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 am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.
As a non-American, watching from the sidelines, I have to say that it's nice to see someone at least try to stop the erosion of freedoms in your country. It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier.
...such complaints by the surveilled would be connected tenuously to terrorism.
you're right, i should have started saving my lobbyist bribe money at a much earlier age.
"If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
but the aclu will fail as always
Fail as always? What are you smoking? They frequently win. Don't forget their former solicitor general is on the supreme court.
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,
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.
Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?
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
I think this is a good point, actually, in that it shows that many people around the globe like to come across as more informed about america than the americans, but when you're able to see the same sort of parroting that you see in the ignorant unwashed american masses or whatever ("americans are dumb, they elected george w bush twice and he is ruining the world" "lol yeah") you realize that hickitude and groupthink and reductive summaries of large groups of people is a worldwide bug/feature.
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.
Nope, I lived thru nixon. GW still wins worst prez in my lifetime. Nixon at least opened up china a bit. GW will have no positives. He killed the economy, started an unnecessary war, got 2 losers in the court, intermixed religion and govt, cut the knees off any science that didn't agree with his politics, wire tapped his own citizens, tortured people, encouraged exportation of jobs. Bush should have been impeached for the lies about WMD in Iraq, but the pussy congress didn't do anything. Nixon just didn't have a pussy congress and media.
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.
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.
I share your contempt for ACLU pet projects like the First and Fourth Amendments.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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.
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
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.