Slashdot Mirror
Judge Finds NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that a federal judge has ruled that the NSA's warrantless surveillance program was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration's effort to keep one of Bush's most disputed counterterrorism policies shrouded in secrecy. Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain, a now-defunct Islamic charity in Oregon, and of two lawyers who were representing it in 2004. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been 'subjected to unlawful surveillance,' the judge said that the government was liable to pay them damages."
They heard the judge tell his wife when he called to ask "What's for dinner?"
This was going to be a first post, but it was intercepted with a MITM attack fom the NSA.......
April fool's day came early :-(
Judge Finds NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal
Versus NYTimes title:
Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretaps Were Illegal
See the difference? The program wasn't ruled illegal. That would be huge. It's the fact that these people are American citizens and there was no court order to wiretap them and they found out about it. For most of us it's just the first two. And from the article:
The overhauled law, however, still requires the government to obtain a warrant if it is focusing on an American citizen or an organization inside the United States. The surveillance of Al Haramain would still be unlawful today if no court had approved it, current and former Justice Department officials said. But since Mr. Obama took office, the N.S.A. has sometimes violated the limits imposed on spying on Americans by the new FISA law. The administration has acknowledged the lapses but said they had been corrected.
So this isn't the great news with a big change that you were hoping for. It just means that if you can prove you were wrongfully wiretapped then you get restitution. Problem is that you have no proof. So you can either lay a trap for the NSA (not smart) or complain to your representative or do nothing.
My work here is dung.
A late victory is still a victory I guess. Too bad we didn't see this 10 years ago.
This is a very cool outcome to a long and very annoying program. Carte Blanche policies for spying one one's citizens is not just annoying, it ensure whoever's at the top will get corrupter that much faster.
by the way, I miss April Fools, OMGPONIES! Style. That was the best April Fools EVAR
[cries]
...are getting more elaborate by the minute. First the iPad is described as 'working according to marketing promises'. And now that ?!?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I spent several minutes deciding if this was a joke or not. And that fact makes me very sad.
lol. April fools.
The excerpt said:
Now, what if it is found that those damages payments are in fact funneled to a terrorist organization, could the government be tried for aiding our enemies by giving them money? That could make for some interesting blog posts on both the left AND the right!
Ken
I'm sure our crack Supreme Court will understand the constitutionality of illegal wiretaps.
I pity the fool.
"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." - Noam Chomsky
Circumcision is child abuse.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So not April fools joke. Probably.
This ruling is the second time a federal judge has declared the program of wiretapping without warrants to be illegal. However a 2006 decision by a federal judge in Detroit, was reversed on the grounds that those plaintiffs could not prove that they had been wiretapped and so lacked legal standing to sue.
The new law, however, still requires the government to obtain a warrant if it is focusing on an American citizen or an organization inside the United States. The surveillance of Al Haramain would still be unlawful today if no court had approved it
by the way I like the new Slashdot colour scheme.
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
The FISA law was created in the wake of civil liberties abuses under the Johnson and Nixon administrations. It set up the secret FISA court so that the executive branch could not use "national security" as an excuse to bypass judicial oversight when conducting surveillance. The standards were very low to begin with, but the essential point is the "checks and balances" provision where at least SOMEONE (even if it's a secretive panel of judges) other than the executive branch knows what's going on.
A critical element of the LAW that's being overlooked here is that it established civil AND criminal penalties for violations. If the judge has ruled that there are civil liabilities, then it's obvious that someone broke the law. We now need to see criminal investigations, arrests and prosecutions. What's the point of having a regulatory framework governing the behavior of Federal employees when there are no consequences for violating the regulations? From the intelligence community to the financial regulatory agencies to the legislature and president himself, this government has exhibited an utter and complete disregard for the rule of law. Nixon said "If the president does it, then it's not a crime". Now it seems like "If a government employee does it, it's not a crime".
the judge said that the government was liable to pay them damages
#1 Who is this Mr. Government?
#2 Where does this Mr. Governments income come from?
I see.
This isn't justice, it's a fucking joke. How apt for Apr. 1st.
You say that as if it were a bad thing. With the possible exceptions of Eisenhower and Obama, we haven't had any Presidents since the 40s who weren't better dead. Carter at least has done a number of great things after being voted out of office.
As with the "1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance" :)
Read what President Carter had to say:
http://www.cnss.org/fisa.htm ftp://cnss.org/Carter.pdf
Its interesting how todays pundits, talking heads and NSA types seem to have missed the 'all', 'US persons' and 'electronic' part.
