EFF Sues NSA, President Bush, and VP Cheney

VisualE writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records. The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."

Comments

DONUT???

[BPPG]

If you were ever planning to donate to the EFF at all, now might be a good time.

http://www.eff.org/support/

Re:Big

[TheRaven64]

Oh look, someone who reads Andrew Orlowski articles. There are two things you should be aware of when you read one of his pieces:

1. He almost never checks his 'facts'.
2. You are wasting time that could be more productively spent banging your head against your desk.

There's a nice long list of cases they won, but somehow the fact that Orlowski cited half a dozen where they'd lost (including at least one where they'd dropped the case because they'd won a victory in a related case that made it irrelevant) started the meme that they always lose.

Re:Big

[btempleton]

The EFF does not of course always win, but it does frequently and has effected quite a bit of change to bad law as a result.

http://www.eff.org/victories/

Outlines just some of the major victories.

The EFF also sometimes engages in cases where probability of victory is lower, but we judge that the case must be fought, and that public benefit will come just from the fighting, and the hearing of evidence in open court. Of course we hope to win, but we also know that even if we don't win, there are other upsides.

This case (and the case vs. AT&T) get much of their benefit simply by having a court examine this illegal wiretapping program. Part of our message is that this program has not been subject to review by the courts, and that in of itself is bad.

The ACLU won early victory but fell down due to standing. We have well established evidence of massive interception of traffic. While some might think there is only an illegal wiretap if the government listens to you, it is unlawful for them to even intercept your communications, even if they toss them away later. Warrants must name specific targets, and it is the job of phone companies to isolate the traffic of targets and hand it over under lawful warrants. The government does not get to just intercept all the traffic and pull out what it desires.

Re:Big [waste of time]

[russotto]

However, the Constitution specifically forbids Congress from writing any ex-post-facto laws, which includes retroactive immunity.

No, it does not include retroactive immunity.

These are the ex post facto laws, according to the Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull :

-----
1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.

3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.
----
A law making something NOT a crime when it was a crime when committed is not covered.

(incidentally, the Supreme Court has pretty much chipped the 3rd one away to nothing since Calder v. Bull)