Two Groups File Domestic Spying Lawsuits

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.'

Why I Love the ACLU

[eldavojohn]

Now, I'm sure there's much to be debated about whether or not the ACLU [aclu.org] should be taking this action and suing the NSA. Frankly, I'm not sure if this lawsuit is called for or not. It could just be a waste of a government agency's time but the courts will throw it out if that is the case. I'm pretty sure it's not--I'm pretty sure this will be heard in a court of law but the ACLU just won't get anywhere.

Now, I've heard a lot of talk among people of the ACLU being a crazy leftist organization that's terribly out of touch with reality. But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.

No one can argue, this group pushes back so hard against the government even when it comes to something like domestic spying on a relatively small part of the population. They put forth such an effort that I'm sure if any member of the government is about to make a decision about our rights they are probably thinking, "If I do this, the ACLU is going to be all over me in the press ..."

And that's why I love the ACLU. Because I can sit on my fat ass and not have to worry about the government getting carried away.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[ezzzD55J]

And that's why I love the ACLU. Because I can sit on my fat ass and not have to worry about the government getting carried away.

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.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[eldavojohn]

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.

Oh, after reading about other governments present and past, the U.S. government is by no means "all the way."

"All the way" is Slashdot's server's IP log being requisitioned by the government whereby, shortly after, you and all your family members and friends are nowhere to be found. Afterall, the easiest way to maintain 100% public approval is simply to remo

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[tpgp]

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.

Oh, after reading about other governments present and past, the U.S. government is by no means "all the way."

Well - as long as you're happy with the new US motto:

America: still more rights then North Korea

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[tpgp]

America: still more rights than ANYWHERE else.

Well I am lucky enough to be living in the Netherlands (I am not dutch however) and here are three rights I have that you don't.

1) Marry a person of the same geneder.
2) Smoke marijuana in the privacy of a coffeeshop or my own home.
3) Protection from unscrupulous software patents (OK, this one isn't really a right.)

No other country has a many people wanting to move there. I don't see boat loads of immigrants going to UK, Italy, France, Russia or anywhere in Africa or South America.

You do see boat loads of immigrants to the UK, Italy and France - they're going there because they're rich countries with good economies where they can make money.

Exactly the same reason people go to the US.

Oh - and the country who takes the highest portion of refugees is Iran (for gods sake) - so I wouldn't go around equating peoples movement into a country with its freedom.

on topic: ACLU- A place that people went and sang Christmas Carols to attack them. A group of people who were hurt by Chrismas Carols sung outside thier offices. They did not sue against Clinton and Echelon/Carnivore. They are a tool of the wackiest lefties. If they do good work it is by accident or as a by product of other goals.

Thats not on topic. Thats a flame. How about you provide some evidence for those statements?

I notice every other right wing blog is making these claims here's a good example [cashill.com] quoting it:

If the ACLU or The New York Times, which is breaking the story, were shocked by the Clinton administration's politically-motivated spying on innocent and often prominent American citizens, there is no easily discovered record of the same.[emphasis mine]

No easily discovered records huh?

I guess they didn't bother using google to search the ACLU site [google.nl]

we are inching ever closer...

[way2trivial]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=protest+zones [google.com]

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[DavidTC]

"All the way" is Slashdot's server's IP log being requisitioned by the government whereby,

They, a) can already do this, /. would be barred by law from telling anyone, thanks to the PATRIOT act, and b) probably don't need to 'requisition' anything thanks to the NSA. They've only admitted to scanning email, but scanning traffic on port 80 looking for a POST is a trivial addition.

shortly after, you and all your family members and friends are nowhere to be found.

They have, indeed, asserted the right to lock people up without charging them with anything, without access to a lawyer, and without telling anyone.

Basically, the different between now and the world you describe is they haven't chosen to do that to you. They do, indeed, claim they have the right.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[SilverspurG]

I'm happy to see that someone is willing to step up and point this out. Dealing with the people who insist that being more free than absolute detention camps equates to acceptable government has always been a difficult discussion.

Could we refine this to be more broadly applicable and publicly known?

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[phoenix.bam!]

Of course by your own definition of "All the way" we'd never know when we got there and by that time it would be too late.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Erwos]

"But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty."

Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty. Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.

The ACLU picks and chooses its issues. That's just not something you can deny. When the group first started, they were a lot more impartial. Back in the 1970s, when their membership became mo

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Erwos]

I forgot to say it, but "freedom from racism" is actually a civil right, not a civil liberty. They're not quite the same thing.

-Erwos

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun.

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

[EllisDees]

>Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty.

There is already a powerful organization dedicated to protecting that particular civil liberty, so why should the ACLU waste resources doing the same?

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[mrtrumbe]

Unless, of course, you're talking about the right to own a gun. The ACLU doesn't care much about that particular civil liberty

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 f

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[swillden]

Do you think the ACLU should be defending the rights of white supremacists (or radical muslims, for that matter) to own machine guns, nuclear weapons etc?

Machine guns, yes, nuclear weapons, no. No private citizen is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. Since some private citizens can own machine guns, after acquiring the right permits, passing background checks, etc., then all private citizens who comply with the requirements of the law should be able to own machine guns, no matter if their nam

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Threni]

> all private citizens who comply with the requirements of the law should be able to own machine
> guns, no matter if their name is Steve, Abdul, or Granny Smith.

You're suggesting apples should be allowed to just wander around toting machine guns?

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Peter La Casse]

What's with "owning a gun" such a high civil liberty? Doesn't freedom of expression come way before that?

The reasoning of those who consider "owning a gun" to be an important civil liberty is that it is the final protector of freedom of expression. The idea is that when the jackbooted thugs from the government threaten to take away your freedom, good citizens first protest, then vote against it, then take up arms in civil insurrection. Without firearms, civil insurrection is futile.

