Warrantless Surveillance To Continue For Now 402
NormalVisual writes "It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case, according to an AP article. The 6th Circuit ruled that while the lower court had ruled the program was unconstitutional, they felt that the case's chances before the appeals court and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue despite the likelihood that the appeal process will take months."
Specific law covers this case (Score:4, Interesting)
Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.
>The government says it can't always wait for a court to take action.
And doesn't have to. Within the law, they can (and do) wake a judge up at three in the morning, or even get approval after the fact. They can start wiretapping the instant they choose and take it to a judge days later.
>The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.
Actually, the President said the same thing. When he signed the amended surveillance law, amended at his request and the one he is breaking now, he said "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists".
The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.
Re:We have all been here before... (Score:3, Interesting)
Long Live Big Brother!
Re:Typical (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Give records of european flight passengers to a country without data privacy
2) European court of justice says: wrong legal basis, find a new legal basis until 30. September or stop by then
3) 30. September passed, no new legal basis, everything goes on as usual
4) This violation of a court decision is then called "legal vacuum"
5) The airlines won't get sued because "it is not their fault"
But wait, it gets even better
1) SWIFT gives the bank transaction data to the US intelligence
2) It is proved that it is against EU law
3) SWIFT sais it is not against US law so it is a legal grey zone and they can go on as usual
And because EU-Comission thought it is fun it is thinking now about giving phone communication data to US.
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
'Tis NormalVisual, not NormalVision.
The lower court issued a 43-page ruling that explaining why it ruled the activity was unconstitutional, so it was a statement of fact and will continue to be so until/unless the appeals court rules otherwise.
Re:Specific law covers this case (Score:1, Interesting)
My guess is that they are searching all international phone calls, if it matches a pattern, record some or all the conversation, based on score generated by the pattern. The problem might arise from the fact the technology they are using to perform this surveillance might require a large amount of warrants to be generated.
abortions (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I relize that the supreme court has decided that this amendment means everything up to and including that babies are fair game for dismemberment until their head clears the birth canal...
Wrong! The USSC in Roe v Wade specifically setup the trimester idea. During the first trimester the state can't block abortions. I don't recall what the rules are for the second trimester but the state can block abortions in the third trimester.
To test whether some one is really pro choice or wants to dictate is by asking them to support abortions in the third trimester if the woman's lfe is in danger. If they won't allow an abortion even if the person's life is at risk then they don't really support life.
FalconRe:Kinda biased post (Score:5, Interesting)
The Constitution spells out the President's powers down to such minutiae as "he shall receive ambassadors". Unlike the Bill of Rights, it's an exhaustive list. The Founders knew how to write and they knew how to implement a kingship. If they'd wanted the President to be able to spy on Americans without any check and balance from the judiciary, they would have said so.
"Commander in Chief" is a title Hamilton took pains to distinguish from the British King's powers. It was deliberate and careful design that left Congress with exclusive power to declare war, to raise armies, and to regulate the armed services. That last is in Article I Section 8, "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces". This is why administration attorney John Yoo was dead wrong when he said that Congress can't outlaw torture. This is why Congress can regulate the NSA.
Re:touche (Score:1, Interesting)
That premise phrase is a cliche. Answer: Because, my friend, we need to gather evidence that you are NOT lying. Oh, where are those MP3s from? and movies? and illegally pirated software? You shouldn't be surprised how much dirty still every person has accumulated, even unknowingly... At the very least, it will be an educational experience: as policemen-babysitters in our own IT jobs we have to tell users all the time "Oh, that click-me button on the Ad? don't click on it." They don't know better and a summons is better than no summons at all. Remember that when nothing is actually hiding, then nothing can be found to imply a crime has been commited in your part. Because you ARE innocent.
Downside is that when the population learns to wisen up with their dirty digital and real life practices, and crime rate is balanced again, the law will not be removed from the system. That's the downside of our predecesors not having a conscience and creating social problems for us. And we are creating more laws that our children will hate us for as well. Think drugs and P2P won't be easy to trace one day? Wait 30 years till enough data is out on all of us that we are all guilty retroactively. Things today will become as easily searchable as your purchasing habits are nowadays. And private things, like in the case of your Public Library card records? Let's say that after watching "Enemy of the State" I have stopped borrowing from a public record anything that could be misunderstood by someone either today or 20 years from now.
Just think how famous people's love letters are "declassified" and published for all to see centuries after they have disappeared. That's pretty low tech and still pretty powerful. The moral of the story is, of course, to be more moral. It will cascade inversely into our governments one day.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you missed a really simple point.
When the government asks the courts if it can fuck the people, then the answer is "no" until they can prove their case.
When it is discovered that the government is already fucking the people, then the proper response is "stop" until they can prove their case.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with eliminating the courts.
In this case, the government decided that it was better to ask forgiveness than permission.
They knew full well that they didn't have the right and they did it anyway. They only bothered to ask permission when they were caught commiting treason.
Are you even paying attention? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention that they're being done with absolutely no oversight, no checks or balances. Without at least something like the FISA court, there's no way to know who's being wiretapped.
Which law is Bush upholding? The FISA statute which states that no foreign intelligence gathering can be done without their say-so? The Fourth Amendment? The constitution itself, which states that he's not above the law, and can't just start issuing kingly decrees when he disagrees with said law? Executive Order 13292, which prohibits the use of security classification to hide illegal acts? If he was so certain that the program was legal, why did he lie about it before the story came out, claiming that all wiretapping was done with a warrant?
And what "agenda" does the lower court have in this case?
