Slashdot Mirror
DNI Admits FISA Surveillance Violated the 4th Amendment
colinneagle writes, quoting Ms. Smith: "It's official; the government's spying efforts exceeded the legal limits at least once (PDF), meaning it is also officially 'unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) sent a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden giving permission to admit that much. This started with Sen. Wyden requesting that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) declassify some statements regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Although this FISA power is supposed to sunset in December 2012, in May a new Senate bill extended the warrantless wiretapping program for five more years. That vote was regarded as the first step 'toward what the Obama administration hopes will be a speedy renewal of an expanded authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the U.S. e-mails and phone calls of overseas targets in an effort to prevent international terrorist attacks on the country.'"
The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
The 9/11 terrorists were very far-sighted, and seem to have been winning ever since they died.
America has been continually digging a grave for itself from that moment....
None.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Tell them that even if it was only once, unlikely as that may be, even once is one time to many!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
That's at least once per household, right?
"Anyone but Bush." Remember? Way back when large masses of suckers (myself included, lamentably), thought that we were able to vote for "anyone but Bush." Someone different. Someone who was not a corrupt ass-kissing stooge of war criminals, financial scammers, drug traffickers (legal or illegal), deranged religious fanatics, or the usual parade of fascist sociopaths. Supposedly, there was some guy who would not be that way. I didn't fully buy it, but what the hell. Who else would I vote for? Now that odious palinism "hopey changey" comes annoyingly to mind. Not this time, though. It's Green Party or Peace and Freedom, and quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass who their candidate is.
"government's spying efforts exceeded the legal limits at least once (PDF), meaning it is also officially 'unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment"
So the central question then is this; if the limits imposed on the federal government are not defined by the Constitution, what ARE the limits?
Isn't this exactly what the Constitution is designed to do?
Any of you drones wonder what happens when the state is run by the Evil Right Wing Conspiracy (that's me BTW)? What will their limits be? Hmnnnnnnnnn?
Gee, maybe you want to think twice about giving the state all this power. Isn't that the mantra of all you hippies and leftists, "question authority"?
No double standard here.
Almost every new day I learn of yet-another-3-letter-spook-government-agency in existence
And in the bad-old-days we were told that there were only 2 of them, FBI and CIA, and only one of them were allowed to spook against the citizens of America (that was, FBI)
Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Almost every new day I learn of yet-another-3-letter-spook-government-agency in existence
And in the bad-old-days we were told that there were only 2 of them, FBI and CIA, and only one of them were allowed to spook against the citizens of America (that was, FBI)
Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?
NO! The Government
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Will anything actually change as a result of this? Or are such concerns now quaintly archaic?
Only the rule, brother, only the rule remained
But... don't despair... the next administration will be conservative, thus "deregulation" will be the main marching order (otherwise how would the coprorations get their profit during recession times?)
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Yeah, and that was crap; there were several other agencies (such as the National Security Agency) and all of them spied on US citizens whether they were allowed or not.
That's classified.
Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?
Many: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Category:United_States_intelligence_agencies
Note that not all of those entries are for agencies; some are for programs, etc.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Does America still have rule of law?. . . . Will anything actually change as a result of this? Or are such concerns now quaintly archaic?
Yes, America does still have the rule of law. The problem is that most people don't know, don't understand, or don't like what the law is so they ignore it. One of the basic points that people keep getting confused over is both the existence the law of war and its differences from criminal law. Conduct that is completely legal and well understood under the law of war causes many people on Slashdot to wet themselves as violations of criminal law and rights under criminal law - none of which applies. Another point that confuses people, but which has a long court record, is the inability of Congress to pass laws that limit the Constitutional authority of the President. Just those two points in themselves account for much of the wailing and hysteria about shredded constitutions and so on. This show will be going on for some time to come.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Where are the studies comparing the rise of votes for 3rd parties vs the amount of laws restricting citizens political liberties?
Because really, anyone believes those things has anything to do with terrorism?
I too have always wanted the government to be able to violate any rights it pleases when it claims to be at war. It's well understood, so it's completely okay. It's all to stop the big, evil bogeyman!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Tu quoque. The fact that you deem them hypocrites does not make them wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean they can't criticize you.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Posting as AC, but I'll let you decide how much trust to place in my comment.
There are more intelligence agencies not listed in that article than there are ones listed. I work for one that you probably haven't ever heard of, though (annoyingly) we've been mentioned in a couple court cases.
The last time I checked, The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. No war has been declared, thus your argument about the "law of war" as justification for the government's rampant abuses of civil liberties is entirely inapplicable.
Where's the Constitutional authority authority for the President to engage in warrantless surveillance? Under what Constitutional authority is the President empowered to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen? Which part of the Constitution grants the President power to assassinate U.S. citizens without charge or trial?
It's the federal government that doesn't like the law and therefore ignores it.
I, for one, hope you get mentioned in a lot more of them. Preferably outed entirely, then defunded...and I don't even need to know which one it is to think that. Shut these ridiculous jobs programs down.