Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging FISA

Posted by Soulskill on from the battle-of-the-four-letter-acronyms dept.

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."

21 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting... by Adreno · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

    1. Re:Interesting... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

      Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Interesting... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.

      As a registered Republican who's disgusted with the New Aged GOP, I was fully planning on voting for Obama in November until this vote. I chatted with a pro-DFLer who is a huge Obama supporter and told him my change and why. You know what he said? He told me that because Obama is now the candidate he has to make sure he has support from both sides. Ugh. I'm not sure how you can support both sides when you vote for this intrusion and retroactive law. I just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.

      I cannot vote for any candidate that voted in favor of this and now I'm not sure what to do. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of two evils as they both are. I have lost what tiny little bit of faith that still remained following the failure of Congress/Senate and our fear-creating leader.

      The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Ayeffkay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

      I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.

    4. Re:Interesting... by strabes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.

      Because it's easier to get elected when you promise to give handouts, take action, tax the rich, etc, instead of trying to get elected on the position that you're going to eliminate the special interest benefits, shrink government, and lower taxes. People always want the Government to serve their special interests, but no one else's. This is one of the reasons why our Government has grown so large. Another reason is that we have forgotten the tyranny and oppression that in inevitable when the government controls close to 40% of the nation's income and when our rights are slowly being eliminated and put into the hands of a few powerful people at the top. "It's for your own good" they tell us. "We need to take away your rights to protect you from the terrorists." I must ask why is it not possible to both protect us from the terrorists (a proper role of government) and grant us our rights? The reason is that big government precedents have already been set which allow the government to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    5. Re:Interesting... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...and grant us our rights?

      ...and PROTECT AND DEFEND our rights?

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    6. Re:Interesting... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.

      Isn't it sad that you felt compelled to write that?

    7. Re:Interesting... by DustoneGT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at insurgents in Iraq...they are making a mess of our 'modern military'.

      Our revolutionary war was similar in nature. The redcoats would go to battle, stand in formation, and get ready for a formal battle. The poor American militants, lacking popular support at times, would shoot at them from the trees, houses, fences, or anything they could hide behind. Guerilla warfare tactics won the revolutionary war.

      A relatively small insurgency with small arms can keep a tyrannical regime at bay today just as well as it could in 1776. Things just haven't gotten bad enough yet to make it happen here yet. I sincerely hope we don't see things get that bad, but I'm not betting against it happening at some point in the near future.

    8. Re:Interesting... by Etrias · · Score: 5, Informative

      I hate to burst any patriotic shaped bubbles on this, but without the help of the French Navy eliminating the power of the British fleet and providing blockades and needed sea power (not to mention significant troop support), our guerrilla war may have ended a bit differently.

    9. Re:Interesting... by terjeber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We all love to talk like we live in some oppressive state with spies behind every door just waiting to pounce on us, torture us, and/or put us away in some unknown prison for the rest of our lives. But in reality, this just doesn't happen here.

      Well, actually, that is not true. It does happen here, and over the past few years it has happened to a lot of people, the vast majority innocent. The problem is that you limit your view to US citizens, and that is absurd. GITMO is filled with people who have been kidnapped, tortured, abused and "vanished" by our government, and the fact that they are "fereigners" doesn't make that less so.

      Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country

      Then you are either outrageously ignorant, stupid or both. Probably in conjunction with a healthy dose of paranoia. The majority of the people at GITMO probably had no clue where the US is let alone how to "plot against" it. Most of them were some sort of soldier in the Afghan version of an "army" when we invaded.

      Now, let's investigate that a little. Let's say you are a citizen of Afghanistan. Let's say you have a gun. For the argument let's assume you are of a fundamentalist religious persuasion, in other words, you are a fundamentalist muslim. All of that is fine in most countries. Nothing particularly bad about it. Let's, for arguments say that we are talking about two people here, you and your brother. Your brother is a member of the Taliban armed militia, the closest Afganistan of 2001 comes to a standing army. You are just a regular citizen, but you are good with a gun.

      Now, let's assume a foreign power invades. Let's call that foreign power USA. Let's assume they do so for their own reasons and that they are not invited by the current government of Afghanistan.

      Your brother, what is his duty then? As a member of the Taliban militia? It is his duty to shoot every american soldier he sees. On sight. It is his duty to kill as many of them as he can. If he can't kill them it is his duty to capture them. That is his duty. Should we punish him for performing his duty? Shall we whisk him away to a strange island in no-mans-land, torture him, deprive him of all his legal rights just because he performed his duty?

      Now, let's get back to you. You are a guy with a gun. A foreign power has (illegally according to your laws) invaded your country. What should you do (as opposed to your legal duty)? What is your moral obligation? Your moral obligation is to shoot every fucking American soldier you see. On sight. That is your moral obligation and if you don't stand up and defend your country against this invasion you are a coward. Should you go to jail, be tortured and deprived of all human rights for not being a coward?

      I totally supported, and still support, the US invasion of Afghanistan. Of course I do. That doesn't mean that I don't realize that it is every Afghan man and woman's right, and moral duty, to fight the invader though. If you do cooperate with the invasion force you are (technically, morally, legally) a collaborator. Now, you might be a collaborator for "the good side" but you are still a collaborator and a traitor of your country. The fact that your side won doesn't change that post-fact.

      Holding the prisoners at GITMO is legally insane, morally absurd, and it only serves one single purpose - it turns us into the bad guys and everybody else into the good guys. That is too absurd for words.

  2. At least by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there are people who still believe in the Constitution out there. They have my support.

  3. Hey Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.

  4. Re:hooray sortof by pxlmusic · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  5. Re:us phone = us citizen? by Adreno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:us phone = us citizen? by strelitsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Standing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    ACLU already listed the plantiffs in their case. Let's not forget, the only reason for FISA was because the ACLU has already won, warrantless wiretapping is illegal.

  8. Maybe that is 110% true. by taxman_10m · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:us phone = us citizen? by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Then lets first treat Joe Terrorist as just any other criminal. Why is a terrorist different, anyway? They should be tracked down using the normal, existing and highly effective police methods, after which specific individuals (mind: specific) can be put under closer surveillance. Just like nowadays the drug cartels are being investigated. No need to randomly start to survey individuals because "they may be terrorists".

    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!

  10. Re:Option by tux_deamon · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution."

    Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?

    Well, if civil liberties are your priority, then I don't know if Bob Barr is your guy. Consider:

    His support for the Patriot Act, his attacks on reproductive rights of women, his support for a constitutional ban on the rights of gay couples to marry, his support for banning adoption of children by gay parents, his restriction of freedom of speech and expression with respect to the US flag, his redefinition of habeas corpus to exclude death row appealates, his opposition to medical marijuana programs...

    Bob Barr seems much more like an ideological conservative than a true libertarian to me.

    Bob Barr on the Issues

  11. Re:George Bush by stabiesoft · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. This is not FISA by reydeyo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.