ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging FISA 542
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, it's a reflection that middle America isn't concerned.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I hear the feds at my door for having read that.
Isn't it sad that you felt compelled to write that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does everything in this thread get modded Insightful?
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do either of you have first-hand experience with someone who spoke out against the government and then "heard the fed knocking"?
If neither of them reply, does that mean the answer is yes?
But in reality, this just doesn't happen here.
Yet kids still get investigated by the Secret Service for singing Bob Dylan songs [boingboing.net] or drawing pictures of Bush's head on a spike or of him as a demon with rockets and a caption of "end the war on Errorism" [nwsource.com] (amusingly enough google warned me that the second page could be harmful to my computer). There's also the infamous case about the guy who was arrested for joking about God talking from a burning bush.
It's quite obvious that the federal government does take this stuff seriously, and it's entirely possible there's a file somewhere tagged "slashdot+rebel" that lists everyone who suggests such things on the site.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
So as long as you "believe" that somebody is a bad person, and he's not a citizen, that makes it OK to violate one of the foundational rights of western civilization and hold him without a trial indefinitely?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nonononono! As long as the government "believes" that somebody is a bad person, that makes it OK to violate one of the foundational rights of western civilization and hold him without a trial indefinitely. Citizenship is irrelevent.
See Padilla, Jose.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Informative)
US constitution, Article I, Section 9, guarantees habeas corpus except in certain extreme circumstances which do not apply.
The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. It makes it clear that this applies to everybody, not just citizens.
Overall, the constitution is quite clear in the few areas where it talks about citizens as opposed to all people, and this is not one of them.
Questions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
look up "inalienable rights" and tell me that the bill of rights applies to Americans only. My god when did we stop believing in this. Why is it so hard to understand that these ideas did not come from America, America came from these ideas.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
We all love to talk like we live in some oppressive state with spies behind every door just waiting to pounce on us, torture us, and/or put us away in some unknown prison for the rest of our lives. But in reality, this just doesn't happen here.
Well, actually, that is not true. It does happen here, and over the past few years it has happened to a lot of people, the vast majority innocent. The problem is that you limit your view to US citizens, and that is absurd. GITMO is filled with people who have been kidnapped, tortured, abused and "vanished" by our government, and the fact that they are "fereigners" doesn't make that less so.
Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country
Then you are either outrageously ignorant, stupid or both. Probably in conjunction with a healthy dose of paranoia. The majority of the people at GITMO probably had no clue where the US is let alone how to "plot against" it. Most of them were some sort of soldier in the Afghan version of an "army" when we invaded.
Now, let's investigate that a little. Let's say you are a citizen of Afghanistan. Let's say you have a gun. For the argument let's assume you are of a fundamentalist religious persuasion, in other words, you are a fundamentalist muslim. All of that is fine in most countries. Nothing particularly bad about it. Let's, for arguments say that we are talking about two people here, you and your brother. Your brother is a member of the Taliban armed militia, the closest Afganistan of 2001 comes to a standing army. You are just a regular citizen, but you are good with a gun.
Now, let's assume a foreign power invades. Let's call that foreign power USA. Let's assume they do so for their own reasons and that they are not invited by the current government of Afghanistan.
Your brother, what is his duty then? As a member of the Taliban militia? It is his duty to shoot every american soldier he sees. On sight. It is his duty to kill as many of them as he can. If he can't kill them it is his duty to capture them. That is his duty. Should we punish him for performing his duty? Shall we whisk him away to a strange island in no-mans-land, torture him, deprive him of all his legal rights just because he performed his duty?
Now, let's get back to you. You are a guy with a gun. A foreign power has (illegally according to your laws) invaded your country. What should you do (as opposed to your legal duty)? What is your moral obligation? Your moral obligation is to shoot every fucking American soldier you see. On sight. That is your moral obligation and if you don't stand up and defend your country against this invasion you are a coward. Should you go to jail, be tortured and deprived of all human rights for not being a coward?
I totally supported, and still support, the US invasion of Afghanistan. Of course I do. That doesn't mean that I don't realize that it is every Afghan man and woman's right, and moral duty, to fight the invader though. If you do cooperate with the invasion force you are (technically, morally, legally) a collaborator. Now, you might be a collaborator for "the good side" but you are still a collaborator and a traitor of your country. The fact that your side won doesn't change that post-fact.
