NSA Spying Comes Under Attack 324
maotx writes "The NSA's no-longer-secret surveillance program came under a two-pronged attack this week on both political and legal fronts. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania threatens to cut funding to NSA's spying program if President Bush's administration does not come clean on how it works. Separately, two hearing dates have been set for a lawsuit that seeks to prove that AT&T illegally cooperated with the NSA and violated federal wiretapping laws in doing so. Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'"
He's going to be waiting a long time (Score:4, Insightful)
Personal liberties? What are those?
People Do Not Care (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, like most things in the US, all that will build up is public apathy. This is the same apathy we see every year with laughingly low voter turnouts. Many people in America are perfectly happy not knowing what is going on and sadly enough have no clue the NSA has been spying on Americans. Those who do know are often perfectly happy to say, "They are only listening to the terrorist. They are just trying to keep up safe."
The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies. If they feel a bit safer, they are more then glad to hand over every last civil liberty, until we are nothing more then a military state. Our country has come a long way since Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:5, Insightful)
Because a senator is making a little noise to the public, increasing awareness, and pointing out how that what the NSA, ATT, and the Bush Administration did quite possible violates our Constitution?
Who cares if it is election time or not? Just as long as progress is being made.
Public concern and public indignation build up... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Good Senator (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:2, Insightful)
Heads should roll! (Score:5, Insightful)
Blowjobs & hiding it from your wife (and the public) or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars and profiteering - Which do you think is more of an impeachable offense?
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:5, Insightful)
Because your rights as a citizen of the United States of America should always have a higher priority than your loyalty to any political party. Always.
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2, Insightful)
Lying about it under oath was the impeachable offence. Clinton could have simply said "None of your business. Next question." or, just to show his balls, "Yep, I did her several times. Hell, I even told her to bring some friends!" and it wouldn't have been criminal.
I got all excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Senario (Score:1, Insightful)
Osama emails an intermediary to correspond information that's of interest to US national security. That intermidiary forwards it to a sleeper in the US. That now puts this correpsondance under the jurisdiction of required warrants under the FISA court right? The argument of rapid response is covered by the fact that such spying can occur post-occurance when deemed appropriate.
That all sounds quite reasonable and puts to question why the administration felt it necesary to circumvent such proceedures.
However, here's another senario.
Osama emails his buddies about the kick ass humus in the old neighborhood. He CC's 1000 random spam US email addresses. One of the go betweens of the email forwards it yet again with another 1000 random US email addresses and so on and so forth. Is this outrage over warrantless spying circumventing the logic of current technology? When FISA was established to spy on possible Soviet interests within the US in 1978 we were in a totally different technological environment. It was an era of land line based communication. Call the Bush presidency what you will but I think it's a large mistake to cripple the speed of intelligence agencies in the name of a Bush witch hunt. Should some other president in the future expect the NSA to submit 10000 warrants due to one email string, even after the fact? If congress authorizes war (and make no mistake that there is no difference according to the courts between declaring war and authorizing use of force), should intelligence agencies be able to monitor anything and everything coming out of that country regardless of where the destination may be?
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen, I appreciate the Ben Franklin quote. It's quite brilliant... however trotting out something a founding father said as anything other than a well-worded insight, is just.. for lack of a better word.. idolatry.
We trade freedom for safety a hundred different ways every day. I could use the same quote at every part of the spectrum in the tradeoffs. Being forced to get a state driver's liscense is giving up some of your freedoms in return for some level of safety on the roads... Traffic law enforcement is giving up your freedoms... First ammendment restrictions (FIRE!!) is giving up some of your freedoms... this can go on ad nauseam. Just trotting out this same tired old quote as defense of freedom, on its own, is just poor logic. It's a warning against govermental "feature creep". It isn't the -answer- to protecting freedom.