Now, you and I know that in this day and age, in a country with a professional military, civil insurrection is largely futile anyway. Gun nuts know this too, and that's why they're in favor of civilians being allowed to own military-grade weapons like machine guns and grenades. Most draw the line at WMD. I think the idea is that with military-grade weapons, a law-abiding citizen stands a chance of lasting against a government attack long enough for the courts to intervene, or something like that. I, personally, have my doubts.

To them, it's not a matter of choosing between freedom of expression and freedom to own firearms, it's a matter of choosing between having both, or having only freedom of expression (with nothing to back it up but faith that your government won't one day take it away.)

I say "them" and not "us" because I'm not sure where I put myself. I support the social changes that firearms made possible (liberal democracy etc.), but I am unsure about the morality of self-defense. I do note that my culture supports the right of self-defense, which is probably good enough to allow citizens to own firearms, and I do believe that it is useful socially for citizens to be able to defend themselves, so that's probably enough for most to consider me lumped in with the gun nuts, even though I'm not sure if I would choose to defend myself with a firearm.

Civilians?

[phorm]

One thing that should be taken into account: the military is made up of people. Sure, there are a lot of sheep, hardasses, and other such members. But there are good people too.

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.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[arminw]

.....I do believe that it is useful socially for citizens to be able to defend themselves......

In nazi Germany, many, if not most, arrests of Jews and other "undesireables" were done at night by the secret police. If only 1% of the 6 million or so, who were later exterminated, had managed to shoot and kill one gestapo agent before their arrest, at least 60,000 of said agents would have been eliminated. To prevent that, the nazi goons would have had stop arresting people in secret, but risk doing so in open

Surprising

[delcielo]

Something I find surprising is that most of the people I talk to who are adamant 2nd ammendment supporters are also strong supporters of the Bush administration and the domestic spying program. Obviously the Republican party is the party that fights gun control; but it seems to me that some of the "from my cold dead hands" folks are really not very analytical about things.

I'm sure that's true of the other side also; but it's just odd that somebody who feels their gun is their last line of defense against a

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The reasoning of those who consider "owning a gun" to be an important civil liberty is that it is the final protector of freedom of expression.

That is only one of the many reasons the 2nd amendment was created.

Other reasons include, so that individuals specifically had the power to defend themselves and their homes. To provide a more even distribution of real power between the "aristocracy" and the common man. And as a guarantee that pioneers would have the ability to hunt and protect themselves while settling new land. Finally, so that weapons would be available should citizens need to fight a war against either an invading power, or an oppressive local government.

None of these reasons are any less true today. Citizens really should have a gun while in some wilderness areas. Ask any police officer and they will tell you their job is not to protect your safety, but to enforce laws. Less than 4% of 911 calls are answered in time to stop a crime. Further the police have no legal obligation to even enforce the law in any particular case. You can call them repeatedly over the course of an evening telling them you are being raped and beaten and begging for help and there is no punishment if they don't bother to respond (this is not a theoretical case, it has happened). Should there be a war in this country, civilian firearms are still effective weapons, especially when used secretly. What many people don't consider when talk of civil war occurs is that usually a good portion of the military and police side with the rebellion as well. An armed populace could easily make a difference. In feudal Europe, only the aristocracy was allowed to carry weapons. In the U.S. many of those who would advocate banning guns are people who have armed guards protecting them. Obviously they envision a few exceptions for those wealthy and famous people, huh?

...that's probably enough for most to consider me lumped in with the gun nuts, even though I'm not sure if I would choose to defend myself with a firearm.

This is an attitude I see on many issues and I think it is a reflection of the media and political tendency to try to express everything as two opposites. Having the right to own and carry a firearm does not mean you have to do so or that you have to think that not defending yourself is unethical. It simply means each individual is given the choice to make that ethical decision for themselves. My girlfriend, for example, owns a pistol and is quite a good shot. She has, however, expressed that in most cases she would probably rather let someone kill her than kill them. That is a perfectly acceptable choice. What is not acceptable is taking that choice away from her and telling her she either must kill to defend herself or cannot do so.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[maxpublic]

Now, you and I know that in this day and age, in a country with a professional military, civil insurrection is largely futile anyway.

No, it isn't. There are less than a million combat-ready troops in all branches of the military, and that's being pretty fucking liberal with the label "combat-ready". The adult citizenry outnumbers these troops more than a hundred to one, and it's likely that much of the fighting would take place in urban centers - notorious for their ability to even the odds.

And then you h

That's not really true...

[msauve]

no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.

The ACLU is a left wing organization, and their actions show it. On some issues, such as the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), they argue and stretch the meaning beyond the clear wording (i.e. States are not "Congress," so the prohibition does not apply to State establishment of religion, although most states have similar C

Re:That's not really true...

[Aneurysm9]

The Seond Amendment does not recognize an individual right. If you're going to insist that we strictly hew to the words of the First Amendment you must do the same for the Second. The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" must also have a meaning. The way I take it, the government has the duty to establish a "well regulated militia" and all members of that militia have the right to keep and bear arms. This clearly recognizes the possibility that individuals ma

You're wrong...

[msauve]

even though interpreting that clause requires only a basic understanding of the English language.

"This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it."

-"A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State" [usdoj.gov]

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:That's not really true...

[hamburger lady]

On some issues, such as the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."), they argue and stretch the meaning beyond the clear wording (i.e. States are not "Congress," so the prohibition does not apply to State establishment of religion, although most states have similar Constitutional prohibitions).

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

[Dausha]

"But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty."

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 gr

Re:Why I Love the Al Gore

[jabster]

http://gaypatriot.net/2006/01/16/law-school-dropou t-accuses-president-of-breaking-the-law [gaypatriot.net]

-john

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"even when it comes to something like domestic spying on a relatively small part of the population" ...if Big Brother spying on American citizens illegally doesn't qualify as an important violation of civil liberties, what does?

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[devonbowen]

Now, I've heard a lot of talk among people of the ACLU being a crazy leftist organization that's terribly out of touch with reality.

