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."
hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me, or is this sort of behavior completely unwarranted?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lt. Weinberg (Kevin Pollack) is making fun of Demi Moore:
Lt. Weinberg: "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm?
[Demi Moore] "Objection."
[Judge] "Overruled."
[Demi Moore] "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
[Judge] "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
Now replace "Demi Moore" with "the Bush Administration "
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Now replace "Demi Moore" with "the Bush Administration "
Now, if that only worked in reverse...
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
The point is that the District Court realized that it didn't have the final say in the matter so they wouldn't unilaterally block its use since the Executive Branch has stated that it was of interest in national security. In the court's opinion, the wiretapping is unconstitutional. But there are hundreds (or thousands) of federal judges in the United States who often make contradictory rulings that need to be reconciled at the Appeals or Supreme Court level. Since there is no question that this case will go to the Supreme Court at some point, the District Court did the wise thing, realizing it wasn't the final say and delaying the order of its ruling until the case reaches higher levels.
Obviously this isn't popular with many people on Slashdot, but it is how the courts need to work. In the reverse, a court could, for example, declare that abortion was unconstitutional. If it didn't delay its ruling until higher courts analyzed it, it would affect hundreds of thousands to millions of women.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
It really is getting depressing, I mean we are supposed to be slogging it out here in the comments, not in the post. Heck, what's the point in coming here? You can get all this news in other formats, it is the discussion that is interesting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what the judges in courts do...
Where's the editorial again?
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:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
So it is a fact they issued ruling, but that ruling has been suspended and is on appeal.
Many more opinions have been given that contradict this one, i.e. case law is AGAINST this ruling.
Pendantic reciting of case law follows:
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the defendant was convicted of espionage. The court wrote:
In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977), a firearms prosecution. The court said:
Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement....
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant's spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch's inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court agreed with the government's position:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the "object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators," and the search is conducted "primarily" for foreign intelligence reasons.
The state of the law was summed up by the Second Circuit in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984), a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted in 1981. The court wrote:
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break do
Let's be careful here. (Score:4, Insightful)
An important distinction needs to be drawn though. Because the president has the power to conduct surveillance as part of his article 2 powers doesn't mean he has an unlimited license to do any surveillance he wishes. Nor does it preclude some form of oversight by the other branches, provided that oversight doesn't amount to an unconstitutional restriction on his Article 2 powers. For practical purposes he can't be free from oversight, because he has no authority to spend money on his own.
To say that any attempt to creates laws regulating the President's exercise of his Article 2 powers is unconsitutional would be a very sweeping assertion. For one thing, it encroaches on a Congressional constitutional power granted in Article 1, Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The Congress also has the power to regulate the military forces, literally the land and naval forces, but clearly this doesn't preclude the regulation of the air force, which didn't exist back then. Nor, if we are arguing they are being used in the conduct of war, should it preclude the regulation of intelligence services.
So, the Congress can create laws which govern how the President uses his contitutional powers, since the exeuctive branch is part of "the government of the United States, or in any department
The style of relationship that is supposed to exist between the executive and legislative branches was developed between George Washington and the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War. Early on Washington was vexed by congressional arm chair generals who wanted to direct the war by dispatch. John Adams was an admirable man in almost every respect but his character was marred by his firm belief he was smarter than everyone else around him. Apparently Adams was among the worst offenders. Washington developed an approach to this problem that proved highly effective, not only at securing for himself ample independence for his conduct of the war, but enthusiastic legislative and public support. He worked like hell to keep Congress "in the loop" (to use a modern metaphor). In return he could count on Congress to reach a little deeper when he needed its support. This consultation with his civilian superiors and his field commanders did not come easily to Washington, but it earned him the tremendous stature he enjoyed after the Revolution.
The commonly used phrase "secret wiretapping program" is semantically loaded, because it forces a "take it or leave it" on you. Every wiretapping program has to have an element of secrecy; to say you are against "secret" wiretapping programs sounds like you are against wiretapping programs in general. We end up rhetorically wrassled into a position where it looks like we're against the goals of the program if we thing the program is bad.
A phrase that would more correctly capture our concerns is this: "unaccountable wiretapping program."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, the ruling hasn't been suspended. The execution of the ruling has been suspended. The ruling itself stands until such a time as another court overturns it, which hasn't happened yet.
Second, while you certainly seem convinced that "case law is AGAINST this ruling," a lot of people who know an awful lot about the law disagree with you. In fact, a judge wrote a very clear ruling about why this NSA program IS unconst
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he's using his powers granted in the constitution... so I'd say he's following up on that oath.
