Wiretapping Program Ruled Legal 575
BuhDuh writes "The New York Times is carrying a story concerning that well known bastion of legal authority, the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance' court, which has ruled that the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program was perfectly legal. It says, 'A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans' private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.'"
Why not? (Score:1, Interesting)
If the warrants can be issued retroactively, then there is really no point in getting the order except as some sort of CYA. The damage has already been done, so it's nothing more than a rubber stamp.
If you're going to set the system up that way, why don't you cut out the whole dog and pony show and just allow intelligence agencies carte blanche. The result is the same, and it saves money.
Sweet (Score:3, Interesting)
So the FISA court just ruled itself irrelevant?
Re:FISA isn't Constitutional (Score:3, Interesting)
They can rule all they want. (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not the one hearing the class action cases. They're also not the supreme court.
They can say anything they want, but, while they have authority to issue warrants, they are by no means the final authority on the interpretation of law in regards to the constitution.
That would be the USSC.
Re:Motherfucking son of bitch. (Score:5, Interesting)
You leave out the interesting case where the person abroad is a foreign correspondent for an American news agency. Its been established by whistle blowers that journalists have been a particular target of this eavesdropping, along with aid workers. You are in fact trampling freedom of the press if you let the government read and listen to all the emails and phone calls of a journalists without a warrant. It allows the government to immediately identify all of the journalists sources unless the contact is only made face to face which is pretty constraining. It places an immediate chilling effect on an independent press and on anyone telling a journalist anything. This is a big plus for the government and military which would prefer the public not know about all their dirty laundry.
Re:Cairo (Score:4, Interesting)
My biggest issue with this is domestic internet communication is semi-routinely routed through other countries and the eavesdropping program has no way to tell whether the 4th amendment is being violated.
Basically, the court just gave permission to the NSA to dragnet anything they want without a warrant so long as they can demonstrate there is a possibility that the communication was to or from a foreigner.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the warrants can be issued retroactively, then there is really no point in getting the order except as some sort of CYA.
Getting the warrant allows the evidence to be used in court. No warrant - no evidence. At least until yesterday [guardian.co.uk].
Re:Cairo (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the Constitution only means what the courts decide it means, and for right now at least, the courts seem to be taking a less strict interpretation than I'd like.
You are totally mistaken (Score:2, Interesting)
" The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."
Despite there being Slavery at the founding of The American Government.
Despite everyone NOT having the same rights at the founding of the American Government (women couldn't vote for example).
Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.
Now, don't presume that I disagree with the idea that equality is universal, but your claims about it being historically true in respect to the American Government are unequivocally false.
Re:Since When Was It Legal (Score:4, Interesting)
The common mythology, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is some sort of backstop against an unjust government from taking over, has little historical basis. Like the rest of the Amendments, it was written for a pratcial purpose, not an esoteric one.
That practial purpose was: It protected the interests of the slave states by explicity granting them the right to use the tools (firearms) necessary to maintain their economic interests (slavery).
The common mythology, that the Second Amendment is intended to protect from tyrrany, is turned on its head when looked at from the slave's point of view.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting the Founding Fathers would have banned private ownership of guns in the absence of slavery. But the individual's right to bear arms is specifically carved out in the Constitution to protect the interests of the slave states.
Look at the language of the Second Amendment itself. Ask yourself "What did a militia do 200 years ago?" One of the things they did was put down slave uprisings.
Re:Cairo (Score:2, Interesting)
How much Franklin have you read? Those adjectives strike me as descriptive of the basic natures of liberty (always essential) and security (always temporary), not subjective qualifiers which imply Franklin's OK with giving up luxurious liberty for permanent security. Do you also read the Second Amendment as only requiring that States be allowed to form well-organized militias in representation of the people?
Re:Egypt has never been a democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
And what hate freedom, right wing source gave you that information? "We" have only had the apparatus to conduct large-scale surveillance since approximately World War II.
i'm going to take an unpopular stand (Score:0, Interesting)
if you put someting out on a wire, you are sacrificing your privacy, no matter what the law says
frankly, i don't understand the slashdot attitude that expects the government to protect your privacy
its YOUR responsibility to protect your privacy
on other topics, such as users with weak passwords, who complain about convenience, plenty here would be ready to scold the user saying that they need to make the extra effort to ensure their security
why can't you see the parallel?
look: it is possible for all sorts of people to spy on anything you put out on a wire, from well placed hackers, to corporate drones at telecommunications company, to yes, the government
in other words: you put it out on the wire. which means you implicitly gave up your right to privacy right at that moment, no matter what the legal environment, if you understand anything about how the internet works, which, on a forum like slashdot, should be de rigeur
if you have something to say that needs to be private, encrypt, or go walk on a secluded beach somewhere with a pounding surf to interrupt the guys with the telescoping microphones
and if this is too much work for you, if you think it is unfair to impose this extra burden on you to enforce your own privacy, then you really don't understand, philosphically, what the concept of privacy really is
doesn't it strike a lot of you as absurd that you are explicitly asking the GOVERNMENT to protect your privacy for you?