There is no left in America anymore. There is extreme right, right, and middle. The two rights call the middle "left" to get people to recall images of communists and hippies. How many of those do you see these days?

The ACLU actually takes on a very many cases that the majority of Americans agree with. And they win many (most?) of them. But you won't hear that from the righ

Why I Hate the ACLU

[SengirV]

It's really very simple. The ACLU did actually take a stand against ECHELON at the time. They setup a website to collect information on ECHELON in August of 1999 - http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15059prs199911 1 6.html [aclu.org]

But did they file suit against Clinton? Heck no, Clinton was a Democrat president. The ACLU is a partizan organization and will not go after Clinton.

And now that a very small subset of the eavesdropping that Clinton's Administration instituted with Echelon is being done by a GOP admin

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[sbrown123]

Now, I've heard a lot of talk among people of the ACLU being a crazy leftist organization

Its funny how the world changes. Being a "righty" or conservative usually meant you were all for smaller government and less government envolvement.

Heres my list on how to be a good Republican. All you have to do is hate everyone on it:

1) Hillary Clinton (satan lives)
2) Bill Clinton (mini-me)
3) NPR
4) ACLU
5) PBS
6) CNN (go watch real news over at Murdock's Fox News)
7) Any actor or actress with a political view that is n

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[EllisDees]

>Unless of course, it's the ability to carry out prayer or other religioius expression during meetings or on government property. Then the ACLU is indeed forcing government (courts) to take your rights away.

You have every right to pray on your own property, or anyone else's property who is cool with it. What you don't have the right to do is force everyone else to support your religion, so either government supports each religion equally, or not at all.

>Before I'm called some evil Christian, I am a pagan and ACLU does concern me, alot.

It doesn't even concern me alittle.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Peter La Casse]

>Unless of course, it's the ability to carry out prayer or other religioius expression during meetings or on government property. Then the ACLU is indeed forcing government (courts) to take your rights away.

You have every right to pray on your own property, or anyone else's property who is cool with it. What you don't have the right to do is force everyone else to support your religion, so either government supports each religion equally, or not at all.

When somebody prays or carries out other religious expression during meetings or on government property, it does not force everyone else to support their religion. I, personally, think it's stupid and offensive to bring overt religious activity into a government meeting (like praying before a school awards dinner), but that's not government supporting religion (it's government tolerance of specific religious individuals who feel that they should conduct that religious activity at that time and place), and it's not at all unreasonable to use government property for religious activity as long as it's done in a fair and equitable manner. For example, a religiously-themed after-school club should be able to meet on school property, just like any other after-school club. A church, synagogue, mosque or other religious organization should be able to use space in a government building to use for their services under the same terms that any other social club receives from the government. A government-owned religious statue in a park hurts nobody (though paying for one is an unwise use of government resources.)

What this country really needs is a Freedom From The Freedom From Religion Foundation Foundation. But that's not the ACLU, so I'll stop now.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

"So I guess you are against the New Orleans mayor, for saying that God was punishing Americans, by "sending hurricane after hurricane" because we are in Iraq? Should he not be allowed to say those things, espescially in public, because he is a figurehead? It was an official, Government sponsored parade on MLK day. Should a person be disallowed to show a religion merely because they are in an elected office?"

yes, I am against him saying that. not because its a public religious display, but because its fucking stupid. It may also be his sincere belief. Using your religious beliefs as a political attack is at the very least in bad taste, especially when we are talking about the deaths of hundreds and the suffering of millions. I have no problem with politicians saying "god bless america." I have no problem with individuals expressing their individual faith, no matter what office they hold. criticizing bush by saying god is punishing his decisions by hurling hurricanes at the gulf is snarky bullshit.

"On a similar note... what if the President wants to go to church? The Secret Service members would be forced to attend. Should the President then be disallowed attendance in a house of worship? Either way it will be unfair to someone"

The secret service agents are willing to sacrifice their lives for the president. They are bound to keep his secrets and protect him at all costs. Obviously, sitting through a religious service not of their preference is a part of that sacrifice. this example is a blatant rhetorical nonsense. the president is not foisting his religion on the secret service agents by attending church. He must however exercise discretion with regards to the extent that he allows his own personal faith to be an overt part of his official duties. Though I find W. to be a mildly evangelical wacko, even he is mostly appropriate when it comes to making it clear that though his religion does affect his decisions, and opinions, it remains his own personal faith. Though he does try to facilitate a deeper integration of church and state than I am comfortable with, I certainly dont think that he seriously wants to establish christianity as the official religion of the State.

though I do think he wants to establish patriotism as the official religion of the State.
*sarcasm*

Essentially, I think that the government, and persons in positions of power particularly, should deemphasize the role of their faith somewhat, if only to avoid the perception, whether valid or not, that said faith will be foisted upon the masses. You can conduct yourself in accordance with the tenets of any religion without necessarily shouting from the rooftops which one it is. the moral imperatives of many religions are actually quite similar, so I simply wonder why such a great importance is placed on certain religious politicians specifying that they're devotees of one prophet or another.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Aneurysm9]

The ACLU very much supports the right to freely exercise one's religion. You must be careful not to conflate the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause. Just because the ACLU advocates on the one hand that the government cannot coerce religious speach or give its imprimatur to religious expression does not mean that they do not support your right to freely exercise your religion, even on government property. You have the right to use every pulic forum for private religious exercise. You do not have the right to have the government create a semi-private forum solely for your private religious exercise.

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

[orcrist]

Was reading of theses stupid lawsuit web sites and they had a lawsuit that the ACLU is helpping to file where they are sueing a local council member.

No link? Kind of hard to refute then, but...

This crime, he sent out, using his own money and time(his wife made them), Christmas cards that showed the Statue of Liberty and a cross on them to friends and acquantices. They are claim it was illegal since he has a seat of authority that it is an official endorsement of a particular religion.

