Slashdot Mirror
Wiretapping Program Ruled Legal
BuhDuh writes "The New York Times is carrying a story concerning that well known bastion of legal authority, the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance' court, which has ruled that the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program was perfectly legal. It says, 'A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans' private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.'"
They're not the one hearing the class action cases. They're also not the supreme court.
They can say anything they want, but, while they have authority to issue warrants, they are by no means the final authority on the interpretation of law in regards to the constitution.
That would be the USSC.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You leave out the interesting case where the person abroad is a foreign correspondent for an American news agency. Its been established by whistle blowers that journalists have been a particular target of this eavesdropping, along with aid workers. You are in fact trampling freedom of the press if you let the government read and listen to all the emails and phone calls of a journalists without a warrant. It allows the government to immediately identify all of the journalists sources unless the contact is only made face to face which is pretty constraining. It places an immediate chilling effect on an independent press and on anyone telling a journalist anything. This is a big plus for the government and military which would prefer the public not know about all their dirty laundry.
@de_machina
My biggest issue with this is domestic internet communication is semi-routinely routed through other countries and the eavesdropping program has no way to tell whether the 4th amendment is being violated.
Basically, the court just gave permission to the NSA to dragnet anything they want without a warrant so long as they can demonstrate there is a possibility that the communication was to or from a foreigner.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
The common mythology, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is some sort of backstop against an unjust government from taking over, has little historical basis. Like the rest of the Amendments, it was written for a pratcial purpose, not an esoteric one.
That practial purpose was: It protected the interests of the slave states by explicity granting them the right to use the tools (firearms) necessary to maintain their economic interests (slavery).
The common mythology, that the Second Amendment is intended to protect from tyrrany, is turned on its head when looked at from the slave's point of view.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting the Founding Fathers would have banned private ownership of guns in the absence of slavery. But the individual's right to bear arms is specifically carved out in the Constitution to protect the interests of the slave states.
Look at the language of the Second Amendment itself. Ask yourself "What did a militia do 200 years ago?" One of the things they did was put down slave uprisings.
I traveled to Egypt to gather colloquial Arabic footage for some online courses. It was a good time, but the "security" issues and the corruption of the local officials was on par with Subsaharan Africa countries.
However, there was a great difference in the freedom of speech category. For example, we were filming in a private household and each family member was taking turns telling jokes. (Like "Wahid saiidi fahim wemaat!") Everything went fine until the ten-year-old son started his joke...
"Al ra-ees Mubarak..." [President Mubarak...]
At which point his father flew to his feet, commanded us to turn of the camera, and took his son in the other room for a talk.
Until Americans are afraid to go on camera with a joke about their president, we're nowhere near Egypt.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
If while on vacation I knowingly AND willingly attempted to kill innocent people, I would expect to be thrown into a hole.
And, by extension of the kinds of policies I expect you advocate, if you are accused of knowingly and willingly attempting to kill innocent people, you would expect to be thrown into a hole.
As you say, there's a chance you might get released at some point. Much less of one, mind you, since you're denied fair trial and such, but hey, you're not a citizen, why should you get any such special treatment like due process, right?
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."