Two Groups File Domestic Spying Lawsuits 770
An anonymous reader writes "The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU both recently filed lawsuits, in New York and Detroit respectively, claiming that President Bush's electronic eavsdropping program is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers. From the article: 'The Detroit [ACLU] lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs' ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.'
Domestic Intelligence wiretaps YOU (Score:3, Interesting)
We're a long way from 1776, people.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
My goodness. It seems you are suggesting the (us) government is not getting carried away, while they are, in fact, already carried all the way.
There is hope (Score:3, Interesting)
That was fiction. Get out while you still can.
An interesting point (Score:3, Interesting)
An interesting point (which the article missed) is that people like Christopher Hitchens, ex-critics who have yet who have yet been defending Bush and the "regime change/WMD quest/freedom spreading/think of the children/over there, not here" war are joining the suit [aclu.org].
--MarkusQ
Its Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
If you guessed Bush, 2004, and Gonzales, try again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
So, they champion my rights under the Second Amendment to keep a firearm? I don't think so. And, amongst all the rights, that one is perhaps the most fundamental because it gives us a fighting chance to stop the government of absolutely alienating us from the remainder of our rights. Perhaps that is why dictatorships like to seize privately owned firearms.
Of course, the great debate is whether the Amendment is individual or corporate (i.e. militia). One good arguement I've heard is that the Bill of Rights were added on to explicitly provide for rights that were not clearly stated in the Constitution. All Amendments except the second have been argued by everybody as being individual. So, if nine are individual, then why would the second not be? And, the other nine deal with stemming the excesses of Government against the individual--which is the very issue raised here with the wiretap lawsuit. Wouldn't the private ownership of firearms also serve in that capacity?
My point is that the ACLU has done little to protect an individual's right to firearms. IIRC, they tend to actually work against that right. Hell, it was founded by Socialists with the intent of expanding their cause.
Strange bedfellows... (Score:4, Interesting)
First you have greenpeace which is afraid that its fellow members in ELF [adl.org] are bein listened in on.
Then you have Council on American-Islamic Relations [militantislammonitor.org] who has said that terrorist suspects should have unlimited access to thier supporters back home.
There are plenty of worthwhile groups that looking into wiretapping and if it was legal, this lawsuit is not going to do anything. The only reason for the ACLU to do it is for the publicity; after all it is coming up to 1 year when they filed a suit saying that the US Government has no right to pick up and deport illegal aliens.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the latest talking point about physical searches during the Clinton administration, remember that was before FISA required warrants for physical searches. That provision was not inserted until the PATRIOT Act. I'm not saying Clinton was entirely without fault, but attempting to smear him certainly does not clear Bush.
If you think that there are only around 36 phone calls that were tapped you're seriously deluded. We're talking around 500 "individuals" monitored per day. Even if each of those persons only made one phone call that's more than 500,000 calls that have been monitored. Stop drinking the kool aid and start thinking for yourself. This administration is destroying this country. Don't help them do it.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:4, Interesting)
The NRA has something like 10x the operating budget of the ACLU. So even if the ALCU's position on the issue was "liberal" (supporting gun rights above and beyond the literal wording of the constitution), the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be smart place to spend their resources. I covered all bases by joining both organizations.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd sure like to know what you're basing your "relatively small part of the population" claim on. Either you're in-the-know and revealing classified information which, as the President has said, is an extremely damaging thing, or you're just guessing that only a "relatively small part of the population" has been affected by the President's blatant dereliction of his sworn duty to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Civil Liberty cases and Funding (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's not really true... (Score:4, Interesting)
actually, the prohibition does apply to the states, thanks to the 14th amendment.
In other matters, such as the Second Amendment, they argue against civil liberties in opposition to the clear wording and intent ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), by arguing it somehow doesn't recognize an individual right.
which is consistent with decades of SCOTUS decisions. it aint a winner, and the ACLU knows it.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:5, Interesting)
and america was founded by hardcore slaveowners. what's your point?
Wow, talk about alarmist (Score:3, Interesting)
Much Ado About Nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, this case will be thrown out for lack of standing. The ACLU is arguing that a hypothetical harm may have occurred. There's no evidence that Hitchens, Diamond, or anyone else was actually subject to an intercept - and furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation. No doubt the Pakistanis, Saudis, Iranians, etc, don't give two shits about who they wiretap - any conversations taking place in such a regime are very likely to have been tapped on the other end.
The other reason why this whole affair is deeply idiotic is that everyone's going off half-cocked over a series of hypothetical situations. Nobody outside the NSA, a few members of Congress, and some in the Administration know the true depth and scale of this program. What Russell Tice described sounds much more like Echelon, which has been in operation for somewhere around a decade. What we have been told is that this program only applies in scenarios where one end of the communication is foreign. So long as that is true, it falls under the Executive's wartime authorities under the Constitution. Remember, Congress was briefed on this program. Congress has the right to terminate the program by simply cutting the NSA's budget and the Administration couldn't do much to stop them.