Holding the prisoners at GITMO is legally insane, morally absurd, and it only serves one single purpose - it turns us into the bad guys and everybody else into the good guys. That is too absurd for words.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it's the duty of our soldiers to neutralize threats
Absolutely, in war, that is what both parties do. What they never do in war, in civilized countries that is, civilized such as for example in Nazi Germany, is to treat soldiers of war the way the US is treating captives of it's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You never do that simply because for every captive we have at GITMO, one beheading of an American soldier becomes "justified" (please note the quotes, I don't thin they are). That is why warring nations don't do shit like this. Even Germany treated their
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of a uniform is that it identifies you as a part of and organized military that belongs to a specific country
So, it is your stated opinion that if we fight a regular war against a country that is somewhat backward, let's say like Afghanistan or several places in Africa, it is perfectly OK for us to torture, imprison and do whatever we want to the prisoners of that war just because they traditionally do not wear military uniform the way we define it?
The Taliban never wore uniforms, not because they couldn't afford them or because they didn't like the colors. The Taliban didn't wear uniform in the traditional sense
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzt! Wrong! If your country were ruled by a government that supports the mass murder of thousands of civilians
The fact that you just gave every single muslim and catholic country in the world the right to attack the US and US citizens fails to register with you, doesn't it? You also morally gave any US citizen who assist in future terrorist attacks on US soil a "get out of jail" card. He can justify him self through our governments support of killing thousands of civilians.
The fact that you fail to register that you just gave every European country the right to bomb Washington DC also failed to register.
But your argument that these people were morally obligated to defend a government that supports the murder of civilians is way, way off.
You can agr
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country, or knowingly helping others who were.
First, the fact it can happen is troubling period! Next, many of those who were captured in Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism or fighting. Awards were handed out for those turned over. If you didn't like someone you could point them out and call them a terrorist then pick up some money. As for guilt, do you have ESP? You know without any doubt they were guilty so they could be locked up for years without even a trial?
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what's sad is that both of you were modded +5 insightful (as of when I wrote this comment). When I read his remark about the feds at the door I laughed, because I know the odds *against* that happening in the US are astronomical.
Regardless of the action (or inaction) of the government on this type of matter is irrelevant. All that matters is that someone is fearful that there may be retaliation. That should be unacceptable in the United States of America.
The fact that you are so blindly supporting the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>Sure, there are some non-citizens at Gitmo, but I happen to believe that most, if not all, were actively plotting against this country, or knowingly helping others who were.
Badr Zaman Badr and his brother Abdurrahim Muslim Dost for a satirical newspaper article [newsday.com]
Prisoners held after being cleared by military tribunals [blogs.com]
>Do either of you have first-hand experience with someone who spoke out against the government and then "heard the fed knocking"?
The time to pull the fire alarm is before the building is e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
...and PROTECT AND DEFEND our rights?
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
Ah, that must be why Denmark is such an oppressive, tyrannical hellhole.
Oh wait... it isn't. They have much higher taxes than we do in the US, but because they hold their government accountable, they actually get something in return, rather than having that money pissed away.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also keep in mind that since taxation is always coupled with government expenditure, the combination can only have the effect of diverting resources from where consumers wanted them used to some other use chosen by political official. So, 40% of people's income is forcibly taken from them and put to some other use than they would have otherwise chosen.
Not necessarily. Keep in mind that political officials are elected by those same people, precisely to do things like divert resources to various projects. And often, when people want the government to do something, it's because private industry can't (or won't) do it: the government isn't constrained by having to turn a profit. It may not be the most efficient way to get things done, but sometimes it's the only way.
For a US example, look at electrical and phone service in rural areas. It wasn't profitable f
subsidies (Score:3, Informative)
For a US example, look at electrical and phone service in rural areas. It wasn't profitable for companies to offer service in those areas at a price consumers were willing to pay, but We The People decided electricity and telecommunications were important enough that people in those areas should have them anyway, so out came the subsidies.
Ah but phone service wasn't subsidized with general taxpayer money. Those who had phone service paid a tax which was then used to fund service in rural areas. This tax w
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 proper roll of the US government is to Protect the People and their Rights. Government DOES NOT grant rights, rights are unalienable, government only protects them.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that people want 100% security. The government cannot provide this, no matter how hard they try. We may end up with INGSOC, we may end up with cameras on every street corner, but we will not be protected from the ability of one or several people to inflict ridiculous damage upon innocent people.
You could kill 10 of your neighbors before someone would stop you. If you planned it right, you could kill 100. How can someone promise to stop you from doing that when they don't even know who you
Option (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?
Re:Option (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Option (Score:5, Informative)
"The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution."
Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?