Then I presume there was some reason for them to conclude that he was acting in his official capacity. According to you the website claims it was "friends and acquantices (sic)" but I'm pretty sure ACLU would only get upset if he were doing it in a way which implies a government endorsement of his religious beliefs. Furthermore I know ACLU has fought for expression of Religion, it's just that usually it's the 'other' religions which need the most protection given the dominance of Judaism and Christianity in this country.

Here are a couple cases of ACLU fighting *for* expression of religion:

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner Barred from Preaching at Religious Services: here [aclu.org]

ACLU of Michigan Defends Catholic Man Coerced to Convert to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (12/6/2005): here [aclu.org]

and from that second article:
"The ACLU frequently defends the rights of free religious expression for all people. In Michigan, high school officials agreed to stop censoring religious yearbook entries after the ACLU intervened on behalf of a Christian student. In other states, the ACLU has supported the rights of students to distribute Christian literature at school. Recently, the ACLU of Indiana defended the First Amendment rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets."

So, enough of this bullshit myth spread by the neo-cons and the religious right that the ACLU is anti-religion.

-chris

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[1u3hr]

he ACLU very much supports the right to freely exercise one's religion.
That is not really the case. Was reading of theses stupid lawsuit web sites and they had a lawsuit that the ACLU is helpping to file where they are sueing a local council member. This crime, he sent out, using his own money and time(his wife made them), Christmas cards that showed the Statue of Liberty and a cross on them to friends and acquantices. They are claim it was illegal since he has a seat of authority that it is an official e

Re:Defending liberty

[gatzke]

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

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[NutscrapeSucks]

Press Release: As Trials Of Waco Survivors Open In Texas, ACLU, NRA, Others Ask Clinton To Address Federal Police Abuse. [boogieonline.com]

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[scheming daemons]

Where was the ACLU during the Ruby Ridge or Waco?.... Oh silly me, that was a Democrat in the White House and it was us silly conservatives complaining.

Yes... silly you.

Might want to check your Republican talking points... Ruby Ridge occured in April of 1992... while George H.W. Bush was president. Nine months before Clinton took office.

If you're so loose with the facts on that... how can we take anything you say seriously? Blaming Clinton for Federal Government abuses that occured 9 months prior t

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[2short]

The ACLU has sued to defend your right to pray on public property in addition to to my right to not be compelled to pray. I won't call you an evil Christian; your religion clearly has nothing to do with your being an ignorant twit.

"Now then, where the F was the ACLU when the Clinton Admin was conducting physical searches without warrants?"

They were in court, suing to stop them; where were you?

"if the thought that ~36 authorizations of international phone calls"
  It's 36 authorizations, not 36 calls. It is, as far as I can tell, a stupefyingly huge number of calls.

This is about listening to American citizens calls in cases where you don't think you could convince a judge who you apointed, that has top-secret clearance, who can issue warrants retroactively, who has refused to issue such warrants a couple times out of hundreds of requests. In cases where the administration doesn't think that guy is going to agree the wiretaps are justified, Bush is claiming the authority to just do it anyway, with no review from the judicial branch, and in direct contradiction of the legislative branch. The arguments he uses to claim this authority apply equally to ANYTHING he want's to do. This case is about whether the President may appoint himself King, or whether we still have a constitutional government.

Gored

[Bimo_Dude]

No, this is clearly a "Stop the power grab". The Bush administration has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that it is bound by the same laws as the rest of us. It has been riding the fear wave since 9/11 to bypass any and all executive accountability in the name of 'national security'.

Al Gore gave a speech [archive.org] two days ago regarding the power grab. It's quite interesting. Although, IMHO, I think that Gore should have done this a long time ago, but maybe he thought that he would be lambasted as a "sore loser" (

Re: OK for one guy, but not the other?

[Politburo]

So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?

You have to look at the history of the FISA laws. FISA was born from Supreme Court decisions in the 70s. The decisions bascially said that warrantless domestic surveillence was not constitutional, but warrantless taps of foreign powers/agents was fine. The FISA law setup the FISA court and warrant process for domestic electronic surveillance as it related to national security (note: non-domestic activities are generally all allowed under the Constitution). The Clinton Administration realized that the FISA law did not address physical searches. They felt that domestic physical searches should be permitted similar to electronic surveillance. However at that time the FISA law had no mechanism for physical searches, so they simply could not get a FISA warrant. It wasn't possible. The FISA court did not have the authority to do that in 1993. The only options the Clinton Administration had was to either get a traditional warrant, which would have tipped Ames off to the investigation and blown the whole thing, or not get a warrant and deal with it after the fact, which is what they did.

The Clinton Administration supported changing the FISA law to include physical searches and require FISA warrants for domestic national security searches. I see no such respect of the law from the Bush Administration. The mechanisms are all in place for what they want to do, and they are simply being ignored. This is unacceptable.

Re: OK for one guy, but not the other?

[Johnny5000]

I find it intensely interesting that people will defend the warrantless search and seizure of an American citizen by the Clinton administration, yet will villify the recording of phone conversations of people who have known links to terrorist organizations.

Ames was a CIA agent. When you sign up to be a CIA agent, you give them permission to search your home any time they want. If a cop shows up at your door without a warrant, and you say "please come in and search the place," it's a legal search. It's basically the same thing when you sign up for the CIA.

And have you been keeping up with the news? The American citizens with "known links to terrorist organizations" who have been spied on without warrants, in violation of the constitution, have mostly been found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. The leads that the NSA gave to the FBI were almost all a waste of the FBI's time.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[scheming daemons]

You can perform religious rituals on public property.. as long as you're not acting as an agent of the government .

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 religiou

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Aneurysm9]

A Congressional subcommittee was informed several times of what was going on and gave it's approval...even the Dems on the committee approved it several times.

