Slashdot Mirror


Judge Orders White House To Produce Wiretap Memos

sv_libertarian sends this excerpt from the Associated Press: "A judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce White House memos that provide the legal basis for the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 warrantless wiretapping program. US District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. signed an order (PDF) Friday requiring the department to produce the memos by the White House legal counsel's office by Nov. 17. He said he will review the memos in private to determine if any information can be released publicly without violating attorney-client privilege or jeopardizing national security. Kennedy issued his order in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups in 2005 after news reports disclosed the wiretapping."

11 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Too long by jonaskoelker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Posted [...] on 2008-11-02

    Kennedy issued his order in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups in 2005 after news reports disclosed the wiretapping.

    It has taken three to four years, roughly a whole term, to get a judge to dig up this bit of the current administration's {,mis,ab}use of power.

    What will the consequences for the Bush et al. be, if their practices are found to be unconstitutional? Is there a real incentive to uphold the constitution if it takes so long to dig up the dirt?

    1. Re:Too long by n3tcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      roughly a whole term

      now you're catching on. They're waiting till almost everyone that was ever involved is out of office so that the backlash on the state is far less severe than the backlash that will happen on the individuals involved.

      once bush is out of office, they don't care if the people lose faith in him anymore because he doesn't represent the country any longer.

  2. I still don't get why this is neccessary by txoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FISA - The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - of 1978 provided the president a method to tap communications without a warrant in a "Ticking Time Bomb" situation. FISA allows investigators begin surveillance without proper documents as long as the activities are reported to a judge for review within 72 hours. In any Time-Bomb scenario, 72 hours should be ample time for the investigators to gather the needed information to prove that their hasty wire-tap was legitimate. The judge will sign the warrant and everybody is happy.

    In any other case, the judge will surveillance must be shut down and the records sealed immediately. This law has been so effective that out of the hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied.

    This is why the Bush administrations new warrantless wiretapping is so distressing. The system wasn't broken! It worked very well. This is simply yet another attempt by the administration to do an end run around due-process. Bush and Cheney have done more to erode the constitution than any other duo in this country's history.

    Lets all hope that our next president will restore some order to the land and respect the laws that provide his power. If we allow our executive to choose which laws he will follow, we're on a short trip to the disaster that won't be unlike Russia's "Democracy".

    --
    This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    1. Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary by mrscorpio81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say that tapping millions of calls simultaneously is going too far to protect from terrorism, and should be rejected.

      A wire tap is a tool used to pin down one guy, or see who picks up on a specific phone, to stop crime. Monitoring a million calls at once is not wiretapping, it's surveillance, and should be, would be, and is prohibited by the 4th amendment. Bush's new laws essentially nullify the 4th and Bush's actions go beyond the bill he himself requested!

    2. Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you have to decide is which is more dangerous.

      If indeed Bush and friends trampled on your beloved Constitution and laws in doing so, I say they're more dangerous to you than what they claim they were protecting you from.

      If they could have justified it, why didn't they just push the law through Senate et all first? It's not like they have had that much difficutly in pushing through lots of crappy laws.

      The fact that they didn't even bother (and only did the retroactive BS later) shows you how much contempt they have for the Law and the People of the USA.

      --
    3. Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary by Dr.+Donuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If they could have justified it, why didn't they just push the law through Senate et all first? It's not like they have had that much difficutly in pushing through lots of crappy laws."

      Because if they had attempted to change the laws, people would have become aware of what they wanted to do. Simpler to invoke "War Powers" and push through immunity after the fact for those that go along with questionable actions, rather than make your intents known and possibly have someone tell you "No, you can't do that".

      It's an ugly state of affairs any way you look at it. The amount of money, legislation, rule-bending and even forging wars all in the name of "Fighting Terrorism" is ridiculously out of proportion. As is typically the case with politics, a boogey-man is used to justify increased scope and powers of the state.

  3. Not exactly "accountability" or a "win" by nathan.fulton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The court order mandates an in camera (in chambers) review of the memos, and only those that have not been granted summary judgment. Meaning that there is still a chance that the most putrid examples of abuse of civil rights are screened out for "national security" reasons. The OUTCOME of this review will be far more interesting (and indicative of the amount of justice that will be serves) than the order for its release.

  4. Re:Treason? by nuclear_zealot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Attacking the legal government... setting off IEDs... That would make the Republicans... TERRORISTS!!!

    I like how a self-professed Republican's response to (hopefully) losing a democratic election is to call it a coup and threaten setting off IEDs. I mean, that is really high-quality irony.

    How did Bush put it? "If you're not with us, you're with the Ter.. err.. us."

    "Won't get fooled again!"

  5. Re:Too many wire taps? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which after having done any test engineering, which I have, or reading practically anything by Bruce Schneier, which I also have, then you see that the percentages are against you on mass dragnets like this.

    If you're looking for say, a dozen terrorists, looking through 120,000,000 phone calls, that's well under 1 part per million. A really good false positive rate might be 0.01%. That's still 1 part per 10,000 - you're looking for 12 terrorists in 12,012 hits. That's even assuming that your dragnet is 100% effective, that it's 12,012 hits and not 12,011 or 12,006. (12,000 false positives and 12, 11, or 6 true positives.)

    This just isn't even a good way to start the job. Intelligence on the ground is, then you can refine your wiretaps and such before you even start, so you're not sifting through so much information. Oh, and FISA would be just fine for that scenario.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  6. Re:Accountability ? by xs650 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More likely there will be a major fire in the Whitehouse records department on the 5th.

  7. Re:Accountability ? by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, but it means the knee-jerk reaction of "oh, things will be better under the other party" isn't going to work either. If we want real oversight, we need to get a 3rd-party involved. I bet if we had a Libertarian executive would have a whole lot of opening of government.