our system of government than terrorism could ever hope to be.
First, we are not legally at war, even though in practicality the US is. Congress authorized military force to support UN resolution, but did not do a Declaration of War. That's an important distinction, because it prevents the Executive branch from just declaring us at war ad infinitum and invoking wartime powers at their will and leisure.
So the President saying he was invoking his wartime powers as a basis for authorizing warrantless wiretapping is a non sequitur, since we legally aren't at war.
Second, your attempt to portray wiretaps as a military matter because of the source of the information doesn't fly. The source of the information doesn't matter, what matters is the act the Government is attempting to do. And if that act is wiretapping a US citizen, then the 4th kicks in. It isn't civilian judges ruling on military matters, it's civilian judges ruling on due process.
Now, as to whether civilian courts are the wrong approach for prosecuting terrorists, that's completely *irrelevant* for whether warrants need to be issued for *spying on Americans*. Congress created FISA specifically for the purpose of providing oversight for intelligence activities, with FISA courts providing oversight in instances where a US citizen may be under suspect.
To be clear: FISA did not prevent the gathering of information. Period. If it was an emergency, that act allowed for getting a warrant 72 hours *after* the wiretap. FISA approval for warrants borders on rubberstamping, the percentage is that high. So this nonsense of invoking Jefferson and implying that strict observance would have had some dire threat on self-preservation is just a total crock, since following the law would have had *the exact same result as not following it*.
Jefferson in that same letter:
"They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions."
Jefferson pretty much laying out that if time allows, there's no reason to ignore written law. Given the 72 hour, after the fact warrants allowed by FISA in the first place, it's a hard sell trying to make the "dire threat" argument for overleaping law.
So what really occurred? My guess is that the Executive probably came to the decision they needed to do some type of mass invasive dragnet surveillance that would have been practically impossible from a warrant standpoint under FISA. Since going to Congress to ask for those powers would have brought that into the open, the Executive decided they would take the wartime powers position and just do it anyway. They probably didn't know specifically who or what they were looking for, just anything suspicious.
I do agree with your assessment that the present judicial check is not optimal in dealing with those unconstitutional laws and policies. I was merely pointing out that the judicial system, in striking down such laws and policies when they do, is fulfilling it's duties in the system of checks and balances.
Obama was smart to vote for this, even though he opposed it!
Not necessarily. Obama's fundraising involves getting a lot of small donations from people who are excited about him as a candidate, because they think he represents a new kind of politics and/or they're sick of the Bush administration's abuses (like warrantless wiretapping).
If he tarnishes his brand by doing stuff like this, he pisses those people off, and the money dries up.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I cannot vote for any candidate that voted in favor of this and now I'm not sure what to do.
Like you I used to support Obama. But now that he's sold out I can't support him now. Hde was supposed to be for change but all I see is the same old stuff.
I'm no longer voting for the lesser of two evils as they both are.
The last tyme I voted for the lesser of two evils the candidate I voted against had the election stolen so he still won, Bush in 2000. This year I'm voting for Bob Bar.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
For a US example, look at electrical and phone service in rural areas. It wasn't profitable for companies to offer service in those areas at a price consumers were willing to pay, but We The People decided electricity and telecommunications were important enough that people in those areas should have them anyway, so out came the subsidies.
Ah but phone service wasn't subsidized with general taxpayer money. Those who had phone service paid a tax which was then used to fund service in rural areas. This tax was the Federal telephone excise tax.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That sounds like apologia. I'd be careful with that; it's dangerous stuff.
Retroactively justifying a false move, that is. That's what Bush/McCain's people, do. That's Neocon thinking. You can spot the difference between a Righty and a Lefty very easily by watching for this behavior; the Right are incapable of seeing reality for what it is and must have their soothing lies in order to be happy. They don't care if the world goes into the crapper, (in fact, I suspect on some deep level, that's actually where they want it so that it can't hurt them or scare them by being alive and uncontrollable), whereas the Left will criticize a flaw when they see one, no matter who happens to perpetrate it. --We're talking in absolutes, of course; there are many shades in between. But essentially, as one who attempts to observe reality objectively, it is my opinion that Obama deserves criticism for going along with a bad bill.
-FL
His support for the Patriot Act
Bob Bar only supported the Patriot Act even after he added sunset clauses to it.
his support for a constitutional ban on the rights of gay couples to marry
He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is the essence of Libertarianism, the idea that centralized decisionmaking is rarely best for either individuals or society as a whole. Barr simply doesn't get that.
Actually he does get it, he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment saying it's a violation of states rights. Personally I oppose it too but not because it's a states rights issue I oppose it because it's a human rights issue.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It would be nice to move to a country consisting of Washington and Oregon
Oh, you mean the Republic of Cascadia?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal.
You'd better tell all these communities with their own local currencies in the US what they're doing is illegal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Ok. Gimme a donut, damn it. :(
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
do you have to pass a 'no fly list' (no drink list?) to get the water company to turn on your water?
do they withhold basic utilities based on criminal background checks?
I fail to see why you'd care about WHO is on the other end of the phone or net wire - you sell a service and you should not care who or or how they use the service. no questions are asked about selling you water - you pay your bill and they continue to send it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
America's revolt against the crown is an anomaly. Can you name a revolution that didn't end up with more of the people enslaved or dead than free?
I've seen gradual change work in my lifetime when I was certain America had lost it's way. It reversed decades of damage to your rights. I suspect few here know what I'm referring to but I'll leave you hanging so others can tell you or you can ask me for it.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution.