But never fear Mr or Ms NSA worker, the US gov will cover you by changing the definition of a US person to a domestic terrorist.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3081/show
With the magic T word, all domestic US protections are off
Its like Tbilisi or Budapest in 1956 - everybody needs a telco tap and a drone.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Is this the same NSA that's helping Microsoft keep all our data private?
so that the executive branch could not use "national security" as an excuse to bypass judicial oversight
Isn't that what just happened?
Clinton and Bush Sr were pretty good presidents, and Carter was a nice guy, only time will tell for Obama but it looks like he is following in Bush Jr. footsteps.
I'm not sure exactly what damages they can claim. Perhaps lawyers fees. More important is the actual finding -- if the surveillance was illegal, it falls under the "Fruit of the Poisoned Vine" doctrine, and and evidence gathered as a consequence becomes inadmissible in any criminal action.
This the a mjaor finding, and I expect the Feds to appeal. They have lots of lawyers and do not worry about the cost.
The literal words of the Constitution do not cover electronic communications. It's only judicial interpretation over the years that has established the idea that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" implies electronic communication as well. However, this judicial interpretation has not included constitutional protection of many international communications or domestic communications with agents of foreign powers. (Think about it: why was the FISA statute needed to protect these communications if they were already protected by the Constitution?)
The legal question that Obama (following in Bush's footsteps) is posing is this: does the Congress, through the FISA legislation, have the right to restrict the President's power, as Commander-in-Chief, to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance? It's really not as obvious a question as many people think.
Quoting the Constitution, far from ending the discussion, actually points out the inherent problem: how should an 18th-century document be applied in the 21st century? Supreme Court precedent (which, we know from the campaign-finance case, must never, ever be changed) provides much less Constitutional protection from electronic intercepts than most people realize.
Pretty much. One of the complaints about the wiretaps (among other programs) is that the FISA court, which has only denied warrants in the past a handful of times, was not consulted even after the fact, and there is a reasonably long period of time in which to get a retroactive warrant. The Bush administration said they felt that they could not trust the FISA court to not talk about it, although any judge nominated to the court undergoes an extremely thorough background check and AFAIK no leak has ever been traced to a FISA judge. More likely, they knew that the FISA court, accepting though it is of Executive Branch decisions, was probably going to be unhappy with these programs.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Judge Vaughn R. Walker should get the Presidential Freedom Award. He has told everyone in government that we are all equal under the law. Even President Bush and NSA spooks don't get a free pass to lawless behavior. As VP Biden would say - this is a BIG F*'g deal - not just for illegal wire taps, but for all kinds of lawless behavior that has been (still is) been done by government employees.
Bush Sr., the guy who asked for CALEA? Bush Sr., the guy who defended our country after Iraq invaded us, oops I mean, took us to war for Kuwaiti interests?
Clinton, the guy who signed CALEA? Clinton, they guy who signed DMCA?! Clinton, the guy who signed eternal-copyright extension?
Those aren't good presidents. Every president ends up making us long for the previous guy, and always to our amazement, i.e. "I can't believe I miss whatsisface, because I hated him," but that doesn't mean whatsisface was a good president. Every 4 years, we lower our standards so that we can vote for one of the Republicrat candidates without feeling too ashamed about it.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Otherwise, people would have been able to claim that this 'win' was just a default verdict.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You people should have murdered Nixon like a dog, just like the military industrial complex killed Kennedy.
Instead, the American people set forth a precedent of getting off scott free and being pardoned by the incoming chief.
That's no disincentive to the next guy to obey the law.
If Nixon had been shot and killed while in office, and his corpse horrifically violated, then maybe (just maybe) the next guys in office wouldn't have been so cavalier about the whole thing.
Oh yeah, april fools NSA guys. I didn't mean that, obviously.
Let me put this in perspective.
Carter - nice guy, did nothing of value
Reagan - horrible
Bush Sr - did some good, did some bad
Clinton - did a bit more good than Bush, did some bad
Bush Jr. - horrible
Obama - so far? horrible
Clinton and Bush Sr were the only presidents in my lifetime that I can agree with some of their decisions.
Clinton and Bush both made great strides in balancing the budget, they made modest improvements in some areas of domestic policy. And they took far fewer measures to destroy the constitution and integrity of the nation than Reagan and Bush Jr.