You're living in la-la-land, aren't you? Some members of a Congressional committe were notified that the program was in place and required to keep confidential any knowledge they had regarding the program. They were not asked for approval, much less did they give it. They were not allowed to discuss the matter with counsel. They were not allowed to voice their disapproval in any meaningful way.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[Aneurysm9]

I do, actually, because of a letter [epic.org] released by Sen. Rockefeller after Bush admitted to the program. The letter was handwritten because he was not permitted to have a secretary transcribe it for him.

Re:Why I Love the ACLU

[hamburger lady]

I'm guessing that you are not aware that the ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist whose basic ideology is that you have NO individual liberties. Just a thought.

and america was founded by hardcore slaveowners. what's your point?

George Bush and your cohorts...

[Bananatree3]

we will see you in court.

Re:George Bush and your cohorts...

[EllisDees]

>A) The FISA court itself states that the actions of the NSA in this matter are legal

No, it does not. The FISA court has never said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal.

>B) If they are not, then you better get ready for lawsuits against Carter, Regan, and Clinton, as they acted in the exact same manner when they were in office.

No, they did not. They got the required warrants from the FISA court.

>You continued failed attemps to discredit Bush have always failed and will continue to fail.

What amazes me (not really) is people who are so blindly partisan that they will stand behind a man who is breaking actual laws and destroying the ideals of our country in the process. Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.

Re:George Bush and your cohorts...

[Bimo_Dude]

Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.

I agree partially with you on this, but would like to add a little more. Bush is only a part of the problem here. He's being used as the "puppet front man." Removing him from office would only be treating the symptoms, not the diesase. We need to take a real hard look at the people behind Bush (and behind many in Congress, of both parties) to get at the root of the problem.

I also agree that this has nothing to do with partisan politi

Re:George Bush and your cohorts...

[quarkscat]

There is no doubt in my mind that history will not judge kindly the
George W. Bush presidency, presuming, of course, that democracy and
the rule of law actually survives in the USA.

The recent revelations about this administration's illegal domestic
spying program puts J. Edgar Hoover's fascist "black-bag" and wire-
tapping program to shame, let alone the minor "bump in the road"
File-gate fiasco of the Clinton administration. That there is a
perfectly workable legal avenue for wiretapping under FISA regulations
o

Re:George Bush and your cohorts...

[stupidfoo]

Tinfoil hats are 2 for 1 at Costco today.

Domestic Intelligence wiretaps YOU

[BadAnalogyGuy]

I'm no expert on the topic. I was wondering if anyone from Soviet Russia could help us out and let us know whether it was necessary for domestic intelligence agencies to gain a warrant before wiretapping Russian citizens. It just seems like a fun thing to know.

We're a long way from 1776, people.

Re:Domestic Intelligence wiretaps YOU

[MadJo]

We're a long way from 1776, people.

Feels more like 1984 to me.

BTW, Europe is much the same like the US in this regard.
Demanding ISPs to tap internet-traffic. Privacy, what is that again?

Re:Domestic Intelligence wiretaps YOU

[Cyberax]

Technically it was neccessary. In practice all required warrants were received retroactively.

PS: Yes, I live in Russia.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nothing will change

[squoozer]

Under the current climate if these people get close to actually changing things something will happen to stop them from actually having any real effect. I'm not saying they will disapear but I wouldn't be surprised is some legislation got rushed through that altered things so that their case became pointless.

Re:Nothing will change

[jav1231]

There's always the chance their case is pointless anyway. There are legal scholars on both sides of this fence.

Honestly

[PrinceAshitaka]

How dare these two groups jeopardize national security by selfishly claiming they have rights!

note: the preceding comment was intended to be facetious

They Don't clain we have rights

[amcdiarmid]

They claim that the White House (&NSA) is not following the law. The existing secret (FISA) courts and regulations allow for wiretapping without a warrent application for 72 hours. The wiretapping is done without any courts. The claim is that that wiretapping must follow existing law and regulations, and is not.

I see no claim to rights here...

Move along folks, nothing to see

Re:They Don't clain we have rights

[PrinceAshitaka]

I agree. I have no idea why they marked my comment insightful, I was going for funny.

There is hope

[quokkapox]

Winston Smith wasn't allowed to sue the government, not individually nor as an organization.

That was fiction. Get out while you still can.

Bruce Schneier wrote about it in cryptogram.

[eddy]

"Bush's eavesdropping program was explicitly anticipated in 1978, and made illegal by FISA. There might not have been fax machines, or e-mail, or the Internet, but the NSA did the exact same thing with telegrams" -- Project Shamrock [schneier.com]

Re:Bruce Schneier wrote about it in cryptogram.

[SimonInOz]

Eavesdropping goes back just a little bit further than 1978.

Ever heard of the Royal Mail? (Yes, in the UK).
It was established by Royal Charter to carry all mail.
Why?
So the King could read it all.

When? In 1516, by Henry VIII when he established the "Master of the Posts".

Things don't change much, do they? (This sounds better in French).

ACLU Blog

[eldavojohn]

Here's a blog [reformthepatriotact.org] related to this ACLU Vs NSA lawsuit.

And from that blog, there's a great site [cdt.org] with all the documents which raise concern. There's a lot of info on there if you're really serious about reading up on what resources the ACLU is using to run this case.

An interesting point

[MarkusQ]

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

[kalel666]

How this all comes up now, and how so many people act as if this issue is something new, or even exclusive to the Bush administration. For instance, fill in the blanks on this paragraph:

The ________ administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July____ Deputy Attorney General ___________ told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to _______, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.

If you guessed Bush, 2004, and Gonzales, try again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore- arrogates-to-himself-power-to.html/ [blogspot.com]

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:Its Interesting

[RobinH]

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.

That doesn't make it right for the Bush administration to be doing it, it just means the ACLU is biased, which is pretty well known. Don't blame people for being upset at Bush, blame them for not being upset at anyone else who tried the same thing.

It's quite possible that with the Patriot Act, a lot of people have been paying more attention to these issues, and it's getting some national attention now, where it wasn't before.

What's sick is that republicans were probably all over Gore at the time, but are now defending Bush, and the reverse for democrats. That's hypocrisy.