We can moan here as long as we want... (Score:2, Interesting)
WE ARE WRONG.
The American public are the people that need to care. Before they can even start to realize why they should care, they need to realize there is something here to care about. They need to be informed. WE NEED TO TELL THEM. The media won't. This stuff doesnt sell advertizing, pedophiles in the government do. This stuff doesn't sell ads, school shootings do. This stuff doesn't sell ads, because it's being swept under the carpet. I formed a group on facebook, called "America. Land of the Free." facebook is a poor media to start a movement, but it's something. It's the contribution that I can make right now, and if it seems like it's helping, I'll make another. As should you.
Here's a piece I wrote about this for my school (UT-Knoxville) paper. It got published, people read it, and there was no outcry. We need to change that.
Last week, the senate and the house of representatives both passed a bill (S 3930 and HR 6166, respectively) called the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This bill is described by our government as "A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." Statistically, you probably haven't heard of it. If you have heard of it, then you may know how it feels to be a member of the informed minority. The bill itself is deplorable, but the shift in American opinion that it represents is horrifying. I'll explain what the bill is in a second, but first let me tell you what it represents. It sends the message loud and clear: "We, as a people, do not care about our rights." It's saddening how we have ceded victory to the terrorists through the very act of fighting them. America, once the land of the Free, is now the land of the complacent majority. Ask yourself: Is it more important that you get decent grades this semester, or that our country remains a free nation? Now ask yourself which one you have worked harder for. Which one occupies most of your time? Now look at the news and ask yourself what is more important: a former congressman's possible affair with a young assistant, fourteen people being kidnapped in Iraq, or the American government, under the guise of keeping us safe from terrorism, trying to take away our basic rights. Because that's what this bill does. This bill, which is only a signature away from becoming law, states that if the United States government determines that you are an enemy combatant and not a citizen, then you have no right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus! Do you know what that is? It is your right to question whether you have been lawfully arrested or just abducted by a person with a gun. It is your right to insist that an impartial person be present and agree that the government is justified in taking away your liberty. Right now, you may be thinking that this is not such a big deal because, as the law states, you are only affected by this if you are an enemy combatant (terrorist) and not a citizen. Habeas corpus is your right to argue against the charges brought against you. It is a basic human right, either everyone has it, or no one does. If you are arrested and told that you're a terrorist and not a citizen, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. The American government, at that point, has decided that you don't have the right to question it. You don't have the ability to just show passport or birth certificate. In order to challenge their decision, you'd need a writ of habeas corpus.
I could go on and on about how this right has been around since 1305, but the public doesn't care. I could explain that Germany went
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you said that they hate us just becaise we're us and completely failed to address the fact that we have given them plenty of reasons to hate us.
Years of our policies have gotten us to where we are today, and they aren't just policies that were started when Bush Jr. took office. You post like you know exactly how to fix everything yet you don't offer up many ideas. I feel like I'm conversing with John Kerry..."bush sucks, but I don't have any ideas of my own, oh yeah bush sucks."
I'm aware that there were problems already before we got Bush.
My point is that given his multiple acts of treason, and crimes against humanity in specific his entirely made up excuses to invade Iraq that as long as we continue to allow him to keep his office and do nothing to punish him for his crimes then we are saying loud and clear to everybody in the world that we do not give a flying fuck about integrity, honesty, decency or anything else of that nature.
The simple fact is that until we do clean our own house and do show that we actually do stand against murdering a bunch of innocent people to steal their shit, that there are no ideas that can do anything to fix anything.
As long as we continue to *prove* that we are a nation of liars, thugs, and murderers then nobody in their right mind coulkd possibly believe a damn thing we say.
*That* is the problem that has a simple solution.
The problems in the middle east are complex and do not admit a simple solution. We can not even begin any meaningful discussion of addressing it until we do deal with the elephant in the living room.
Oh, you did offer up one idea, cut Israel off and let them get pushed into the ocean.
It's a better idea than blindly supporting *everything* they do and condemning *everything* the Palestinians do.
Dealing with it in an honest manner would go a long fucking way to helping, but it is the exact same problem we face in terms of credibility and caused by the exact same idiotic black and white absolutist thinking.
I think my whole previous post was about how things aren't black and white. You seem to think things are easy to fix, just toss Bush and all will be right with the world. That seems like a pretty black and white idea to me. I also don't think I mentioned anywhere of people being pure evil. Way to put words in my mouth.
No, tossing Bush will not fix everything. It will make it *possible* to even start thinking about real fixes. There is a major difference there. As long as he is in power and even after, as long as he is not prosecuted for his crimes, then our integrity will be shit. That is the point that you are failing to get.
It is a very simple solution to that part of the problem. But until that happens it isn't even possible to talk about a solution to the other issues.
And what domestic issues does this fix? With technology the way it is nowadays the wiretapping issue was bound to come up regardless. Better to have it be settled by the supreme court now rather than later.
The complete lack of integrity which we as a nation have demonstrated by allowing Bush to remain in office after blatantly making up lies in order to carry out a plan the members of his administration had had in place since Clinton was in office.
Hell making up the lies in response to an attack on our nation was part of the fucking plan or do you not even read what your dear leaders write and weren't aware of that little fact?
And dear lord, since people are likely to abuse technology it's therefore good that the President knowingly violated the law and the constitution?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
If world politic were as simple as you seem to think we should've had world peace years ago.
Had I said that, you might have a point. If it were possible to be trusted when everybody knows you're lying through your teeth, then there wouldn't be a *need* to fix that first.