First
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 statut
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The ACLU had brought the case on behalf of a group of reporters, academics, lawyers and activists who believed that their communications with clients, sources or others might have been monitored by the National Security Agency as part of the program, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches, and chilling their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Sto
They haven't proved they were prosecuted by facts found by being tapped, they are saying they might have been tapped and that it is keeping their sources from being frank with them.
It is a pretty weak standing, and likely the first thing that will go on appeal, did they have standing to bring a suit?
Lower court, probably. Higher court? Unlikely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It says no UNREASONABLE searches and sezures. There are no sezures here and if you want to make that leap that a communication is a search and sezure then do remember that in these cases the OTHER PARTY is not a citizen and not covered by the 4th amendment.
The current arguement is that during previous wars the president has been able to tap into communications (paper and electronic) in and out of the United States as e
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].
President Bush was given AUMF in 2001 by Congress. That gives him War Powers Act powers as defined in the war powers act of 1973. End of story.
BTW, nice sig inciting to violence. =)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the district court that set aside the injunction, but rather the appellate court!
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.
Re: (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 su
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Informative)
I asked the rhetorical question "Why is this news?" because anyone who expects that the Bush administration will respect the ruling of any court is in for a shock. They've already set the precedent with last week's passage of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"; you know, that's the one that not only makes G.W.'s prior military tribunals legal, but goes several steps further in that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is now (quoting from the Act itself):
948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.(A) The term unlawful enemy combatant means
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
Notice how this language does not exclude the possibility of designating American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants". Note further how the power of determining who is an unlawful enemy combatant rests solely with "a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." and that there is no requirement that such findings be based on meeting any part of the defintion given in part (i), e.g., the President can declare anyone he wishes to be an enemy of the State. There is no recourse to the criminal justice system to appeal any such ruling, nor are writs of habeus corpus allowed, nor are civilian defense attorneys to be part of any Military Tribunal process, nor does the defendant any longer have the privilege of invoking his 5th Amendment right agains self-incrimination. Other civil liberties are also trampled upon by this act, including the right to a speedy trial and the right to examine the evidence against one. Again, from the Act itself: (these refer to parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which are not to apply to "unlawful enemy combatants")
(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.(1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military
commission under this chapter:
(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts martial
relating to speedy trial.
(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory
self-incrimination.
(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.
(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter."
The Act further specifies that the Geneva Convention may not b
It's been said by a smarter person than I (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, back to your big SUVs, tiny cell phones and reality television.
Perhaps we will wake up before the world turns its back on us permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
if everyone in the world would take this approach it might just solve terrorism, genocide, arms escalation, etc. just might speed the rate at which civilization advances. i will never understand why man has to have dominance over other men.
Typical (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Do something blatantly unconstitutional.
2) Get it knocked down in court.
3) Tie it up in appeals for years, continuing to do whatever you were doing.
4) Eventually get it killed by the supreme court, but have made a great run of it.
Politicians game the system and have no respect for the courts. Film at 11.
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.
U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the court will find the action legal. The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area because it wasn't foreseen that anyone could be able to communicate over long distances instantaneously. The U.S. has always been able to search and seize foreign mail, so that is probably the best argument they have to making long distance calls tappable.
It's a shame. The U.S. has become a place that is hostile to immigrants and travelers. Give me your poor huddled masses, indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you just submit the changes to CVS and let it filter through?
Perhaps a Patch Tuesday idea could be implimented?
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:5, Funny)
If your constitution is out of date (..)
Actually, the current version is outdated but that isn't a problem since no-one uses it anyway.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree it's not gray, but it says the opposite of what you say it says. It says the president is in charge of national defense, and the Congress has no right to usurp that power. It further says that any application of an act of Congress (including that 1978 law) to shift Constitutional respons
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It says the president is in charge of national defense
Where does it say that? Article II Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States".
I think there's a pretty wide divide between being put in charge of the military, and being unilaterally in charge of national defense, but I guess I can follow that reasoning. Even if it's self-serving.
and
FISA designed to counter a different threat (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had the opportunity to study under a man that helped write the act, and while I haven't had a chance to discuss the recent developments with him, his view of FISA was that it was designed to serve a counter-intelligence role, but fails to be as useful against other threats.
Counter-Intelligence operations are fundamentally different from counter-terrorist operations. CI operations are much easier to predict, with relatively well understood actors, motives, and a much lower imminent risk to life and property. CI threats are relatively easy to pick out, relatively easy to understand. Of course, the most important word in this post is "relatively"...