Stop lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I'm getting tired of this crap.

What you quoted is not the same as the thing Bush did. While you can of course be of the opinion that it's also problematic, it's legally an entirely different matter.

So stop acting as if it were the same.

Really, I can't understand why some people are so desperate about defending this administrations conduct in this matter that they are resorting to simply lying.

At the time the statement you quoted above was made, physical searches did not, I repeat not violate FISA, because physical searches weren't covered by FISA at the time.
However, what Bush authorized, clearly is covered by FISA and illegal according to it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601170014 [mediamatters.org]

Strange bedfellows...

[will_die]

This lawsuit has some really strange bedfellows.
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.

Wow, talk about alarmist

[Critical_]

Being that I have known quite a few people who have interned for Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the linked alarmist article has very little evidence to support its claims. I encourage people to read every word and then look for comprehensive proof in the cited sources. Furthermore, it's hard to believe that CAIR, after having regular meetings with some of the top-most senators/representatives in the nation would be called "Islamofascist" or a "terrorist" organization by any stretch of the ima

you're on The List

[chrish]

I always knew lawyers were terrorists.

FBI not happy with program

[Stalyn]

An article [yahoo.com] yesterday claimed that there was little gained from this widespread spying campaign. The overwhelmingly majority of these tips handed down from the NSA lead to innocent Americans.

The only thing that could possibly justify such an overreaching program is hard evidence that the program actually delivered information that prevented an attack. You would think that if such evidence existed the Bush administration would release it. However the most likely scenario is that no such evidence exists or it is so indirectly tied to the spying program there might be no real way to prove that this information alone actually resulted in a capture or arrest.

Also I mean real threats, not some whacko who is going to knock down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. Also a case where you can say, "Yes without the information from the NSA program we would have never have known". So far many suspects have already been identified through man-on-the-ground intelligence.

Best article I've seen on the subject...

[Deviant]

I have long agreed with Jonah Goldberg on many things but his take on this is spot-on...

"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/goldberg200 601131109.asp [nationalreview.com]

The Law Has Been Broken

[Guuge]

It is well known by now that the modern interpretation of the Constitution deems any warrantless search of US citizens unreasonable, and therefore illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. Concerns about the implications this may have for intelligence gathering have been addressed by FISA. So far, the only defense of the domestic spying program has hinged on the President's ability to interpret the Constitution as he pleases - clearly an indefensible position.

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.

If the program is so secret

[MarkusQ]

You do realize that this is isn't aimed at rival Presidential candidates, but at people in direct contact with terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States, right?

If the program is so secret, how exactly do you know this?

I think that's the sticking point for many people: "Trust us, we're from the government" hasn't set well with most Americans since the days of king George. If you trust them, that's fine for you. But what about the many people (of both parties) who explicitly don't tru

Re:Echelon Project

[spge]

You just beat me to it :) Echelon still exists, although it uses a legal loophole that prevents (not that effectively, it would seem) governments from spying directly on their citizens. Instead, the US government allows the UK to spy on US citizens, while the UK government allows the US to spy on the British. Then they swap reports. The result is essentially the same as spying on your own people, and covers all phone calls, faxes and email transmissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nothing to see here people

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Clinton had the FBI physically search peopls homes and businesses without a warrant.

Source please.

I am sure that if they published the names of the people they evesdropped on, why they did it and what they heard, those folks would look a LOT worse in the court of public opinion than the NSA.

Like all those people McCarthy denounced or something?

You sir need to recheck your facts

[Critical_]

WH press secretary McClellan claimed the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches just as your post claims. However, what he was refering to was an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants. This resulted in McClellan saying today (of Gore) that, "I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds." Not only is your blanket statement wrong about the Clinton Administration engaging in similar activities as Bush Jr., but you are also incorrect in its scope. At the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed. However, your post fails to mention both and furthermore fails to mention that Clinton never circumvented FISA to search US Citizen's overseas phone calls. It's sad that you'd pedal the same misinformation that the White House feeds everyone instead of presenting the facts to educate your fellow Slashdotters. It's just as bad as Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, making the same false arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live" and Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." Chew on that.

Incorrect, sources provided

[Critical_]

It did not fall under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because, at the time, there were no stipulations for physical searches only electronic. Secondly, Ames himself chose not to pursue having any evidence thrown out based on the issue of warrents as you seem to be claiming. Here is the Criminal Complaint form [jya.com] from Ames' Case. I'm going to highlight some important areas:

"Paragraph 11: As a result of information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, searches authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, trash covers, and other investigation which is detailed herein, I believe AMES has traveled abroad to meet surreptitiously with KGB/SVRR."

So they had what was necessary to aquire the evidence.

Here is a link to and specifically Section 2.5: [cia.gov]

"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."

They had probable cause which allowed them to go warrentless. The next three instances, again pulled from the Ames Criminal Complaint form referenced above, we see that FISA was used throughout the investigation.

"Paragraph 18: Based on information acquired in an electronic surveillance of AMES' personal computer and software within his residence, which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on or about October 9, 1993, along with other information obtained through electronic surveillance and other means, I believe "B" refers to Bogota, Colombia. From electronically stored documents located in AMES' personal computer, "North" has been identified as a signal site used by the SVRR to contact AMES, and "Pipe" is a dead drop used by the SVRR to pass messages, instructions, and cash to AMES. In this message, AMES indicated he could not be contacted from the 13th through l9th of September. I have been advised by CIA officials and learned through electronic surveillance that AMES traveled to Turkey on official business on or about September 13 and returned to the U.S. on or about September 17, 1993.

Paragraph 28: Based on several factors, including but not limited to the following, I believe AMES signaled his assent to the November meeting in Bogota by placing a chalk mark at the mailbox, "SS Smile", on or about October 13, 1993:
        a. First, on or about October 12, 1993, FBI Special Agents monitored, by means of electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a discussion between AMES and his wife ROSARIO AMES, substantially as follows:

Paragraph 48: Based on information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, I believe AMES also owns two condominium apartments and a farm in Colombia. The condominiums are in Bogota and Cartagena; the farm is referred to as the "Guajira.""

