Domestic Spying Program to Get Judicial Oversight 151
Alchemist253 writes "The U.S. Justice Department has consented to court oversight (albeit via a secret court) of the controversial domestic wiretapping program (the "Terrorist Surveillance Program") previously discussed at length on Slashdot. From the article, "[oversight] authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and [it] already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al Qaeda or an associated terror group.""
So it was 100% legal before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you kind of wonder how "legal" it was in the first place. And whether this is just an attempt to avoid an investigation.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
suddenly it's going back to the court
And is this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court actually a court? I mean given that its hearings are in camera by default, it doesn't seem to satisfy the criterion of public scrutiny which characterizes a true judicial court. Any constitutional lawyers here?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Judicial Review? (Score:2)
Re:So it was 100% legal before ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been proven time, and time again - especially in America. More time is spent arguing about the syntax of the document than is spent fighting for and legislating towards the semantic meaning.
Massive fail all round.
Re:So it was 100% legal before ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems that the American constitution HAS worked rather well in its 200+ year history, sure there are some small glitches from time to time, like McCarthy, and now. But on the whole it has worked, only one superfluous amendment (added, promptly deleted). The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.
The constitution is the only thing America has going for it, and the only real hope it has.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The strength of it is that it is a living document, meaning its interpretations are supposed to change with the times, arguing about it is a good things. Imagine if it was fixed, the word has changed much in the last 200 years, including people, their values, and what they judge important.
No. I won't let you get away with that assertion without some comment. The Constitution is a living document because it may be amended by a two-thirds majority of each legislative house. (It can also be amended by a
Re:So it was 100% legal before ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So the current mess we're in is the liberals fault?
Yeah, right. Pull the other one...
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is neither what I said, nor what I think. I was describing the philosophy that, until recently, was used by those considered liberal in the US to achieve certain goals that could not be achieved at the ballot box.
I don't care who is reinterpreting the Constitution. Anytime the rules of society are altered by any entity other that We the People, I have great concerns. Even then, the ramifications should always be well considered.
You've never read it, have you? (Score:2)
We wouldn't still have a Constitution if it specified every little thing and required a massive effort to change it. It works because it lays down a framework
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not such a bizarre statement to say that the constitution should be updated every now and again. I mean, after the initial framing and the formation of the Bill of Rights, there have been an additional, what, 17 amendments? That's a whole mess of amendments. Doesn't that tell you that in the past at least, they considered the constitution something that should be changed?
And look at for instance the second amendment which was written at a drastically different time than today. I mean, "a well regulate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.
The US Constitution was innovative for its day, but it has two major flaws. The first is that it is much more vague than a modern constitution would be, failing to define its terms and spell out clearly the extent and limitations of
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative justices too...Anyone looking for an activist judiciary should take a long look at the *appointment* of George W. Bush to the presidency while votes were still being counted in Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hardly an exclusively liberal process. Conservative activist judges have got their interpretive licks in as well.
I never said it was exclusively liberals doing this, I said "usually". I am sure this hint of negativity concerning the holy concept of "liberal" that has spawned most of the ad hominem attacks. Since yours, and a few others, were considered responses, however, I will response and consider any response you care to give.
As a side note, while it is easy to get into arguments about cons
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sheesh, they gave us Bush. PLEASE make them take him away!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What most don't know about the US Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not for Exxon. Or Halliburton. Some folks have done remaarkably well. It turns out that most things don't exist for the reasons we think they do. There's always a "rest of the story" which isn't so pretty as the fairy tale being portrayed as American history.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I prefer my constitutions on audio cassette. Preferably narrated by James Earl Jones or Sir David Attenborough.
