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."

9 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. "Post-Sept 11." -- say what? by thisissilly · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought it was fairly well established that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping predates 9/11. The NSA was meeting with Qwest executives in February 2001, trying to pressure them into allowing it. They said no, other carriers buckled.

  2. Re:Accountability ? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

    A Democratic administration doesn't necessarily mean a stance against wiretapping. Many of the "ECHELON" activities which came to the public's attention with the 2001 European Parliament report were instituted under President Clinton, who also was a fan of "leveling the playing" field between American and foreign businesses through eavesdropping. A good introduction to the troubling rise of violation of privacy in the 1990s, which coincided with a popular Democratic president, is James Bamford's Body of Secrets .

  3. 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?

  4. 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!

  5. Re:Too many wire taps? by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which is exactly why having access to all this information makes us MORE vulnerable to another terrorist attack, not less. Look at how much information the FBI already had on the 9/11 hijackers. They *literally* had the American populace calling them on the phone and saying "I think we have some terrorists here."

    They still couldn't figure it out. Somehow now with a deluge of information of the sort they now have access to, they are going to do any better? Me thinks not...

  6. 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.
  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.

  8. Re:Treason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I speak for all ACs when I say, "Sir, you are retarded."