Well, if civil liberties are your priority, then I don't know if Bob Barr is your guy. Consider:
His support for the Patriot Act, his attacks on reproductive rights of women, his support for a constitutional ban on the rights of gay couples to marry, his support for banning adoption of children by gay parents, his restriction of freedom of speech and expression with respect to the US flag, his redefinition of habeas corpus to exclude death row appealates, his opposition to medical marijuana programs...
Bob Barr seems much more like an ideological conservative than a true libertarian to me.
Bob Barr on the Issues [ontheissues.org]
Re:Option (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is Bob Barr doing as the Libertarian candidate? Based on the linked record for him, he's more Republican than most Republicans.
-
Complicated (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes laws that have no chance of surviving the courts are supported as a form of pandering.
Nothing new in this case EXCEPT:
The Supreme court is corrupt and the republic has already fallen (making it just entertainment for the politically active.)
The population should be against it, so a move like this by Obama when he has a history of abstaining on this stuff is extremely interesting as to what really must be going on. We are not allowed to hear what he does; could be the CIA is feeding them more lies and Obama isn't wise enough (since he wasn't privy on the Iraq vote I never bought his line about always opposing the war.) OR certain powerful forces demand the passing of the bill and Obama serves or must kiss their ass.
No, I'm not a Hillary supporter. Hillary voted against it but I'm confident if she were in his shoes she would have voted for it FOR THE SAME CURIOUS REASONS.
Re:Complicated (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct, Obama has changed tunes and the reason is unclear. The CIA was told what information to feed the rest of government; they tried to give the right information.
Obama is for all intents and purposes looking exactly like a bait and switch candidate. Not like we've not seen any of those before. The only thing that can change this is things like this lawsuit, massive communications among the people/bloggers/news outlets etc. as to what it does mean.
I'm still waiting to hear what that Obama change is going to be. So far it's looking like only a change of skin color, politics and lawlessness remains the same. Paul and Barr would both bring change. The fact that they are against much of what supports the current corruption and lack of support for them by both main parties is significant.
The one certain way to find out what that 'SAME CURIOUS REASON' is would be to elect someone that seems unaffected by it to see what rats jump ship while it's burning.
OT: BTW does anyone know of any snippet of code to mail spam legislators with emails regarding how they should vote? There is probably a website that does, many let you write them on specific issues, but does anyone know of one that allows a person to contact all of them with a single letter?
Re:Complicated (Score:4, Informative)
Here's Obama's change:
1) I will filibuster!
Changes to...
2) I vote AYE.
McCain's Change... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) I do not support torture
changes to...
2) Who the fuck are you, where am I?! DEATH!!
McCain's tune-changing has been going on for years...he's flip-flopped more often than Obama. Besides, at least Obama can remember shit...like who the players are in Iraq, and what the fuck he voted on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter what Obama can remember. They're exactly the same. They'd both burn the constitution to roast a marshmallow. Don't kid yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>They're exactly the same
Not according to their voting records. The ACLU legislative scorecard [aclu.org] shows Obama voting for civil liberties 80% of the time, McCain 17%.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Attack plan R (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama's just another shill for the parties; he has claimed to be a professor of constitutional law, but on the two issues that have really been public recently which depended on the bill of rights, he has amply demonstrated that he doesn't read the document as written, he reads it as convenient.
For the 2nd amendment, where it says "shall not be infringed", he interprets that as "we can infringe if we want to", as witness his saying that the Washington law was a good law. He goes on to presume that the st
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Obama was a civil rights lawyer and a Constitutional Law professor.
He was against this Telecom law.
Based on credentials, if anyone should have voted against such a blatantly unconstitutional law, it should have been Obama. After that vote, he can DIAF for all I care.
Change does not require actively voting for independent candidates, or researching the people running for office. It requires the people running for (and in) office to do what they said they'll do.
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The party member is the pervert who drives up and says, "Hey kid, if you touch me right *here*, I'll give you a piece of candy."
The populace is the kid who says, "If I give you a blow job, can I have the whole box?"
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, 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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our revolutionary war was similar in nature. The redcoats would go to battle, stand in formation, and get ready for a formal battle. The poor American militants, lacking popular support at times, would shoot at them from the trees, houses, fences, or anything they could hide behind. Guerilla warfare tactics won the revolutionary war.
A relatively small insurgency with small arms can keep a tyrannical regime at bay today just as well as it could in 1776. Things just haven't gotten bad enough yet to make it happen here yet. I sincerely hope we don't see things get that bad, but I'm not betting against it happening at some point in the near future.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:dumbass (Score:5, Informative)
If you'd been paying attention over the last couple of years, you'd know that Posse Comitatus will be changed at the drop of a hat [wikipedia.org]. Yes, the change was repealed - but it will be passed again as soon as there's a compelling "national emergency."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Knock off the bullshit. If you are a "registered Republican" after 8 years of George Bush, there's no way you were "fully planning on voting for Obama in November until this vote".
