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?
Breathing heavy... (Score:3, Funny)
Nah...heavy breathing has been outsourced to India.
Re:He's going to be waiting a long time (Score:4, Informative)
Arlen Specter as Vice President? [OT] (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Arlen Specter as Vice President? [OT] (Score:2)
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:People Do Not Care (Score:2)
I find people often live up to the expectations you have of them. While I do not disagree that the US population seems to be largely complacent, I find idle complaints about others irksome. All you have to do is your part. Are you voting, writing your Congressperson, etc? Do everything you can and be a model for people to admire. I cannot imagine that speaking ill of your fellow citizens (&
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:People Do Not Care (Score:5, Informative)
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:2)
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:2)
The need to obtain valid intel to fight a war? If they are tapping the lines of American citizen telephones without the issuance of a warrant and without probably cause, they are breaking the law. This war on terror is total B
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:5, Interesting)
Free speech is essential for freedom. Anonymity is essential for free speach. I can not excercise free speech if I'm worried about the government recording everything I say. When I am engaged in some form of private communication my privacy is my freedom. Whether Franklin originally wrote it or not, I will proclaim: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:2)
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:People Do Not Care (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The House impeaches, the Senate convicts (Score:2)
The Democrats would have to take the House for impeachment proceedings to occur. They would have to take the House and 2/3 of the Senate for a conviction to occur. Even then, of course, it's no guarantee. Of course, there might be a few Republicans who would impeach/convict. More likely, there are several Democrats who wouldn't. At lea
Re:The House impeaches, the Senate convicts (Score:2)
Public concern and public indignation build up... (Score:2, Insightful)
What the item leaves out (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What the item leaves out (Score:5, Interesting)
What he's doing is saying, "Hey! President Jackass! Things are going to get ugly around here if you don't start keeping us in the loop! This ain't the House, where they gotta depend on your ass for fundraising! Half of us aren't up for re-election until 2010! So tell us what's going on with this NSA crap, or we may just create us a little gridlock."
Specter is one of the last old school republicans in congress...I can remember when I thought he was a jackass rather than one of the only rational senators.
Re:What the item leaves out (Score:2)
I can't decide if that says something about you, Specter, or the ratio of jackasses to rational Senators...
Re:What the item leaves out (Score:2)
I don't know the guy, but I'm familiar our own politicians... Leopards don't often change their spots.
Is Specter now a rational senator, or still a jackass who just appears rational compared to the new generation of überjackass senators?
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:What the item leaves out (Score:2)
Well, that's one point of view. (Score:2)
Another is that Specter knows there is nothing hinky going on with the NSA stuff, that it's all within the President's Constitutional authority, and wants to have that shown in a public forum -- a forum which, by pure coincidence, would feature Senator Specter prominently.
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:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
None of the above? No one has been impeached for any of that, and most of the alleged misdeeds above aren't even illegal. The more impeachable offense is the one which is illegal. Perjury is illegal, and in the case of Bill Clinton, highly provable. Until you can explain to me which laws Bush broke, with a sufficient amount
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Listen, if your entire argument the president should be impeached rests on the fact that the wiretaps were illegal, then alright. I think you have a legimate case to be made. The problem is they have never been shown and found to be illegal in a court of a law. You are absolutely right that nothing will happen, simply because it's such a large grey area that going after the president on this issue, and not knowing the outcome, is poli
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
The argument that the NSA wiretapping program has never been proven to be illegal is a bit of a red herring. The point of fact is that it will never get a hearing, nor can it, because it's secret. The real issue is the bypassing of the FISA court and the reporting rules, but there is an acc
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 donut
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
So I assume, then, you would support an investigation of the most egregious potential violations?