Unfortunately, unfortunate because people are apathetic, I agree. If enough people demanded it they could have better representation. The problem here is not everyone agrees with what's better.
People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be.
I was called for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to sit on a jury where I could use jury nullification to say a law was bad, such as the drug laws. Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Bullshit, the ACLU doesn't love the constitution, they love their specific pet bits of it. Always have.
Example?
The Second amendment:
"Heller Decision and the Second Amendment".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well the ACLU only loves specific parts that fit their agenda.
"ACLU Dream Team by Leslie Sacks"
While I agree on the sentiments, you realize don't you that ACLU stands for "American Civil Liberties Union"? Their mission isn't so much about what happens in other countries. The Sudan isn't in or part of the USA. Neither is Colombia.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!
Maybe not special surveillance laws, but our 4th amendment rights DID get eroded. Take a look at this, this, this, this, and this. For drugs, it was the seizure part that got trampled. For "terrists" it's the search part. There's always some bogeyman we're willing to sacrifice our rights to.
Yes; it's called the list of people with money. You'd better stay on that list, too.
They certainly do; they adjust the deposit based on your credit report, which in turn depends on a criminal background check. The more trouble you've had, the higher the required deposit is. I don't need a deposit; my SO's brother had to come up with $500 cash before they would turn the water on at all. And of course, I can afford $500, and he cannot -- you know how his water got turned on? One guess. No idea? I paid his deposit, that's how. Sure as heck wasn't going to get any assistance from the town's water department.
If only that were true. Water is not free, as was asserted; I rather expect that should air quality become a serious issue such that fresh air is more difficult to get, that we'll be paying for that as well. One way or another; it could be argued that we already are. Corn prices, carbon credits, the ethanol scam, etc.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
But it just makes me wonder if that's not another reason the military is lowering its recruitment standards by allowing more criminals in. Small numbers for sure, but getting bigger. It might be easier to get those types to blindly follow any orders.
There were some criminals in when I was in too, though mostly to escape jail. "Serve tyme in the military or in jail" sort of thing. Actually most were good at following orders though I wasn't, I'd ask "why" and "how" and if I thought it was stupid I'd say it. I guess my first CO, Commanding Officer, liked that because he frequently asked me if I wanted to go to this school or that school. For instance one school he sent me to was for Explosive Ordinance Disposal, EOD, after which I was one of the designated EOD experts in the unit. He also asked me if I wanted to take college classes, they offered classes on post and helped pay for them. I went in the military to save money to go to college so I took one class, but had trouble taking more.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The actual case is that I had something (the right to be secure) which the constitution explicitly granted me.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, rights are unalienable.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The US Supreme Court has yet to really, truly define a Right to Privacy, because the Fourth Amendment doesn't specifically name it (it concerns security of one's homes, papers, possessions, etc... of which "privacy" is assumed to be among them, but not named or defined
Though people may not know it privacy has a basis in the First Amendment as well. I don't recall the case now but in the early 1800s the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment included the right to anonymity in the free speech clause. The ruling said something to the effect that if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they couldn't truly have free speech because what they say could be held against them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab.
Actually Article II Section 4 provides recourse: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Judges can be impeached. Alcee Hastings is one such judge that was impeached.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Thanks for the link, I saved it locally as well as bookmarked it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
According to Wikipedia, the ACLU-related person on the Supreme Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (1973-1980)" [1]; thought I'd mention this since a search for "ACLU solicitor general" turns up nothing.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Current_membership
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Perhaps the Clinton Administration should have upgraded and done better job to provide our Military with better equipment before handing the next administration the Department of Defense.
GWB had TWO YEARS with a republican controlled congress during which he vetoed precisely ZERO bills to get any equipment he desired requisitioned. The problems we have in Iraq are ones of leadership, not equipment. Even if there were/are equipment problems (which I'm in no way conceding that they are - and understand I have family in Iraq at this moment) then the leadership (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) should have realized that and NOT GOTTEN US IN A NEEDLESS WAR.
Where in the Constitution does it guarantee me the right to not be under government surveillance without a warrant?
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Bob Barr has basically recanted his previous stances, and is now a staunch Libertarian.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Are you going to abstain? Vote for wacky Cynthia McKinney in the Green party?
Politics is nothing if not compromise. I'm saddened tha Obama compromised himself so early in the game with this FISA thing...but I'm going to wait until the election and then process all the data.
Blar.
DUI check-points? Everybody loves those, it keeps them 'safe'. Suspension of Habeus Corpus during war-time?
I dunno...constitution is already in tatters or twisted by freaks.
Blar.
The Constitution is a program written in a horrible programming language called "English" which is overly vague and interpretive. "English" was replaced 100s of years ago with a cryptic language called "Legalese" by the experts claiming it was easier for them to work in but many people think they just wanted it for job security.
The constitution is not about liberty, its about government structure and limitation; the 'bill of rights' and amendments are plug-ins and some of those deal with liberties but most of those also deal with government limitations.
Ron Paul isn't as much for liberty as he is for strict constitutional observance (for example, Ron Paul is sometimes ok with limiting liberties within the confines of the constitution and the ACLU tends to put liberty 1st nearly all the time.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I've spoken to a number of people who had never considered the concept of jury nullification, but where quite interested when told about it and its historical role. Its something that really ought to be widely understood, so educating people about it is just as important as being ready to use it yourself.
Yea, I've posted info about jury nullification a number of tymes on the net. Googling slashdot I get 5 results, though I'm sure I've posted more than that.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?