Counter-terrorist operations are almost the polar opposite. Targets of foreign intelligence agencies are clear - they're after classified data and those that manage or handle it. The actors are clear - "diplomats", non-official cover officers, and Americans (in this case) with classified data. Targets of terrorists are not, as the focus of many of these groups is simply to kill as many people as possible by whatever means they can use. They don't care about classified data, they don't play games with diplomatic immunity. The actors could be foreign college students or home-grown California boys who decide to support the cause for reasons of their own, as we've seen recently.
Beyond simply acquiring data, FISA also allows for the prosecution of those who hand classified data to those who are not authorized to receive it by allowing evidence to enter into court without entering into the public record. FISA is an excellent tool for what it does. It's much more precise, limited, and focused on its threat.
Counter-terrorist operations require a wider approach - something of a "drag net" - for them to be successful. Pre-9/11 U.S. counter-terrorism was based largely on luck - case in point being the capture of the WTC '93 bombers, whose cell was unraveled because a member thereof just couldn't leave behind the deposit on his truck. More recent attacks should provide ample evidence that we can't fall back simply on luck any longer - we must be more active in preventing attacks rather than mopping up after them.
I think there is room for debate on this matter, and I do not believe that Benjamin Franklin quotes nor tradition should hold us from implementing laws we need to protect ourselves. Of course, this should occur within reasonable limits, in accordance with majority will and proportionate to the threat - which is growing and innovative itself - and without completely losing national character.
A quote I read recently sums up my position:
"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810, quoted from Terrorism Freedom and Security: Winning Without War, Heymann, MIT Press, 2003, pg. xi)
Of course, this view must be tempered - we must be careful about those means we do and do not sacrifice - but we also should not sacrifice our nation on the altar of law. There is a time for dogmatic adherence a time to take a more pragmatic view rooted in self-preservation. We should slip from the first to the last cautiously, infrequently, and with friction and great reservation. Yet sometimes, we must slip to survive and pursue our own self-preservation.
I thank you for your comment and for what it brings to this discussion.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists do not threaten your country in any way that could make you lose your country. Nor do they threaten your freedom.
Terrorists can only threaten the freedom of a very limited number of citizens, by taking them hostage and/or by killing them. That is the only thing terrorists can do. Their power is very limited.
Any other taking of freedom would be done by lawmakers, courts, officers of the law, intelligence agents, and so on, aided by media frenzy and scaremongers. They can threaten your freedom. Terrorists cannot.
Hmmm doesn't wash for online gambling etc... (Score:2)
Unfortunately it would seem that governments are pretty selective to get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... what?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
Does it specifically mention any specific "people"? No, because it applies to all people.
If your assertion is true, then there is nothing wrong with US troops in Berlin searching the homes of Ger
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. However, note that it specifically applies itself to tangible property that can be messed with or taken. There was no less spying or eavesdropping when the amendment was written, but the amendment is carefully addressing a distinct issue. Now I relize that
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
Re:U.S. citizen foreign national (Score:4, Insightful)
My turn to go, 'wait...what?'
If your assertion is true, then there is nothing wrong with US troops in Berlin searching the homes of German citizens. After all, the violation of rights occurs outside of American territory.
There IS nothing wrong, according to American Law with that scenario (assuming the order was given legally through the chain of command). The 4th Amendment to USCon does not protect German citizens in Berlin. What DOES protect the German citizens in Berlin is International Law (specifically the concept of National sovereignty), and also, incidentally, the German Military. I imagine that German law also looks down pretty poorly upon foreign armies executing searches on citizens in their country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the ones with dark skin, right? They were 3/5ths as equal, IIRC. Except for the natives. They get dick. Otherwise, sure. All men, created equal, just like you said.
Let us please remember that, for all its florid prose, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a propaganda tool to drum up support against an unpopular king an ocean away. Please don't forget that a shooting war of rebellion had already started with England nearly a year before at Concord and Lexington, and a guerilla 'terro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except, that's not true. The Bill of Rights DOES only apply to the people of the United States. (Note, I am not saying "citizens" of the United States.) This is absolutely clear, and true. The DoI is not law. It's a statement of principles. And it says that BECAUSE of the principle that all men are crea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're positing a false dichotemy, there. There's a lot of room in between "coming to America and leaving your entire identity and culture behind" and "coming to America and doing your best to make the local courts practice Sharia law" (as an example... a more mild example might be to change the centuries-long practice of presenting certain government documents and services in a single lang
illegal imigrants paying taxes (Score:3, Informative)
True, they aren't for everyone. They're for the people willing to pay the price of liberty and freedom, and those willing to take the responsibilities (like, say, taxes) that are part of that framework. For example, people who break the law, rather than taking their turn to immigrate, aren't exactly committing themselves to the responsibility side of the equation.