As you can see, FISA was involved and the case itself never came down to contesting the gathering the evidence. So you see, everything was in order and our government was able to find a spy on our soil without gross violations of our Constitutional rights.

Re:Breaking the law for the sake of security?

[Phil246]

an equally corrupt congress which happens to back him instead of oppose as was the case with clinton?

Re:Breaking the law for the sake of security?

[Bimo_Dude]

the no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq

... 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:Congratulations!!!

[Aneurysm9]

Not one single Democratic congressperson accepted money from Jack Abramoff. Do not conflate some groups with tenuous connections to Abramoff with Abramoff himself.

Re:Congratulations!!!

[cswiii]

Now who's the one reciting talking points?

Repeat after me: Abramoff gave no money to Democrats. It is true that some of his clients, some Indian tribes -- indeed those bilked by Abramoff -- gave money to both Republicans and Democrats. One cannot directly link this money to Abramoff, however.... and in fact it would be foolish to do so.

Meanwhile, an FEC search of Abramoff's personal political donations [newsmeat.com] show where his true loyalties exist.

As for the Clinton bit, please refer to what someone else has written further down in the threads. No need to repeat it here.

Sheep

[Mark_MF-WN]

Americans ARE like sheep. They are totally willing to give up essential liberties to gain some imaginary security. The fact that you bothered to bring up Clinton demonstrates that you are just a close-minded partisan. Of course Clinton was just as bad -- democrats and republicans have become indistinguishable. They both do exactly the same fascist crap.

Just look at the last election -- numerous incidents of registration interference by both parties. You know, there are countries where this shit doesn't happen. Where gerrymandering and election fraud don't take place. Where the government doesn't spy on its citizens without warrants, or run concentration camps in foreign countries. Where the public doesn't calmly accept a war based on what were proven to be lies. Where people aren't subjected to theocratic "abstinence education". Where school boards are all trying to have the theory of evolution removed from classrooms and replaced with "creation science".

Yes, Americans are sheep. And you sir are a prime example.

Re:Claiming?

[Qzukk]

What media lie? Please enlighten me about which of the following parts of the FISA wiretapping rules are optional, as Bush and you seem to believe?

A) Notify congress after its use.
B) Request a retroactive warrant from the FISA court within 72 hours of its use.

Bush announced that the NSA was beholden to no law and would do neither. In 2002 he publically complained that FISA court moved "too slow" and that he would continue to authorize the NSA to perform wiretaps without warrants. (despite the fact that th

Re:Back when Clinton was wiretapping...

[d3ik]

Yet another "but Clinton..." argument. Okay, I'll bite. You realize that Clinton went through the FISA court (which was established for just these situations), right? The only time that President Clinton authorized a search without warrant was for physical searches, which at the time was not covered by FISA. After legislation was passed to allow FISA to issue warrants for physical searches so FISA was established as the gatekeeper for domestic wiretapping. Here's what Clinton said:

"My attitude was that once the Congress had spoken on it and given us the tools that we needed, we used it," he said. "We used the law. We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it, because I thought it was a good -- I think in the country you always have to try to balance these things out, so that's what we did."

And yes, within the rules of FISA in the case of an emergency you can initiate a wiretap as long as you bring FISA into the loop within 72 hours. So this entire comparison of "Clinton did it too" is ludicrous. He used the tool that was setup for these exact circumstances. The real question you Bush loyalists should ask yourselves is if there was already an established procedure for acquiring a wiretap (even after the fact), why was it necessary for Bush to bypass FISA and use his 'executive privilege'.

Re:Filing lawsuits? I don't understand it.

[Aneurysm9]

Yes, this refers to a civil lawsuit. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts in the United States have no power other than to decide the cases and controversies brought before them. They cannot go out and pick cases they want to hear. The only entity with the power to bring criminal charges against Bush and Gonzales is, you guessed it, run by Bush and Gonzales. Congress could always start impeachment proceedings, but then again, it's controlled by Republicans, so the chances of that happening unless

Re:Filing lawsuits? I don't understand it.

[FellowConspirator]

High treason is quite explicitly attempting to forcibly overthrow the government. While that might be the effect of the Bush administration, it would be very difficult to prove it as the aim (after all, they have much of the support of the people).

However, the way the system currently operates is that things do not come under scrutiny until a complaint is made unless there is specific oversight. In this particular instance, the administration explicitly did a run-around the oversight, got the justice department to support them, and congress has dragged its feet on the matter (namely, "democrats" are pissed but ineffectual, and "republicans" either blindly support Bush or want to try and handle things in a cordial manner out of the public eye to save face for the party with which their careers are connected).

So, what option is there if Americans are collectively affected by dubious shenanigans of government and their legislative representatives don't do anything? They sue. It forces the issue into the judicial branch (which can simply dismiss it, but at least it gets an airing).

I don't know which is more shameful, the sorry state of government today, or that so few people think there's a problem. It's sad.

Re:For Those Who Call the U.S. a Police State:

[Nursie]

"Would a police state allow groups like The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to file such suits, much less exist?"

Why of course it would, just to keep up the illusion that it was serving the people.

Sorry, but that was a dumb question and it's easy to fit some element of paranoia/classical conspiracy theory into pretty much anything...

You might be a Bush sycophant if:

[roystgnr]

• ... you talk about "wartime authorities under the Constitution" without mentioning that the Constitution only gives the power to declare war to Congress, who have not done so.
  
  
• ... you think that wiretaps which would be a felony when done by private citizens aren't even "unreasonable" when done by the government.
  
  
• ... you haven't questioned the premise that the unwarranted wiretaps are listening to known al-Qaeda members, even though such wiretaps surely would not have been among the ~0.1% of warrants that FISA has denied.
  