Any of you who read the political blogs have seen this kind of comment, and they are baloney, one and all. You know the kind: "I'm a life-long Democrat and I marched with Martin Luther King but
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been impacted by it, they just don't realize it yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only do many Americans not care about it, I've discussed similar laws with other people and they can't even seem to grasp why I care. They can't understand objecting to a law on philosophical or ethical grounds.
That is different from somebody who can say, "I understand why it upsets you, but I won't personally get upset until it affects me." Neither attitude is particularly responsible, in my opinion. The attitude that I see, however, actually has a chilling effect on citizens who do object based on
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The main cause of terrorism is from terrorists. I blame that all on your country, whatever it happens to be, because I feel like making a retarded statement too. While I'm at it, I'm defining your home as a war zone.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At least (Score:5, Insightful)
there are people who still believe in the Constitution out there. They have my support.
hooray sortof (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hooray sortof (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hooray sortof (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
George Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.
Re:George Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, I lived thru nixon. GW still wins worst prez in my lifetime. Nixon at least opened up china a bit. GW will have no positives. He killed the economy, started an unnecessary war, got 2 losers in the court, intermixed religion and govt, cut the knees off any science that didn't agree with his politics, wire tapped his own citizens, tortured people, encouraged exportation of jobs. Bush should have been impeached for the lies about WMD in Iraq, but the pussy congress didn't do anything. Nixon just didn't have a pussy congress and media.
Re:hooray sortof (Score:5, Informative)
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.
the ACLU wipes its ass with the Constitution (Score:3, Informative)
You dare to mention the ACLU and the Constitution in the same sentence?
The ACLU doesn't give two shits about the Constitution, and they never have. Thanks to the ACLU's reaction to the D.C. v. Heller decision [aclu.org], many more people are finally realizing that the ACLU's true purpose is to champion causes of the Left, and nothing more.
Yes, Heller was a 5-4 decision. But the important point is that all 9 Justices (in the opinion and the dissents) agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual, not a
Re:hooray sortof (Score:5, Funny)
I share your contempt for ACLU pet projects like the First and Fourth Amendments.
Hey Obama! (Score:5, Interesting)
I am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.
Do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hey Obama! (Score:4, Insightful)
First response: how would making Supreme Court justices be elected remove ideology? It hasn't worked with Congress or the President.
Second response: Justices are supposed to be above politics. It doesn't always work, but that's the goal. Having them be elected would run counter to that goal.
In soviet Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Standing (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.
Re:Standing (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.
a self-locking exclusionary law. no way to prove any damages because - ITS ALL IN SECRET!
niiiiice.
we seem to have the best congress that money can buy.
does anyone know which vendors sell constitution toilet paper? I'd like to buy some rolls and mail them to my congressman. I doubt they'll get the message but it would be more productive than just typing your feelings into a letter they'll just 'bin' anyw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's if the ACLU includes the wiretaps and surveillance that have been conducted in the past. A constitutional challenge to a law can be about what the law allows that the constitution prohibits. From reading the summary (I know I'll go read the complaint in a minute) it seems that the complaint is purely that the law gives powers to the executive that the constitution disallows. I didn't see any mention of the retroactive immunity in the summary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I had examples. Have challenges to the DC gun ban been thrown out for standing in the past?
I'm reading the complaint right now. The plaintiffs are making the case that they reasonably expectation that this kind of surveillance power will interfere with their operations. One example is Amnesty International, who routinely communicate with persons in other countries concerning highly sensitive information. These aren't necessarily countries friendly to the United States either. Since the new power
I'm not so sure it works that way (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, of course -- but when has that stopped
You have to draw the line just right (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd have to draw the line just right, but I can see how it could be done.
The actual case is that I had something (the right to be secure) which the constitution explicitly granted me. Congress took it from me by passing the present law which provides a path around the constitutional protections. It is redressable by declaring the law void and unconstitutional.
Many similar sounding cases fail because the plaintiffs can't show that the were actually personally effected (wiretapped, jailed, whatever). But were they law being runs up against a positive requirement (equal protection, security, etc.) it should be much easier to establish standing.
For example, if they passed a law saying that it was OK to cook Scientologists and eat them for dinner, any Scientologist should be able to mount a challenge against that law as a violation of their right to equal protection, even if they haven't been eaten. They have a right not only not to be eaten, but to be protected from it by the law.
Likewise, we have a right not only to privacy, but to be secure in that privacy. The present law is a direct assault on our constitutionally granted security.