You've heard of those 12 million illegal immigrants I bet but I also bet you haven't heard that 8 million of them also pay income and social
Excuses, excuses! (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the excuse for everything. You name it, and some pro-security / anti-terrorism phrase will be tossed out, regardless of how irrelevant it factually is. Must be nice to have a bugaboo for all occasions.
Just another year and a month, folks. Just another year and a month.
This is good. (Score:5, Informative)
This is OK. Because this is no longer an urgent issue for Congress, the bill to legalize it probably won't make it through Congress before the election. Especially with the Republican leadership distracted by their pedophile problem. By the time this gets to court, either or both houses of Congress will be controlled by Democrats. Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.
Remember, Congress has the real power in the United States. It doesn't look like that when both houses are controlled by the party that has the White House, and party discipline is strong, but that's an unusual situation, and one about to end. The United States Government works better with some tension between Congress and the President; it keeps both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue from going off the deep end.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of people here are predicting this.
I predict the opposite. I predict the Republicans will retain control over both houses of Congress.
I predict this because despite the fact that awareness of the problems of electronic voting is higher now than ever before (keep in mind that awareness and caring are not the same thing), about 40% (cite [nytimes.com]
We have all been here before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Long Live Big Brother!
The Founding Fathers knew their stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
"Much of the strength and efficency of the government, in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on..the wisdom and integrity of its governors."
Benjamin Franklin
Speech in the Constitutional Convention at the Conclusion of Its Deliberations - Sept 17, 1787
A rather insightful individual I'd say.
All hail the Emperor (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id
Now. Are you all still not bothered about warrentless wiretaps and monitoring of US citizens?
Are YOUR conversations at all critical of the Emperor G?
Seriously, the gubbermint is broken. How can it be repaired?
Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. (Score:5, Insightful)
But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 99.8% chance of getting a warrant. If there's no time to waste, start tapping and you can file for a warrant (which in an emergency case can be approved within an hour) any time in the next 3 days. To those who support this program: What conceivable set of circumstances would simultaneously require so many resources that there isn't one intern left over to file a request sometime within the next 3 days marked "urgent" with an institution that rubber-stamps nearly every request that crosses it's path, yet also be totally unknown and not under any previous surveillance. Such a set's parameters are absurd: it doesn't exist. Bush's warrantless surveillance program is nonsense in this regard.
But debating the merits and usefulness of any such program is a moot point. The Fourth Amendment forbids any unreasonable search and any search not affirmed by a judge. The Bush administration refuses to provide evidence that the wiretaps are reasonable (instead insisting that we take it's word), and the fact that they are not affirmed by a judge is the whole point of the program. Therefore, this program is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment and any program or law contravening the Constitution, it's Amendments, or Treaties is illegal. End of debate, national security be damned. This is a nation of law, no matter what might be convenient, useful, or even life-saving. No one with even the foggiest clue what America is about petitions to destroy the 4th Amendment because it would be a great help to other criminal investigations (and hell yes it would be more convenient and efficient to not have to deal with judges and evidence beforehand), yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear. That is wrong, and history provides abundant evidence why.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how you're leaving out the fact that the leading figures in the party that bitterly dislikes him also say we need this. At least be honest - it gives you a better shot at being credible.
But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 9
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You suspect incorrectly.
The most recent "liquid explosives on a plane" threat was halted through good old fashioned British Police work.
Yes. That, and overseas eavesdropping and counter-terrorism intel from people in several other countries, backed up by more communcations monitoring. The arrests, involving UK nationals on their soil, absolutely were best handled in a law enforcemen
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't reinforce the fraud that national security is an issue here.
During the Cold War the USSR had spies in the US, their own US political party, and thousands of nuclear ICBMs half an hour from deleting the US from history. We won that conflict with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intact.
