ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging FISA

Wired's Threat Level blog reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Recently passed by both the House and Senate, FISA was signed into law on Thursday by President Bush. The ACLU has fought aspects of FISA in the past. The new complaint (PDF) alleges the following: "The law challenged here supplies none of the safeguards that the Constitution demands. It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents without identifying the people to be surveilled; without specifying the facilities, places, premises, or property to be monitored; without observing meaningful limitations on the retention, analysis, and dissemination of acquired information; without obtaining individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; and, indeed, without even making prior administrative determinations that the targets of surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism."

Interesting...

... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

Re:Interesting...

Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.

Re:Interesting...

Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.

As a registered Republican who's disgusted with the New Aged GOP, I was fully planning on voting for Obama in November until this vote. I chatted with a pro-DFLer who is a huge Obama supporter and told him my change and why. You know what he said? He told me that because Obama is now the candidate he has to make sure he has support from both sides. Ugh. I'm not sure how you can support both sides when you vote for this intrusion and retroactive law. I just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.

I cannot vote for any candidate that voted in favor of this and now I'm not sure what to do. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of two evils as they both are. I have lost what tiny little bit of faith that still remained following the failure of Congress/Senate and our fear-creating leader.

The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

Re:Interesting...

The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.

Re:Interesting...

just can't understand how they can uphold the Constitution (as required by them being elected to office by the people) when they vote for a law that goes against it.

Because it's easier to get elected when you promise to give handouts, take action, tax the rich, etc, instead of trying to get elected on the position that you're going to eliminate the special interest benefits, shrink government, and lower taxes. People always want the Government to serve their special interests, but no one else's. This is one of the reasons why our Government has grown so large. Another reason is that we have forgotten the tyranny and oppression that in inevitable when the government controls close to 40% of the nation's income and when our rights are slowly being eliminated and put into the hands of a few powerful people at the top. "It's for your own good" they tell us. "We need to take away your rights to protect you from the terrorists." I must ask why is it not possible to both protect us from the terrorists (a proper role of government) and grant us our rights? The reason is that big government precedents have already been set which allow the government to get away with these kinds of shenanigans.

Re:Interesting...

...and grant us our rights?

...and PROTECT AND DEFEND our rights?

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Interesting...

You've just cited the reason why Obama is very likely to lose in November - he isn't perfect. The people who began as excited about participating in politics and voting, no longer are.

Therefore instead of getting someone who minced words on FISA, and ended up voting unhappily for it, we're going to get someone who is enthusiastic for it.

Besides - there is one way Bush can deliver the November election to McCain - attack Iran. I have this funny feeling that if the nation is going to war, there's no way they will vote for Obama over McCain. If we're at the brink of war, people would likely vote for Obama over McCain, in order to reasonably pull us back. But if we're there, look for McCain to win. Look for an October attack on Iran. (Or - this President would NEVER use any of the government institutions for a purely political reason, would he?) (Note: that's sarcasm.)

Re:Interesting...

There is still a way to change this through the democratic system. But it requires people to actively vote for independent candidates; and to actively research the people running for office. Instead of thinking that you can only vote for democrats or republican. There are other parties out there, they are small, but if people are able to disengage themselves from the dogma of the two party system; perhaps things can change.

Re:Interesting...

The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.

And that, ladies gentlemen and geek masses, is just one reason why the "...to overthrow the government if they turn into a tyranny!" argument in support of the 2nd Amendment is baloney. Try it and see whether the general public see you as a terrorist or a patriot. Have you planned what you'd like for your last meal? (Oh yeah, and even if you DID somehow manage to raise a large, angry mob of enraged disenchanted ex-mainstreamers, how well d'you think you'd do against a modern military? Hmmmm, I suppose if the numbers were that great there'd be a split in the military as well as the general public. Sounds like a good recipe for some dystopian near-term future fiction [wikipedia.org] to me!) (Note -- I'm not saying there are no other arguments in favour of the 2nd amendment, just that that one, which was the original intent of the framers, doesn't wash any more.)

Re:Interesting...

Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?

No. I don't know three people that know FISA from Adam's Housecat. And of the two I DO know, neither thinks it's nearly so important as how many times the Mayor of Mandeville is going to get a free pass on his drunken driving.