Here's the other big problem: the Fourth Amendment prevents "unreasonable" searched and seizures without "probable cause." Exactly what is "unreasonable" about these intercepts - if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation - regardless if the other end is in Kandahar or Kansas.
We're facing an enemy that has already planted sleeper cells within the United States and has the avowed objective of killing as many Americans as they can. After 9/11 there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we didn't "put the dots together" - and now once the government finally tries to do just that, there's even more wailing and gnashing of teeth. The 9/11 Commission Report specifically singled out FISA as being inefficient and simply too slow to provide actionable intelligence. The 72 hour exemption means that unless the FISA Court could provide a warrant within that time period, the government would have to stop at hour 73 even if that means losing valuable intelligence.
There's nothing wrong with a strong stand on civil liberties. However, civil libertarians aren't going to be taken seriously until they realize that there is a threat out there, and our law enforcement and military need tools that can prevent an attack like 9/11 - or something worse. They have to realize that for the majority of Americans, the idea that the government might intercept their conversations if they're talking to someone abroad suspected of being an al-Qaeda associate isn't a particularly big worry for them. Going about half-cocked and crying wolf over and over again isn't persuasive - if anything it's only going to cement the idea in many American's heads that groups like the ACLU are altogether unconcerned with protecting this nation against another terrorist attack.
Re:Breaking the law for the sake of security? (Score:3, Interesting)
... and other no-bid contracts. Once a week, the Washington Post lists all of the federal contracts awarded the previous week, and almost invariably, KBR is listed as getting at least one more $10M contract (sometimes up to five in one week). IIRC, prior to this administration assuming power, KBR had no federal contracts. I'm sure that Cheney's "deferred compensation" has absolutely nothing to do with this.
s/one of//;
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:4, Interesting)
Best article I've seen on the subject... (Score:3, Interesting)
"It reminds me of the ongoing case of the vapors contracted by much of the media and by other critics of President Bush's program of spying on "certain Americans." That's how Dan Abrams of MSNBC, for one, refers to a handful of people who are allegedly on al Qaeda's speed dial and have been in contact with terrorists overseas: "certain Americans."
"Gosh," the average viewer might say, "I'm a certain American!"
If one paid only casual attention to the news these days, one would get the sense that Bush has a big stack of phone books in the Oval Office, and he and Dick Cheney spend their days thumbing through them to find "certain Americans" to wiretap.
"Joe Smith?" says Cheney, rubbing his hands together as if over a fine meal. "Man, he's gotta qualify as a certain American. Let's listen to his conversation with his wife."
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
Now I'm beginning to think this is just the latest in anti-Bush hype. The New York Times, which launched this "scandal," remains at journalistic DEFCON 1, releasing a stream of articles, editorials, and Op-Ed articles as if the nation were up in arms over what some hotter heads believe to be an impeachable offense. (A writer for Newsweek.com raises the possibility that the NSA wiretapping is a prelude to right-wing death squads in the U.S.) James Risen, the reporter who uncovered the spying program and has a book on the "secret history" of Bush's antiterrorism efforts, sounds like he's already cleared space on his mantle for his Pulitzer, Profile in Courage, and Nobel prizes."
The rest of the article - and it is a great one - is availible here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg20
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
Following years of supreme court decisions upholding gun control laws, it is plausible to say that the right to bear arms is not absolute. That is the position the ACLU takes on the issue. I personally oppose most gun control laws, though not from a rights stance, rather from a practicality and harm-reduction stance.
Contrast this with years of supreme court decisions upholding free speech. Again, the right isn't absolute (see the go-to example of yelling fire in a burning building), but it is far more established in legal precedent. Accordingly, the ACLU is a strong supporter of this established legal right.
Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.
Now that's just silly. Last I heard the job of ending racism fell to groups like the Anti-Defimation League. As a matter of fact, the ACLU frequently defends racists (mostly white, might I add) and their right to use racist speech. They also defend anti-discrimination laws which, while you may find them overreaching and of questionable legality, are designed to protect the rights of certain minorities.Listen, I think the ACLU overreaches frequently, but their purpose and goals are nobel, even if their execution is less than perfect. In my experience, ACLU haters are generally NRA members and Christian zealots whose interpretation of rights offered by the constitution differs from the ACLU. This hardly makes them left wing.
Taft
Read the associated docs BEFORE SPOUTING! (Score:1, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I dislike the current administration as much as anyone else, but...
I feel reasonably confident in stating that most
Personally, I have to admit that I didn't read them until yesterday. If you do want to read them, plan quite a bit of time because they are very long and dry reading.
In any case, I was quite suprised by some of the content. You might be too, or not, give it a try!
2cent
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
For example... you and you family can sit down at a picnic table in Yellowstone National Park and say a pre-meal prayer. However.. if you are a park ranger at Yellowstone, employed by the U.S. Government and acting as an agent of the U.S. Government, you cannot erect a manger scene at the same picnic table.