After all, you seem to think the six-year witch-hunt that was Whitewater was appropriate (as evidenced by your statement of support for clinton's impeachment,) certainly you must agree that the allegations against Bush are far more serious--and if an investigation proves them out
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
First of all, assuming I am conservative because I realize the difference between doing something provably illegal (perjury) and "massive debt" or whatever other nosense the GP posted, is really your first mistake. As for an investigation, I'm all for it. If he broke a law, impeach him. I have no pr
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
My assumption was actually based on your supportive statement on the Clinton impeachment. Second, I also assumed it based on your astro-turfing for Bush: "Prove what laws he's broken" is a Republican Party talking point designed to deflect media attention away from how actively BushCo is prevent
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but he was given the legal authorization to use the military... therefore there was no "misuse". Look, I hate to come off as a Bush apologist... I swear I'm not... I can't wait for 08.. the sooner he is out of office the better.... but you can't just.. not like the guy, and start making up reasons to get rid of him. The bottomline here
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.
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Another way he could have gone about it was the thing he actually did: on the question of whether he had sex with Lewinsky, he asked for a definition of having sex, and when the definition the lawyers of the opposition gave did not include receiving oral sex - he could answer perfectly truthfully that he didn't have sex with her using that definition.
Re:Okay, then how about... (Score:2)
I'll grant you the last two but Impeachment requires "illegal", not just immoral and unethical.
Bush is not responsible for massive debt, as all spending/debt rests at the feet of Congress. (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Sections 7 & 9)
What "illegal" war? Congress granted authority for the current incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, which makes it legal in U.S. law. Congress makes the laws here, not the U.N.
The "warrantles
Re:Okay, then how about... (Score:2)
2) --
3a) The Constitution prohibits *unreasonable* searches. The President is contending that these searches are resonable, under these circumstances
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
The only way attitudes will change, is if the 99% of the people who vote, change their mind about outrageously-powerful federal government being a good thing.
People like to whine about Bush, but just a year and a half ago, he got about half the votes. And the other half voted for Kerry! Almost nobody voted in support of the constitution. I hear lots of tough talk and bitching, but when people get into
Re:Heads should roll! (Score:2)
Nah, a republic is a political order whos head of state is not a monarch. The United States, China, and Iran are all Republics. Canada and Sweden are democracies, but not Republics. Republic is an essentially useless term in the modern world.
But really, I'm agreeing with you, people who say
"The United States of America (USA) is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY."
are a pet peve of mine. It's like saying
"Toyota is a Corporation, no
Uh (Score:3, Funny)
They watch stuff and record it.
Do I get a consulting fee?
It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:4, Interesting)
Bigger Issues? How about:
This government says it can seize US citizens and subject them to secret military tribunals.
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.
Now add all that up: Any US President can say you are a terrorist, kidnap your whole family in the middle of the night, and have your kids raped to death in front of your wife to make her tell where you are hiding. And Gonzalez will say it's all legal, if anyone ever finds out about it.
That's the Novus Ordo Seculorum of George W. Bush and his Congress. As Orwell predicted, a hobnailed boot stamping on a human face. Do you right-wingers seriously want to grant total power to whoever's in the White House? What about if it's your evil arch-nemesis Hillary, or some Kennedy apparatchik?
Re:It's probably legal - just ask Keiffer! (Score:2)
Re:It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:3, Informative)
Because they didn't submit to the (minimal!) oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists. [boston.com]
Last I heard, the power to strip American citizenship by fiat was still only a proposal [google.com]
This government says it can seize US citizens [wikipedia.org]but military tribunals [wikipedia.org] have been reserved for non-citizens.
Re:It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:3, Informative)
"Ehsanul Islam Sadequee"
"Yaser Esam Hamdi"
and
"abu gharib"
Re:It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:2)
Haven't you seen 24? Jack Bauer does this kind of thing *every week*!
Read Rumsfeld .vs. Padilla and the Bagram report. (Score:2)
But now you've stated that I was "making things up". That's false. Everything I said was based on public statements made by Bush administration officials or official US government reports.
Mind you, allegations that uniformed US soldiers raped children to make their mothers reveal the locations of their terrorist-suspect fathers are unproven. But I didn't say that they were proven, I sai
Re:Read Rumsfeld .vs. Padilla and the Bagram repor (Score:2)
Yes
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
No. I have never heard of this, in any case. As far as I can tell it is manufactured. The only thing similar is one particular case where someone agreed to give up their citizenship as part of a release deal. The government didn't have the power to take it.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspe
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
Re:It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:2)
I didn't realize that it was "Left" to be conservative these days. Is that DoubleSpeak or plain old NewSpeak?