Hate to break it to you, but most of America has been impacted by the anti-terror legislation not even the slightest. And thus has little reason to really care about it....

Re:Interesting...

They've been impacted by it, they just don't realize it yet.

Re:Interesting...

I am not an American citizen. I have never even visited America, not a single part of it. Yet I am seriously affected by the US anti-terror legislations, primarily through air travel. All these travel restrictions largely originate in USA (and their colony, the UK). Either directly, or indirectly (I consider the USA as one of the main causes of terrorism - which I loosely define as "violent attacks on civilian targets not taking place in a war zone").

Also the enormous amount of information demanded by the USA on air travelers going there is an issue. Doing business with the USA is an issue as this enormous privacy intrusion for merely wanting to visit the territory is stopping me from going there. It sometimes makes me wonder whether mere phone calls and e-mails between me and US customers are safe from this. Though that does not hit me directly or visibly - yet.

And of course, last but not least, the USA is pushing many other countries to implement intrusive laws similar to their own. And even in that way the USA legislation is reaching me.

If only through air travel, middle class America has been impacted. Look at the state of the airliners: that they are still going bankrupt one after another can not be just because the fuel cost is up. It is also because there are so much less passengers: a direct effect of the anti-terror legislations, so much security hassle, and I can't stop thinking "oh, so much security, then really everyone is trying to get us! Must be dangerous in the skies!". Airlines going bankrupt means more unemployment, etc. It is not that the US economy is doing so well, and making people live in fear is not known to give a great stimulus to your economy.

So middle class America is hit by these measures, they just probably do not realise how much, and their politicians will never dare to explain.

Re:Interesting...

FISA represents a shift of power from the people to the government. So politicians are more for it than the general population.

At least

there are people who still believe in the Constitution out there. They have my support.

Hey Obama!

I am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.

Do it!

And be VERY specific about WHY you are doing so.

Money is all that most of them understand. Money gets them elected. Money gets them re-elected.

Standing

We've been here before. The ACLU doesn't have standing to bring the case unless they have a plaintiff who can show that s/he's been the subject of an unConstitutional investigation, and the law allows the Government to claim a "State secret" basis for refusing to confirm that any particular individual fits the bill.

Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.

Re:Standing

ACLU already listed the plantiffs in their case. [aclu.org] Let's not forget, the only reason for FISA was because the ACLU has already won, warrantless wiretapping is illegal.

Re:hooray sortof

As a non-American, watching from the sidelines, I have to say that it's nice to see someone at least try to stop the erosion of freedoms in your country. It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier.

Re:hooray sortof

you're right, i should have started saving my lobbyist bribe money at a much earlier age.

Re:hooray sortof

but the aclu will fail as always
 
Fail as always? What are you smoking? They frequently win. Don't forget their former solicitor general is on the supreme court.

Re:us phone = us citizen?

Never trade freedom for security, nor security for freedom. You can increase both with a little thought and creativity. Now we just need to get those thoughtful, creative people elected. THAT is the challenge.

Re:us phone = us citizen?

I'll see your cute truism and raise you a boiled frog allegory. Nobody is disputing the wisdom of conducting surveillance on Joe Terrorist in BFE. Its when the surveillance is somehow also conducted on Peter "The Citizen" Pothead and Ulysses "The Citizen" Unsafedriver without bothering with little nitpicky things like warrants and Constitutional rights that sticks in one's craw.

Re:us phone = us citizen?

Then lets first treat Joe Terrorist as just any other criminal. Why is a terrorist different, anyway? They should be tracked down using the normal, existing and highly effective police methods, after which specific individuals (mind: specific) can be put under closer surveillance. Just like nowadays the drug cartels are being investigated. No need to randomly start to survey individuals because "they may be terrorists".

There is no reason why "terrorists" should be treated differently, they are not worth it in either personal status, or the number of victims they make. Compare the number of victims of terrorism in the USA of the last, say, 10 years, with the number of victims from drug lords. Not convinced? Take the last, say, five years. See? Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!

Maybe that is 110% true.

Just because something makes sense doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can't make an end run around the Constitution. Don't like the way the Constitution prevents such and such? Amend the Constitution.