What we're doing now is more on the scale of suppressing the Barbary Pirates (who, remember, destroyed entire cities).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah? I read it was 99.99% in another post. Now I'm all confused. ;-) Exactly what kind of evidence do you think is going to get you a FISA warrant??? Evidence that the person on the phone belongs to Al Qaeda? There's no law against belonging to Al Qaeda. Seriously,
This is not America... (Score:2, Insightful)
Way to go mods. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words (Score:3, Insightful)
It's so unconstitutional that the appeals court is going to rule that
As If This Is A New Concern? (Score:2, Insightful)
I only think that in today's age of technology, political correctness, and softness that it has actually been dragged out into the public for debate, whereas in the past it was simply done when it was deemed necessary, and no one questioned it.
Of course, the fear is that the power will be abused. In some cases it will.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretentiously. As in they're pretending to be shocked and surprised to trick paranoid folks into thinking Karl Rove is listening to their thoughts. He won't stop until he's rounded up you and all your friends and waterboraded you at camp X-ray for wearing that Che Guevara shirt when you were 17.
Political Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
you are on Slashdot, but you aren't a conservative (Score:2)
Am I the only conservative on Slashdot who actually believes in limited government and the rule of law? Warrants are nothing more than oversight, a part of the checks and balances system to guard against abuse of power. No one left, right, or center, has opined that the President should not authorize surveillance. The issue is not whether or not the government taps phone calls, but whether or not they need a warr
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with going ahead and doing the surveillance, but getting a warrant for it too? It's not like we don't already have a procedure already set up for the specific purpose of rubberstamping warrants. The FISA court has approved 99.8% of all warrant requests - if they are going after a suspected terrorist they should have no problem getting a warrant under the c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a "lefty" post - I'm probably closer to a libertarian than anything else, and when it comes to my views on stuff like gun control I imagine that I'd make most right-wingers look like card-carrying members of the Brady bunch.
I just don't have the unconditional (and provably unwarranted) faith in government, be it either Democrat or GOP, that a lot of aforementioned right-wingers do, and I also look at the number of people that died in the 9/1
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, as far as I'm concerned, they already won. Look at you, quaking in your piss soaked boots. OMG TERRORISTS ARE IN THE SHRUBS OUT FRONT! Oh, wait. That's the neightbor's cat. I HOPE IT'S NOT PLOTTING AGAINST AMERICA.
It's people like you who are freaking out over NOTHING. 3,000(ish) died on 9/11? How many other's died that same day from preventable accidents going to work, at work, and coming home?
Kinda biased post (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the argument here is that cangress cannot make a law that limits constitutional authority granted to the executive branch, this would require amending the constitution. As I put it, they make a much better argument than I. However, I was just hopeing to put this in perspective
Re: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.
Simply Discussing This.. (Score:3, Insightful)
GWB (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the amount of anti-Bush feeling on this site, I would guess that anybody who expresses such sentiments is open to accusations of siding with terrorism. And your govt. is giving him the tools he needs to back it up.
BTW, if the US became a fascist dictatorship, and there was a popular uprising against it, you do realise that you would all be terrorists ?
Then what you gonna do ?
I guess you can't wrest control of the country from the dictator without breaking the law, so are you just going to give up ?
The law is supposed to be by the will of the people, not against the people.
Government sponsored FUD is also terrorism, just at a more insidious level.
Imagine if "national security" excuse used in 1775 (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amusing how caselaw inserts weird things into our laws. In this case, it's being argued that
has an implicit "unless the violators say 'national security' is involved."
Go back in your mind to 1789 when the words were written. People had their former unhappiness with King George's rule on their mind, and didn't like how officials would just barge in and do whatever the hell they wanted without any court oversight. The framers didn't want people like Sam Adams or Thomas Paine to be unfairly harassed without due process. Do you think they really intended for it to be ok for the British to spy on colonists without a court order, as long as the magic words "national security" were used as a justification later? Everything the revolutionaries did was counter to British "national security" since it threatened to get the colonies to break away -- and protecting those actions is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do.
The words are clear (there is not a list of arbitrary exceptions enumerated, such as "national security" or "if foreigners are involved somehow, even if indirectly") and the intent is pretty obvious too. And yet, caselaw has amended the 4th amendment, all without that pesky and inconvenient constitutional amendment process.
"But.. but.. the constitution says the Executive has the authority to--" The 4th amendment overrides that. That's why it's called an amendment. Amendments change constitutional law, see? That's why I'm not allowed to own slaves, why Congress is allowed to collect income tax, etc. If you want to legalize what the White House is doing, you need another amendment that makes exceptions to the 4th. Perhaps you can make a good argument for why it's a bad idea for the 4th Amendment to be as broad as it is -- maybe national security exceptions are really a good idea -- but there is an established process for changing the law. Follow it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i call flaimbait on ur ass!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if it became illegal to have blue eyes? To be left-handed? To have a black or Jewish grandparent?