--MarkusQ
This could backfire... (Score:3)
If this winds up going to the Supreme Court over the Right to Privacy, it could give them an excuse to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Inconsistency (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But what is "terrorism", really? (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means. But is there a legal definition of "terrorism" already? Something that clearly defines what a terrorist is, and under which someone can be charged for being terrorist?
We have clear definitions of "rape", what has to be done to make an indecent assault become "rape". We are quite clear what is "indecent assault". Murder, in all it's gradations from criminal negligence causing death to first degree premeditated murder, it is clear. We know what someone has to do to become murderer. Or rapist. Or thief.
But what does someone really have to do to become a terrorist? Be scary? Then everyone celebrating Halloween may be a terrorist. Being foreigner, and having ideas that oppose the American culture? Can't be enough to be a criminal.
It is really high time to define: what is a terrorist. Then, and only then, we can make this kind of laws actually work, without all kinds of unintended(?) side effects. Then also the risk of being thrown in jail just for being "a terrorist" without clear accusations can go. And of course, only when we define "terrorist" we can accuse people of actually being one, and judge them accordingly.
It has nothing to do with terrorism [China] (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means
This bill has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with saying whether or not the USA can spy on people in other countries who may be talking to people in ours. Right now, this is in the cause of "fighting terrorism", but it could just as easily be used against drug trafficking, counter intelligence, quite literally, all the stuff the CIA/FBI does.
Has anyone ever thought how much the government might be interested in monitoring the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. The previous FISA laws gave them that exact same power but they just had to go through a secret court up to three days after the surveillance began. There can't be an argument that such an arrangement interfered with the process because it, literally granted 99% of the cases that ever came to it (IIRC, only two requests were
Partisan Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama was smart to vote for FISA even opposing it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama was smart to vote for this, even though he opposed it!
1) It would have passed anyway without his vote
2) McCain abstained, so Obama can hammer him as being 'weak' on terrorism and bring more Republicans away from the McCain camp.
It's just like any other tactical game. If you give away something that doesn't matter (a vote on a lost cause) to gain something valuable (a weapon against your opponent) then you're playing a smart game.
Re:Obama was smart to vote for FISA even opposing (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama was smart to vote for this, even though he opposed it!
Not necessarily. Obama's fundraising involves getting a lot of small donations from people who are excited about him as a candidate, because they think he represents a new kind of politics and/or they're sick of the Bush administration's abuses (like warrantless wiretapping).
If he tarnishes his brand by doing stuff like this, he pisses those people off, and the money dries up.
This is not FISA (Score:5, Informative)
FISA was passed back in 1978 after the Nixon abuses. This bill, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, sought to legitimize the President's warrantless wiretapping program that was illegal under FISA - because that's what FISA was designed to prevent! President Nixon did the exact same thing this administration is getting away with. I guess Congress actually had the balls to rein in abuses of power back in the seventies, even with the Cold War, the Soviet Union, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation hanging over them.
It appears that Congress today has turned into a gaggle of cowards.
Re:us phone = us citizen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:us phone = us citizen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobody is disputing the wisdom of conducting surveillance on Joe Terrorist
I am.
communication is like air and water. we don't meter THOSE out. if you breath, you have a right to air and water.
the same SHOULD be true of whispering in a friend's ear. even if one or both people are 'evil'. its NOT for us to decide who gets FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
we need to fix the social error of thinking that privacy is something that can be bought, sold, bargained for, and limited.
I know the reason people WANT to limit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[stares at water bill]
Re:us phone = us citizen? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original FISA already allowed for that without being modified. The government already had up to three days after initiation of the tap to obtain a specific warrant. So why was this even needed?
Maybe that is 110% true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Maybe that is 110% true. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It really depends on what the intent of the bill of rights is. In the case of search and seizure, there's some that would argue that the they were not trying to instill a right to privacy as much as they were trying to guard against the federal government repeating a popular tactic of the king, which was to send out his agents to disrupt people's lives by rummaging through people's stuff and periodically arrest them. The idea is, sometimes, yes, the government does have to disrupt people's lives by rummage through their stuff.
Now, the question is, does, a broad data mining and "hit" search constitute a disruption? You don't know if the government is searching you, right now, so does it disrupt you?
I mean, we have our data searched by the private sector all the time and quite honestly many of us on this board are getting paid to develop tools to gather and manage this data, and worse, in the early days, many of us built these big data farms thinking that it would be cool. Woops.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aside from the "war de jour" (drugs, pollution, obesity, cancer, termites) what precisely are you talking about?