Summary is imprecise. (Score:3, Interesting)
As of 2007, the NSA program is perfectly legal, accoring to the court. It does not necessarily mean that the program has always been legal. In fact, it's pretty likely that it violated a number of statues, and that's what's technically important here.
The powers of the President to wage war and to protect national security are subject to Congressional oversight and regulation. While most people are aware that the Constitution names the President "Commander in Chief", the powers granted to him are significantly less than those of a military dictator, even with respect to the policy and management of the military. For example officer commissions are approved by the senate Although this is largely a pro forma affair. Indeed every aspect of running and employing the military is subject to Congressional regulation.
This is important because in US Constitutional law, there is no explicit right of personal privacy, and the exact extent of the implicit right of privacy (under the Ninth Amendment) is not perfectly clear. If the Executive Branch is empowered to do something, that means it is up to Congress to see to it that it does not violate the Ninth Amendment.
It is largely due to Congress's power regulate Executive functions that we have many restrictions on wiretapping at all. While the reach of the Fourth Amendment has been considerably widened by court opinions in the 20th Century (e.g., Katz v. US) for criminal investigation, intelligence investigation inherently requires a violation of the "expectation of privacy", something that Katz says can only be done with a warrant in criminal cases.
So, if Congress says the President can intercept phone calls for intelligence purposes, it seems probable that this will be treated by the courts as constitutional. If that's not the case, it is Congress that has failed in its duty to safeguard Americans from the Executive Branch.
Re:Cairo (Score:2, Interesting)
Once you start hanging around disguised in civilian crowds and using guerrilla warfare, all bets are off.
That depends which version of the Geneva Conventions you're referring to.
The full modern version of the Geneva Conventions, which include the protocols of 1977, only require that combatants be distinguishable from civilians (and not necessarily even with official uniforms) when they are actively engaged in combat. A subtle point, IRC raised by the Canadians, is whether combatants need to be distinguishable from civilians while traveling to combat (but not yet engaged in combat).
Of course, the USA was paying warlords and bounty hunters to kidnap random people in Iraq and Afghanistan and the USA was then torturing these kidnap victims into confessing to being terrorists and sending them to Guantanamo. A few of the people at Guantanamo are actually people who were carrying out attacks on the USA but most just got swept up in the random kidnappings and tortured into confession.
A few innocent people even got tortured so severely that they died ("tortured to death"). There are some documentaries out now if you're interested; "Taxi to the Dark Side", for example.
Kidnapping innocent people in the country that you're occupying and torturing them to death isn't exactly condoned by the Geneva conventions, by the way.
Re:Egypt has never been a democracy (Score:4, Interesting)
I traveled to Egypt to gather colloquial Arabic footage for some online courses. It was a good time, but the "security" issues and the corruption of the local officials was on par with Subsaharan Africa countries.
However, there was a great difference in the freedom of speech category. For example, we were filming in a private household and each family member was taking turns telling jokes. (Like "Wahid saiidi fahim wemaat!") Everything went fine until the ten-year-old son started his joke...
"Al ra-ees Mubarak..." [President Mubarak...]
At which point his father flew to his feet, commanded us to turn of the camera, and took his son in the other room for a talk.
Until Americans are afraid to go on camera with a joke about their president, we're nowhere near Egypt.
Re:Cairo (Score:4, Interesting)
If while on vacation I knowingly AND willingly attempted to kill innocent people, I would expect to be thrown into a hole.
And, by extension of the kinds of policies I expect you advocate, if you are accused of knowingly and willingly attempting to kill innocent people, you would expect to be thrown into a hole.
As you say, there's a chance you might get released at some point. Much less of one, mind you, since you're denied fair trial and such, but hey, you're not a citizen, why should you get any such special treatment like due process, right?
Re:Cairo (Score:3, Interesting)
This [state.gov] page outlines American concerns better than I can. These points stick out in my mind although the other ones seem equally legitimate:
* We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
* Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case, the ICC prosecutor, with the approval of two judges from a three-judge panel, could still decide to initiate an ICC investigation or prosecution.
* Such a decision by the ICC prosecutor would not be inconceivable. Features of the U.S. common law system, U.S. constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the U.S. jury system are different than those that apply in most other countries. ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.
* The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.
Re:Cairo (Score:3, Interesting)