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.
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."
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.
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 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,
Aside from the "war de jour" (drugs, pollution, obesity, cancer, termites) what precisely are you talking about?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
I wish I had examples. Have challenges to the DC gun ban been thrown out for standing in the past?
I'm reading the complaint right now. The plaintiffs are making the case that they reasonably expectation that this kind of surveillance power will interfere with their operations. One example is Amnesty International, who routinely communicate with persons in other countries concerning highly sensitive information. These aren't necessarily countries friendly to the United States either. Since the new powers require no accountability to anyone, Amnesty International cannot guarantee confidentiality to anyone speaking to them, which means that no one will.
So the challenge is based on an expectation that the law will interfere in the future. Normally, that's just something that organizations have to adjust to. In this case, the plaintiffs are saying this interference is unacceptable because the law is unconstitutional.
I hope I have it right. Not that it matters what I think the complaint means.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
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
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
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.
[stares at water bill]
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If you'd been paying attention over the last couple of years, you'd know that Posse Comitatus will be changed at the drop of a hat. Yes, the change was repealed - but it will be passed again as soon as there's a compelling "national emergency."
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
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
When has Bob Barr ever sought to limit the number of babies that women can have?
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.
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?