Conservatives are the people alarmed by this administration's willingness to disregard traditional values and re-interpret the constitution.
It's the biggest power grab since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and it offends real conservatives.
Liberals are just pissed off that they aren't the ones doing it, they've always been in favor of trying new
Re:It's probably legal. There are bigger issues! (Score:2)
In much of Europe, and propably other places, the US 'Left' would be considered quite far to the right. While the US 'Right'... Dunno how much further right they would be shifted, there's really not *that* much difference between the two.
Prediction: (Score:4, Informative)
Why?
circumstanstial evidence:
1) It was references as "communications." That could be friggin anything.
2) internal legal opinion saying spying method was legal when wiretapping already has well established rules. importance? Someone is probably splitting hairs, but getting such an opinion probably means they found a loophole. i.e. it's not a phone or something minor like that.
3) how it's played out in the press: "Bush is spying illegally" "No we're not" "Yes you are, your wiretapping" "What we're doing is legal and we're not going to tell you about it for technical reasons that might give it away." "So you are wiretapping" "Uh, guess you caught us, blah blah blah" importance? It may or may not be wiretapping, but the administration is happy to let everyone argue that it is. Can everyone say 'diversion?'
I have my guesses what it could be, but I'm staying mum. Why? Because it might actually be legal and doing some good and if I guess right, the eye of Sauron starts lookin' my way out of spite. Unlikely, but not worth it.
So in conclusion, uh, you didn't read anything. It was all a dream....
Re:Prediction: (Score:2)
BTW: for anyone else who cares to connect the dots, jbeaupre's point that the spyed-upon covnersations are referred to as "communications" + they presumably may not fall under (phone) wiretapping laws + the recent revelation that AT&T likely set up a massive internet tap for the NSA points to his likely
Re:Prediction: (Score:2)
can we get a 2-for-1 deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Too bad we can't cut funding for all "black" projects in the Department of Defense while we're at it.
Re:can we get a 2-for-1 deal? (Score:2)
Yes why not? After the previous administration proved, we give it all to the Chinese anyway...
Re:can we get a 2-for-1 deal? (Score:2)
Or the administration before that, which gave it all Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran...
Re:can we get a 2-for-1 deal? (Score:2)
So you really believe that no NSA, no CIA, no DIA, no secret government research at the national labs is better for the country?
I can't decide if I can't find out (Score:2)
I believe that I'm unable as a citizen to decide if such programs are "better for the country", or that my elected representatives are able to on my behalf- if even their existence is a total secret.
The USA spends more on military/defense than almost any other nation in the world, both in total, per capita, and percentage-wise (of total budget.) I believe in some regards we're
Re:can we get a 2-for-1 deal? (Score:2)
That kind of analysis is no less scary to me then "We should do this because God says so". The simplistic and dismissive nature.. the lack of depth... the shallow arguments... the rhetorical labeling... it scares me so mu
I got all excited (Score:4, Insightful)
FISA Court Anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
All you tinfoil hat people need to read this pdf document [fas.org].
Some talking points:
Page 3: "In so doing, the Court of Review recognized that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
More Page 3: ""perhaps most crucially, the executive branch not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs. The President and his deputies are charged by the constitution with the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States"
Page 4: In addition, substantial authority indicates that the President has inherent constitutional authority over the gathering of foreign intelligence--authority that Congress may not circumscribe. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review suggested that, even after FISA, the President possesses inherent constitutional Authority that FISA could not limit.
The list of quotes goes on
So, for all you people wondering why the hell nobody has got any legal dirt on all these 'illegal activities', you need to read your history book. Its come up before, FISA court shot the president down, FISA court of review shot FISA court down, and the Supreme Court Won't even hear the case because its been settled already. This is all democratic dragging through the mud.