That would be you.. as a proxy of the government... endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. This violates the first amendment.
and if you can't see the difference between those two situations, you're not smart enough to continue in this discussion.
Re:Why I Love the ACLU (Score:1, Interesting)
- No. If any religious group has access to a government facility, they all do, or none does. If any one is invited to express religiously in a government meeting, they all are, or none.
Before I'm called some evil Christian, I am a pagan and ACLU does concern me, alot.
Now then, where the F was the ACLU when the Clinton Admin was conducting physical searches without warrants?
- Citation? Did you do research?
Where was the ACLU during the Clinton Admin when they were doing 100% domestic phone taps in Federal Projects?
- Again, citation? Did you research whether the ACLU did anything or had any grounds for doing anything?
Where was the ACLU during the Ruby Ridge or Waco?
- The ACLU has no grounds for making any sort of legal move regarding Ruby Ridge or Waco; You are quickly evidencing that you do not understand the function of the ACLU, nor how our legal system works.
Where was ACLU when Echelon (talk about lack of search warrants and a invasion of privacy) was uncovered?
- ECHELON is still a classified top-secret unacknowledged programme, as is DICTIONARY; The
Oh silly me, that was a Democrat in the White House and it was us silly conservatives complaining. This is clearly a "Get Bush!" thing.
- Bush, who personally believes that you're sub-human scum because you're not his brand of Christian, whose ex-presidential daddy believes you should have your citizenship and civil rights stripped because you're not his brand of Christian? And do you actually expect us to believe your implication that you are both "pagan" and a social conservative? Surely if you're a fiscal conservative and feel the need to somehow be loyal to or defend Bush's actions, you're poorly informed and educated - and this isn't even a fiscal issue we're discussing.
Back on subject, if the thought that ~36 authorizations of international phone calls were tapped after significant concern about terrorism was called in bothers you, then you have some bigger issues. This is about international intelligence gathering and not the US Gov using "poisoned fruit" evidence in a criminal trial of a US citizen.
- This is about the chilling of freedom of speech and action. The authors and journalists who joined the lawsuit frequently mention that fact in their statements - the chilling of their speech, expression, and the free pursuit of their necessary functions in a free and civilised society. This is not about 'signifcant concern about terrorism' - The FISA court would have rubber-stamped anything that was a significant concern of terrorism. Bush made an end-run around the Congress, rule of law, Constitution, and civil liberties specifically because he knew that the causes, people, and orgs he's spying on cannot be significantly nor reasonably tied to 'terrorism'. The NSA is spying on a pacifist group in Baltimore! It's about the line that he should never cross, but has.
- Please, please, please, for the love of whatever you call holy, right, or good, PLEASE - Do NOT hold nor espouse strong opinions about things you do not understand. You're pissing away your own civil rights and the civil rights of those around you, with weak appeals to underdog status and weak arguments and incorrect facts. PLEASE educate yourself.
Civilians? (Score:4, Interesting)
There are also a lot of people who are, frankly, pissed off at the government. Pissed off that they've been taken from a duty that was supposedly in-country only, and shipped off to fight in a war elsewhere. Pissed off that when their stint was over, they're still stuck in another country, getting shot at, watching friends die, and fighting in that war. The are seperated from their wives, children, and family.
They're pissed off, and... trained in the use of weapons ranging from machine-guns to sniper-rifles to demolitions.
Personally, I don't think it will be a civilian that takes the first big mark against the government. I think it will be one of their own poorly-treated military personnel.
The Law Has Been Broken (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that the President has confessed to the act (if not the crime) of warrantless domestic spying, the only thing left to do is apply the due process set forth in the Constitution and let Justice be served. A lawsuit is a fine thing to have, but it doesn't address the issue that concerns so many US citizens. A message needs to be sent to this administration (and all future administrations) that they are not above the law and specifically that warrantless domestic spying will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately for us, it is understandably difficult to impeach a president from your own party. This particular congress has been especially lax in its duty to keep the president in check. The only realistic way to achieve Justice would be to start voting in congresspeople with the backbone to stand up for their constituents against a misguided administration.
We don't need a lawsuit; we need Justice.
Re:Defending liberty (Score:3, Interesting)
The people talking to evildoers are still innocent, they have not been to trial and convicted. We are talking about gathering evidence against them and the legality of evidence.
I personally think that talking to an evildoer in another country is evidence enough to justify a warrant for wiretapping.
This is also enough to use the second clause of FISA that allows warrantless wiretaps with approval of the AG. This is the agent of a foreign power exception, the same one Clinton used to justify his warrantless wiretaps.
And there was legal oversight, members of congress were briefed every 15 days I believe. FISA requires notification every 100 days.
And I personally think that talking to anyone in an evildoer country justifies a wiretap, not just if you call Osama's cell phone. You could be calling Osama's dog walker, who would relate the message. They apparently are only looking at 500 people of interest in the US, so it is not every caller to Iran/Iraq/Pakistan.