It's a big deal. Trust me.
touche (Score:5, Insightful)
If I've got nothing to hide, why do they need to watch me?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone said here http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/13 32207&tid=217 [slashdot.org]
The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment is a thin, old piece of paper and people's willingness to uphold the words written on it. Please don't be under the mistaken assumption that innocence will protect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was ruled unconstitutional because it violates the 4th Amendment rights of the American citizen on the other end of the line. The ruling doesn't protect the foreign participant; it protects the US citizen.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong please but that's my understanding.
That's not the purpose of a constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the purpose of a constitution. A constitution doesn't grant rights to the people or offer them protection. And it isn't something that can be "enforced" on people, citizen or not.
The one and only purpose of a constitution is to set limits on the power of the government.
Read one, sometime. Ours, for example. The whole thing is a mass of "this branch of government may not do so and so, except in these very special circumstances" and "this branch of government is required to do thus and so".
Why?
Because the founders of constitutional governments are almost uniformly recent survivors of abuses of government authority. King George's belief that he could do anything he felt like (the equivalent, in his day, of the unitary executive, or the "If the president does it it isn't illegal" school of thought) did not sit well at all with our founding fathers.
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, we enforce the Constitution against foreigners all the time. E.g., we don't let them become President, and we make them become citizens and live in the country 7 years (or something like that) before becoming Senators. Not sure what else in the Constitution you can enforce on an individual, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a set of laws to "enforce" on people. It's got two halves. One says what the government CAN do, the other reiterates "these ten rights should never be violated no matters what the first half says". It then concludes by saying the government cannot do anything it has not been given the power to do in the document.
I, for one, would love to see more enforcing of Due Process, Right to a Speedy Trial, and Freedom of Speech.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
- Twi
Re: (Score:2)
FISC doesn't handle lawsuits, frivolous or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Where do you people come from? I mean, I've made some bone-headed statements in my life, but I do generally try to research something before I spew it forth.
Being wrong is one thing--everyone makes mistakes--but to say that frivolous lawsuits are hampering the war on terror, causing the Executive Branch to jettison the need for warrants altogether, is so far in left (by that I mean right) field that I must infer that you really are a space alien.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How the hell would you know? Oh, YOU MUST KNOW MAGIC!!
It really is the 5th branch of government, magic. When the other 4 branches fail us, magic lets us know that things are being done properly. Did you get one of the pointy hats?
Re: (Score:2)
Um... I think you're thinking of the 4 branches of the military. There are 3 branches of the government.
Re:Don't leave things out (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time. "
How could you possibly know that? How could you possibly know that?
Are the men who run these programs infallible? They never make a mistake?
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
- James Madison, Federalist #51 [constitution.org]
Re:Don't leave things out (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because FISA is only for warrants, and warrants are only for formalizing probable cause of a crime. And spying on Al Qaeda has nothing to do with prosecuting crime, it has do to with national security. If Joe Al Qaeda (sorry, Muhammad Al Qaeda) is on the phone, and the CIA doesn't have probable cause of him having committed a crime, that should h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the program as currently being worked is designed to take into account the fact that a standard wire tap has about ZERO chance of truly getting a grip on the communications between people using tangled webs of multiple disposable Trac phones, etc. You have to rack up patterns of calls, and then when you get intel (from any number of sour
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that if the US had a reasonable foreign policy that took into account how the rest of the world actually operates instead of just the political and financial interests of those who pay for campaigns, there would probably be quite a bit less to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Intelligence agencies SHOULD have a lot of leeway when investigating something legitimate. If that leeway is allowed to extend to activities intended to benefit the party in
Re: (Score:2)
The *legal* wiretaps happen when there's probable cause. Ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant to record calls with a terrorist, and ye shall receive. Quote about that court: "I was shocked
The program under discussion here is an indiscriminate sweep that harms national security [schneier.com], a
Finally, omniscience arrives (Score:2)
Why is there evil in the world, and what's up with that duck-billed platypus? Was that just a joke, or were you pulling our leg on that one?
Or... well, now that I think about it, I feel a bit sheepish. Is it
Re: (Score:2)
And it wasn't even coffee!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting so tired of that quote. I'm pretty sure even Franklin didn't advocate throwing security to the wind.
Oh, and if you ever expect people to take you seriously in these kinds of discussions, you're going to have to learn how to spell "fascist".
have faith--they're out there (Score:3, Funny)