Re:So it was 100% legal before ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Oh yeah, nevermind. The Democrats are afraid of looking partisan. They saw the voter backlash against the Republicans for impeaching Clinton over a blowjob, and said "Oh no! Now we can't impeach anyone for fear of looking partisan, even
Hunh? (Score:2)
The program finally gets oversight, so the president decides to shut it down. What I want to know is whether the court will be able to review any or all past uses of the terrorism surveillance. I don't think the administration should be able to say, "It's okay, we're not doi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing has changed except the bar was lowered. Previously the FISA court required *more* information from the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's the rub. Even if everything was handled well and no innocent person's privacy was violated without good cause, the lack of oversight makes it wrong. I don't care if they were being nefarious or not, I want the spying investigated and overseen by the judiciary then, now, and forever always. Any organization that says "Trust us, we're w
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have right/wrong and illegal/legal confused. While stealing a loaf of bread
Re: (Score:2)
"National Security" is no excuse for violating due process. They don't need to publish the warrants on the front page of the NY times, the warrants can be kept classified until trial, but they still *must* go to a judge and obtain the warrant on suitable grounds. Spying on someone because they *might* be a terrorist or talking to a terrorist isn't going to protect anyone.
It's the slippery slope that leads to secret police and being branded a terrorist for speaking out against your government. It's dang
Re: (Score:1)
But not just any court. This is a super duper double top-secret court. That nobody can see. Or touch. It's so secret, I bet it doesn't really even exist. We're just supposed to think it does.
This ruling expands the program! (Score:3, Informative)
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3 250 [strata-sphere.com]
AJStrata's point is that now the FISA will grant a warrant purely based on a NSA wiretap intel and nothing else. Under the TSP the FBI would need to do a follow up based on a lead from the NSA and provide additional reason/information to the FISA judge (see
Remember the NSA has no standing in civilian courts and does not need a warrant to do what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The administration's argument was that Congress couldn't interfere with the powers of the Commander in Chief, that the President could issue any orders to the military without any restraint. The Constitution says otherwise in Article I, Section 8, clause 14.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If Democrats don't impeach Bush, I will continue to condemn stalling and evasion of that duty, as I have already. Though not BusHalliburtonMcChimpy dupes (because that's the Republican fascism), but rather just politicians who prioritize "don't rock the boat, we're winning anyway" over justice. I understand the political requirement to marshal support beyond mere 5:1 disapproval of Bush to actually impeach. Like evi
like the?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
tell me now.. how many people have died in this little personal war of bush's that never took up arms to the US?
because if it is more than a handful then it is mass murder
and by logic if their way of life and religion is extreme to us - then we are extreme to them - and when was the last time we stopped fucking with others in the world. tell
But what about the illegal wiretapping? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420- 2.html
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember if you call a number that has a tap on it, the police can listen in on your conversation. You are not the target, the person you are calling is. This is the same for the N
Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm lost. Are you being sarcastic? Normally I'd think it obvious that this was tongue in cheek, except your nickname makes a Rush reference.
Is the United States Department of Justice, a department headed by an appointee of the president, also part of the liberal media? So when they wrote [fas.org] "This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States"?
The entire executive branch, and much of the republican congress, has said it/they believe that the president has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps and furthermore he has done so.
Re: (Score:2)
What the heck? I cannot begin to understand the depth of ignorance of that statement. The DoJ letter I linked specifically mentioned that the letter was in response to concerns over intercepting communications. The letter was arguing that this was legal. Phew! Good thing you posted anonymously.
That's right - you have no expectation of privacy for y
Re:But what about the illegal wiretapping? (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420
Bush said this BEFORE he got caught doing wiretaps without warrants. I agree, wiretaps DO require warrants, but Bush has claimed that he doesn't need them (the quote in the parent post not withstanding) and he authorized a program of domestic spying without warrants. If you don't recall this, you are woefully uninformed.
Since you think the "liberal media" may be lying to you, how about a court decision regarding the program? The first TWO SENTENCES reveal that 1. the program exists and 2. the administration does not dispute that is exists. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/do cs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf [findlaw.com] [pdf link]
People that ignore facts on the basis that they were reported by the "liberal media" confuse me. About 2 seconds of research are all that is required to confirm much of this stuff. If you ignore facts because they came from the "liberal media" you are part of the problem; people in power can sit back and do what they like realizing that you are going to take what they say at face value and not take advantage of the resources at your disposal (the media) to see that they are lying.
Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple. You don't even need the media, the government's own documents the lie.
Re: (Score:2)
You are pathetic. Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
We have existed quite nicely for a while without having either, but I see one becoming more likely than the other all the time, and it isn't terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In theory. Things work a bit differently in practice. Unfortunately, we can't verify that without proper oversight. Which we aren't getting. So I'm going to assume the worst until someone can prove otherwise. That thing you quote there sounds sooo believeable. For now, it's just Bart Simpson saying, "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't; they were replaced by the Bush administration in January of 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush administration could not survive one one-hundredth the investigations that Clinton endured.
The worst that Clinton did was soil some skanks dress.
Many more have suffered from Bush's actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Took long enough (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, in their minds, asking forgiveness is easier than asking permission.
Re: (Score:2)
About %@!#% time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the administration's insistence last year that they didn't need judicial overview contributed to the electoral frustration that cost the Republicans control of Congress.
Re:About %@!#% time! (Score:4, Informative)
You call can be tapped without a warrant if you call some criminal suspect. That is because the TARGET of the tap is not you, the suspect is. This is how the TSP worked. The targets if the NSA taps were outside the US and considered part of the battlefield. If they needed to follow up domestically the FBI would get the information from the NSA and start their own investigation.
This ruling expands the program and does not require the FBI to further the investigation. The FISA will grant the warrant based purely on NSA intel.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and AT&T is looking at chapter 11 after so many of its customers left them for going along with this program.
If the American people actually cared about this stuff, it likely wouldn't have happened to begin with.
For more information: (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/fisc_bdy
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "Church Committee"), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court's suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel's Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General's certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a "foreign power" or "the agent of a foreign power" and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
The judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court travel to Washington, D.C., to hear warrant applications on a rotating basis. To ensure that the court can convene on short notice, at least one of the judges is required to be a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government's request, the decisions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of the almost perfect record of the Department of Justice in obtaining the surveillance warrants and other powers it requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the review court had no occasion to meet until 2002. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (115 Stat. 272) expanded the time periods for which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can authorize surveillance and increased the number of judges serving the court from seven to eleven.
Re:For more information: (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you know that Chief Justice John Roberts also has the role of appointing the Judges that sit on the FISA Review Panel?
Link [dailykos.com]
It makes me wonder if a new judge was appointed to FISA recently.
Re:For more information: (Score:4, Informative)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 2006 Membership [fas.org]
Not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
2. During Attorney General Gonzales' previous congressional testimony on this topic, he was very careful and lawerly in asserting that his statements only applied to the program under discussion, that is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The clear implication is that there are other programs besides TSP which have not seen the light of day.
In short, don't let this stop the oversight hearings.
Re:Not good enough (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, AT&T is still working on their, "Terrorist Friends and Family Surveillance Program." Spy on all the friends and family of a suspected terrorist that you want to for just one, low-cost, secret warrant!
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch.
It still won't be traditional warrants (Score:3, Insightful)
First they need to troll through all the communication looking for patterns. Once they find something, then they can eavesdrop specific targets and go for a warrant.
But you don't know what you're looking for until you find it.
It sounds like not much is changing really, except FISA has given the ok to the datamining.
Requests denied? (Score:3, Informative)
That's nice. How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA [epic.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
How many requests has this court denied, or is it just a rubber stamp like FISA?
FISA is the law; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the primary court chartered thereby (with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review as primary appelate, and the SCOTUS as final court of appeal).