Did they get everything right? No. Were they great? No. But they stand head and shoulders above every other president in my lifetime. Unlike Reagan, Bush Jr and probably Obama (time will tell but he isn't doing well), I can have some small measure of respect for them.
If they dont appeal I actually think this might have been an intentional act on the part of the Obama Justice dept to undermine the Bush Doctrine. Makes you wonder if the document that was 'leaked accidentily' was put in there on purpose.
Think about it. If Obama had just said he was stopping the program, anyone could have restarted it in the future. But by sabotaging the program and ensuring its demise they actually fixed the problem permanently. Especially if they dont appeal.
Or they could be just as power hungry as Bush and lost to a reasonable judge.
We will probably never know.
hahahahaha, kewl.
answer the door when we knock, don't make us mad.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Nothing has changed since the constitution was written. You may think all the new technology somehow changed humanity on its face, but they are just periphery and do NOT fundamentally change social interactions (e.g., government and laws). Maybe in your head it means what you wrote, but it hasn't meant that since the words were written on the paper to anyone else except you.
If celebrities can win substantial money because a magazine made up a story that they hired a trainer because they were fat, you should be able to get even more for illegally being watched by government spies.
I remain hopeful that at some point the entire truth will be revealed. My hope has been diminished by the fact that the current president seems content to simply "move on" and forget the criminal activities of the prior administration, but it's not too late.
Well, if you're satisfied simply knowing the truth, whether or not it results in justice being meted out, then I'd take heart. Because personally I bet that in about twenty years the truth, straight from the horse's mouth, will be available at the National Security Archive.
Ever wonder if the CIA and Oliver North were really allowing the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. in order to buy weapons, to get around the Congressional ban on material assistance? Did the U.S. government really know that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds at the same time we sent Donald Rumsfeld to go shake our good buddy's hand?
Well it's all right there. BTW, the answer to both questions, according to the U.S. government itself, is "yes".
The enemies of Democracy are
Even this minor setback in the government's campaign to void civil rights is good news.
Oh right: APRIL FOOLS!
...it's April Fool's day.
I'm not sure exactly what damages they can claim.
Punitive damages, perhaps?
Free Martian Whores!
I never thought I'd see a worse President than Carter, but Bush II proved me wrong. Nixon was a terrible President, but he did do a few good things, like signing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Free Martian Whores!
These private individuals would have a far tougher time showing actual losses. According to TFA, their lawyer is claiming $100/day for 202 days. And punatives are up to the court. What can they claim, presuming investigators have kept data confidential? What actual losses?
They didn't know they were being monitored, so it didn't affect their behaviours. Zero losses. Now, they could very reasonably claim "psychological trauma" because they now have excellent reason to be afraid of police wrongdoing. But how can you quantify that? How much is it worth?
More important is the actual finding -- if the surveillance was illegal, it falls under the "Fruit of the Poisoned Vine" doctrine...
Do you really think the evidence found from a warrantless wiretap wouldn't be enough to get you disappeared?
And there is the crux of the problem: If you remove rule of law in how evidence is collected and used, and then remove it from how people are treated based on that 'evidence', no one is safe, anywhere, from abuse of government power.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
While certainly gray areas have been pushed by many Presidents and federal officers, none so far has really wanted to break law flagrantly. That we know of. Habeas corpus is grinding slowly stronger.
So the snatch comes to trial and the evidence gets thrown out so there's no conviction. Then the snatchee sues. The evidence _is_ admissible in civil court, so no damages. Just like OJ.
Ruling was by a judge in SF.
Can I remind the audience that the ruling was in San Francisco? (raises eyebrow)
Your broad brush paints different strokes than others' broad brushes. For example, many people consider Reagan to be the greatest President, yet you deem him "horrible".
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong. ;)
Seems that the USA is such a free country, that you can even BUY freedom! ;)
USA! USA! USA!
P.S.: Seriously? No Bush & friends going to jail (PMITAP) for it? Really? WTF?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Ah, but the government isn't you and me, and when they 'kidnap' someone, they claim to do it under the PATRIOT Act. See Mike Hawash. While I can't say he's a great guy, or that I agree with him, how can justice be served with 6 weeks of imprisonment with no charges laid, and only getting those charges after enough noise was made by other people?
Likewise with Omar Khadr. Not too many 15-year-olds get tried as adults, and as far as I know, he hasn't even been tried.
The problem is, these acts are committed against 'bad people', which sets a precedent for 'not so bad people', and that is just about everyone.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?