Feingold! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:FISA Court Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, then please explain to us laymen:
A. Why that applies to domestic wiretapping.
B. Where the "inherent constitutional authority" to violate the Bill of Rights comes from.
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:5, Insightful)
You're cutting them a lot of slack. That would assume some innocence on their part. I contend that they are just as despicable and corrupt as the people they elect. They vote for their own personal interests. They vote against their neighbors' or the community's, or the nation's, or the world's...if it collides with their agenda. They feign ignorance to avoid responsibility for their actions, or in this case, their votes. Is their version of "plausible deniability". This is why some people say, "There are no innocents.", and I tend to agree. The only thing that is saving us is the gridlock they create. That's the only thing that make a democracy better than a direct dictatorship.
Re:It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you're right that the administration's only goal is to fight terrorism. Sadly, that doesn't mean those will be the only effects. Precedents are being set down that will be available for use by future administrations.
It's all about trust. You may trust the current administration, but do you trust an unchecked government in general? Would you trust your brother to install a closed circuit television to watch your house while you're away? Probably, but what happens when your brother is replaced by the perverted old man who lives next door? Still so trusting?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it would be best not to install that camera afterall.
Re:FISA Court Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for your legal analysis: It seems many highly esperienced legal professionals disagree with you. These professionals include law professors, judges, and other lawyers. I don't think I will simply accept your word on this matter.
I was going to say we should let the supreme court handle it but they don't really care about the constitution either. Really the court system is a joke now isn't it.
Re:Senario (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, under your example, what Intel can be garnered from reading 1,000 emails about humus, how many translators do you have, how many agents to scour through 1,000 messages about humus hoping for that one that breaks the code and makes one realize that humus is an attack?
By monitoring everything the NSA would not only infringe on our rights, but would limit its ability to hunt for the right information. There has to be a third way.
Re:What is Spector really saying (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, those dastardly anti-Bush Republican committee chairs. Always out to destroy the President and embarrass his party at all costs, particularly in an election year.
Its not about our freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Dont fool yourself into thinking otherwize.
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What the item leaves out (Score:5, Insightful)
But today, I can look back on him and think, "Well yea, he wasn't the best...But I didn't fear for the country with him in charge." No I didn't agree with him, but I could see where he was coming from, and I could see that he was making decisions based on strong evidence. I may not have agreed with the decisions, but I could see how someone might agree with them.
There are two types of unwinnable arguments. In one, you're arguing with someone, and you end up having to agree to disagree. They believe what they believe, and it's not crazy, it's just not what you believe. Their analysis is rational, you both agree on all the facts, you just come to different conclusions based on the facts.
Then there are the people whose descisions are based on things besides rational thought. They add too much weight to facts that are incidental to the point, they make leaps of logic (faith?) that are unwarranted by the strength of their premises. They argue based on their personal beliefs and feelings rather than on the actual facts, and they misrepresent the facts to support their beliefs.
Having seen far too much of the latter in the last 10 years, I am heartened and refreshed when I come across the former.
Pretty sad.
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:3, Insightful)
For instance, driving through an intersection at high speeds against the light is a crime, unless by a police officer who is responding to a crime, etc, etc... Let's say the cop drives through an intersection with sirens on, on his way to get donuts (not an emergency), and you follow him through. You'd both have committed a crime, but he's in the position of the president, most-likely completely immune to the accusation, though technically still possibly at risk.
You're saying that just because the cop (president) isn't going to be punished, that he didn't break the law.
I think that's weak. We have laws for a reason, to stop hot-heads from doing whatever they think is right without consulting others. Those actions might include speeding, fighting, wiretapping... To let anyone hold themselves above the law is dangerous, and for you to promote this for them 1seems worse.
It only takes one of those wiretaps to be unwarranted and it's a technical crime. Why act like legal immunity is the same as legal actions?
ha! (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there a chance for majority? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if I KNOW my proposal has no snowball in hell chance, I can propose whatever I want. I could propose to freeze funding on military, if I feel the general population is against more weapons while I know that the majority of the congress is in favor of spending for guns. Even if I want to buy more artillery myself.
That way I get good press (remember, elections in Fall), people will believe that I'm the "good" guy, the voting itself isn't covered in the news and everything stays the same.
Except that the general population thinks that I (or "we", as in, "my party") wants to do what they want. While doing what we want.