That said, at least the Bush administration may have to put together a request that a handful of the most conservative pro-federal judges on the federal bench won't riot over. This is at least a small s
Re: (Score:2)
-1 for not realizing that FISA _IS_ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Or more specifically, the Court was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
THIS PROGRAM MUST END! (Score:3, Informative)
rhY
Better a hundred guilty men go free.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK OVERSIGHT! I want this program OVER. Unless I am an actual proven threat in a court of law, there should be nobody listening to anything I'm doing.
So you want to be proven guilty before they can collect the evidence that would actually prove your guilt? 1) that makes no sense, as it would be circular, and 2) the standard isn't that high for regular warrants.
Re:THIS PROGRAM MUST END! (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats what they're doing. Agency X goes to the FISA court (a court of law mind you) and with A, B and C pieces of information showing that you are a "threat" and that they would like a warrant on you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. But treason is defined in the Constitution so you can go ahead and look it up.
Anyways, all that the FISA courts are doing are approving warrants. A normal court does not require a jury of your peers to do that.
Rubber stamp? (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/02/08/AR2006020802511.html [washingtonpost.com]
Does that sound like a rubber stamp to you? The judge was putting the FBI on notice. They will not grant a warrant based solely on a NSA lead. With this new ruling that is not true anymore. A simple NSA lead is all that will be required for the FBI to get a FISA warrant.
The NSA has monitored communications for years and years and years. The TARGETS of the tapping were foreign communications. If the foreign c
Re: (Score:1)
_if it walks like a duck...
Re: (Score:2)
Then stop taking all those overseas calls from known AQ operatives.
Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
It was obvious then and its obvious now.
Not so much... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, that's not how warrants work. Warrants have to be specific and time limited - to avoid exactly the behavior that Gonzalez in engaging in: blanket invasion into the privacy of all Americans without any legitimate reason to think they're doing anything wrong.
Remember: the laws we have on civil liberties aren't there to protect the guilty. They're there to protect the innocent, namely us.
Surveillance Society - the governments aim (Score:3, Interesting)
They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
This is a post that I have used many times before
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying e
Which program are we talking about here? (Score:2)
They do not know who the terrorists are - so they have to keep an eye on you "just in case".
Please explain how you think this program works, because I thought it was filtering telephone call routing information to fill in hidden nodes in graphs built to analyze social networks of terrorist groups, and because it's under NSA jurisdiction discarded all calls without an international prefix before analysis. This is just
Been Done Before (Score:1)
Under the leadership of Cardinal Wolsey (the Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor) and Thomas Cranmer (the Archbishop of Canterbury) (1515-1529), the Court of Star Chamber became a political weapon for bringing actions against opponents to the policies of King Henry VIII, his Ministers and his Parliament.
this is pre-911 thinking (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dork.
Re: (Score:2)
That, and basing an argument about a F-1CTIONAL show is stupid. Stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
And that would have happened under which administration?
Hint, that would be the GW Bush administration,
you know, they who have been fearmongering over
the terrorist bogeyman for the last 5 years.
You need to stop watching TV and start *THINKING*.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Personal privacy? Haebus Corpus? Magna Carta? The universal rights of man?
This is pre-911 thinking and it will get us killed!
Gee, that doesn't sound sketchy at all.. (Score:2)
So he/she is possibly related to a group that is possibly associated with al Qaeda... I hope the evidence is a damn lot stronger than this half-hearted wording suggests.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't - so Kevin Bacon is in deep deep trouble.
Makes sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Authority Given Years Ago (Score:2)
Ummm, that authority was given to FISA years ago. The question should not be whether they now will be allowed to do their job, but if those who broke the law in circumventing it will be held accountable.
Anyone else see a pattern? (Score:2)
1. President does something shady (the reasons aren't relevant to this discussion).
2. Congress makes a law to make it illegal to do what the President is doing.
2. President signs a law (sometimes with a 'signing statement'), and ignores it.
3. When someone catches him at it, appear to stop doing whatever he wasn't supposed to do so any co
SECRET Court (Score:3, Informative)
"Secrecy" and "Oversight" are oxymoronic.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)