  
• ... you think that the way to solve inadequate attention to the intelligence we can obtain legally is to bury future intelligence in every phone call we can get away with intercepting illegally, fixing an "inability to put the dots together" by splilling a bottle of ink on the page.
  
  
• ... you think that civil libertarians don't realize that terrorism is a threat, or you falsely pretend to think so to score rhetorical points.
  
  
• ... you do think that terrorism is a threat worth suspending the Bill of Rights for, but you don't realize just how much more the USA was threatened when the Bill of Rights was written.
  
  
• ... you think the Bill of Rights is something to be suspended by executive fiat rather than the democratic amendment process in the Constitution.
  

I'm sure there's more, of course, but I'll limit the list to your one post for now. If you'd like an extended version, I suggest starting with your thoughts on torture, secret prisons, and indefinite imprisonment without trial.

if Al Quaeda is calling...

[brlewis]

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

Indeed. So reasonable, in fact, that 72 hours seems 71 more than you should need to get an after-the-fact warrant approved. Existing law is more than adequate. Bush chose criminal conduct because he wants to wiretap for purposes that are harder to justify. And don't forget that 9/11 could have been prevented by comp

Re:No time like the present

[Guppy06]

"Why wait until you have proof?"

In this era of "national security letters" and Guantanamo Bay, exactly how is the average citizen going to get any proof without being whisked away by the federal government to be held incommunicado indefinately?

Troll, troll, troll your boat...

[Anonymous Meoward]

Sigh. We seem to have a troll lurking here.

You know you're a Bush sycophant when you try to drag Bill Clinton -- who has been a private citizen for a few days short of five years -- into the flame war.

Did Clinton abuse the executive in similar ways? Maybe. But to his credit, he was never as bald-faced or as free-wheeling about presidential fiat as his successor.

PATRIOT, "extraordinary rendition", the deadly fiasco in Iraq, the WMDs.. shall I go on?

Look past the partisan bickering for once.

We're looking more and more like China, the world's largest Red State, every day: fewer rights for the individual, a wider gap between rich and poor, and a docile populace that values economic security (or, more accurately, the ability to consume) over real freedom. You would see that this is where America is heading, if you were paying attention.

Bitch about the ACLU's leanings if you want, but give them credit for standing up for your freedom from random surveillance.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Absurd

[Yunzil]

The Wire taps are ONLY on International phone calls, If tapping someone's phone who is calling Pakistan, is going to make me safer, DO IT. If they are innocent, then they have nothing to worry about.

This is how freedom dies. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I'm sure you won't mind if I personally listen in on all your conversations to make sure you're not a terrorist. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right?

Are we really concerned that a government screener is going to learn about ou

Re:The cycle continues!

[scheming daemons]

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Your entire post is one long stream of unsubstantiated bullshit.

- Rove was going to be taken down, and Bush impeached over revealing a covert CIA agent? [Who wasn't covert, and hadn't been for 6 years]

There was never a possibility of impeachment, what with both houses of congress being solidly in Bush's pocket.

BUT! Had the exact same situation occured when Clinton was in office, impeachment proceedings would be well underway.. and you know it.

- How the Conservatives were "cracking up", by wanting to withdraw Harriet Myers, yet it was actually a strengthening of the party's convictions (See also: Sam Alito)?

Hmmm.. Bush shows an utter and complete failure of judgement in selecting a nominee, is forced by public outrage (mostly on the right) to perfom a "do-over", and this somehow makes Bush a strong leader we should rally around? We hear all the time about him being a "man of his convictions" and "not interested in what the polls say, only what is right" and all that bullshit.. but when he shows that he is ONLY interested in his public approval and not willing to stand up for his choice on principle... that makes him a good leader?

- About 20 lawsuits against Halliburton, Clinton's favorite tool and the only non-French company that makes CITIES, came to nothing?

Investigating and prosecuting these lawsuits was the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. Hmmm... wonder which person and party is at the top of that branch?

- Rush Limbaugh was going to be jailed for taking prescription drugs, but the court found there was no evidence whatsoever, and the prosecutor was trying to take a fishing expedition?

Uh... the court did NOT find there was no evidence "whatsoever". In fact, Limbaugh admitted to becoming addicted to prescription pain medicine. How can that be construed as "no evidence whatsoever"? True, he was not prosecuted... but to claim there was no evidence of his addiction to pain medication? You really have to have drunk the koolaid to go there...

- How tax cuts would "bankrupt the country", but it's growing at the safest, strongest rate without being in a boom? [Also done by JFK, Ronald Regan, George Bush 41- NOT done by Jimmy Carter who *raised* taxes, and we were miserable.]

Check the deficit and debt numbers lately? Tax cuts were supposed to increase the revenue and lower the deficit, eventually leading to surplus and a lowering of the debt. Did that happen? Or has the deficit increased and the debt balooned under this President and his "smaller government" congress? Did you believe the lies that the Republicans were for "smaller government"? The largest NON-MILITARY increase in spending in the country's history has occured under a GOP President and GOP-controlled congress. Never again should a Republican be allowed to say that his party is the party of "small government".

- How almost every democratic congress-geezer moans about low military morale, but people are re-enlisting in numbers rivaled only by the second world war?

Man.. you just make up stuff as you go along, don't you? There is a current recruitment crisis going on, as another poster already pointed out and provided a link. All four branches are well below their recruitment goals. You need to read more.

- How "no WMDs" were in Iraq, but the New York Times reported (5/22/04) that Bush was harming the Iraqis by hauling out 500T of yellowcake uranium, and 2T of enriched uranium from the streets of Baghdad?

Your president and your party leaders, who have admitted that WMDs weren't found, disagree with you. Are you calling Bush a liar when he admitted that intelligence mistakes were made and that no WMDs were found?

- How Bush "went AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties in the vietnam era, but the papers were using Microsoft's font face?

Whether he went AWOL is immaterial... until morons like yourself compare