/rant off
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:FISA Court Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
you need to read your history book.
I like reading as much as the next guy, but I prefer to reference documents such as the constitution, federalist papers, etc more than a brief submitted by the AG explaining why his boss can do whatever he wants.
For anyone thinking the above was taken from some scholarly dissertation on the subject, it is actually taken from everyone's favorite civil liberties crusader (NOT) AG Gonzolez's response to congress about the NSA wire tapping (that means VERY unbiased look at the issues
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:FISA Court Anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
First, a bit of pedantry, its not the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court", it is the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" which is set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But more substantively, the ruling you cite refers back to a Fourth Circuit ruling prior to the adoption of FISA (which, therefore, discusses what powers the President has when Congress has not acted) and then makes some comments about inherent power that have little precedential weight because the issue of the degree and extent of Presidential authority to act without or contrary to Congressional dicates was not at issue in the case before the FISC. Instead, the issue was whether FISA has expanded Presidential power.
Though, for some reason, everytime this issue gets brought up in any internet forum, some defender of the administration trots this out as if it conclusively proved something.
Join/donate to the EFF - it can only help (Score:3, Informative)
Never a better time to donate or join [eff.org].
It must be great to be AT&T (Score:2)
I bet AT&T/SBC's collective head is spinning. Talk about taking it from both ends.
It's humorous to see a big corporation in the same situation millions of Americans find themselves in every day when it comes to government stupidty - completely helpless.
Its not about our freedom (Score:2, Insightful)
Dont fool yourself into thinking otherwize.
Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Translation from Washington speak: Sen. Specter delayed real action on the President's illegal spying program again, citing lack of public concern and public indignation. "I've got my finger in the wind, but I can't tell which way it's blowing," the Senator said.
Don't expect Specter to go anywhere with this inquiry unless he is dragged there kicking and screaming. He's just threatening to threaten to be a threat.
Thank the EFF for suing AT&T. It could take a long time (remember SCO v. IBM?) but at least someone could get arrested. The fine for FISA violations is up to $10000 per violation, so AT&T might be in for the punishment of a life time for colluding with the illegal program.
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.
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.
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:2)
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:2)
This is not always true and in fact, I'm willing to say it probably hardly ever happens. If a politician wants to keep his job and be relected the next time around, he better do what he says he is going to do. Or at least make it look like he is trying.
Yeah, those d*** Republicans (Score:2)
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:5, Informative)
He swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Allowing domestic wiretaps without a warrant is a violation of said oath.
And the warrants would have been easy to obtain, including the fact that they're available up to 72 hours after the fact.
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:2)
He swore to withold and defenstrate the Constitution.
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:3, Interesting)
Specter isn't do for re-election this year, unless I missed something. And I will admit I am a bit lazy today, but why do you think he is a RINO? I seriously do not hope it is solely based on the fact that he is opposing something that our control-everything president started.
As for your second point, I am not a huge fan of the EFF most days, but I really think you are a bit off there too. Since I used up my mod points, can someone please mod
Re:Yadda, yadda (Score:2)
Specter is in the 2nd year of his term. It's Rick Santorum's seat that's up for re-election this year.
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:Yadda, yadda (Score:2)
I was home sick from work yesterday and watched C-SPAN for a while. Do you know what they were debating yesterday on the Senate floor? Things like whether or not to spend $15 million on an ad campaign to encourage eating seafood. Call me crazy, but I think a Senator knowing the details of a program
Re:The Good Senator (Score:2)
Re:The Good Senator (Score:2)
Only if you mention the other senator from Pennsylvania. Have you Googled Santorum [google.com] lately?
Feingold! (Score:5, Insightful)
And one warrant to rule them all... (Score:2)
Re:And one warrant to rule them all... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Senario (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, under your example, what Intel can be garnered from readin
Re:Senario (Score:2)
More realistic scenario (Score:2)
This is exactly what happened on September 11th. NONE of this spying would have prevented it. FISA was set up in response to the executive branch of the government a
Specter is not up for reelection this fall (Score:2)
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.