FISA Court Sides With ACLU Against Administration

jamie caught a breaking news story this evening: the secret FISA Court has ordered the Bush administration to respond by August 31 to an ACLU request for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. The ACLU's press release calls it an "unprecedented order."

I wish I could join the ACLU

[Man On Pink Corner]

... but every time I get ready to write a check, I read about them doing something barking-mad like this:

International 'Tribunal' on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita [internatio...ibunal.org]

Second Amendment a 'Collective' right [aclu.org]

Translation: The Bush Administration is responsible for Hurricane Katrina, but we still need to give them a monopoly on firearms, because that way, we'll all be safer.

Or something.

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

Second Amendment a 'Collective' right

Hey at least they're willing to state, with some persuasion I might add, what their position is, and how they came by it.

Much as I like the second amendment, some people are going to have to learn that the right to bear arms is a little fucking vague, and could do with a little polish after 200 years of wear and tear.

Also, and something that's not been adequately explained to me, but where is the line? M-16s OK? What about RPGs? AA Missiles? Nukes? There's

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your assumption that a "well regulated militia" means an armed force under the control of the current government rather than an armed force dedicated to maintaining a free state is a poor one.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

How's that working out for you? This story is about The Man wiretapping you without a warrant. How's that weapon working?

Is it working as good for you as it is for the Bloods and the Crips? As good as for the Branch Davidians in Waco?

But then, you think anyone should have a nuke who can afford it. Bin Laden can afford it, but you can't.

Thank you for demonstrating the kind of dementia that says the Second Amendment guarantees any weapon, no matter how powerful, to you. Rather than just ensuring that the US w

Re:I wish I could join the ACLU

[Belial6]

The guy might not have said it well, but he is absolutely correct when he said that the second amendment is not about protecting yourself from criminals, and it is also not about hunting. Do you really believe that in 1790, they were sitting around arguing whether you needed a guarantee that you could hunt or not? That would be like needing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that you could go to the grocery store. Do you really believe that they were debating whether or not you needed an amendment saying you could use the strongest weapon you could get your hands on to stop that group of ruffians from brutally raping your wife and daughter? Do you think it was brought up that, "Hey, if someone breaks into your house, you can just make the two hour ride to the nearest town to get the sheriff to ride another two hours back to stop the raping". No, these kinds of arguments would be absurd.

The US did just come off of a revolution, where the government had been seen as extremely abusive. Other governments in the world had previously taken the action of disarming the citizens so that the government could abuse them. Do you really believe that the argument would have been presented of "Look, the war was horrible, but can you imagine what would have happened if we didn't have guns? We need to make sure that the government knows they can only go so far before the people rise up and replace them".

As for the "it's a guarantee that the government can have arms." argument... What government in all the history of the world has ever felt the need to guarantee itself in writing, the right to bare arms? It is an absurd argument.

I have heard the retort to this before. It goes something like "It's a guarantee for the STATES to have their own military. Not the individual". Of course that argument requires that the person making it, not understand the Constitution at all. It is very clear in the constitution that anything that is not explicitly granted in the Constitution is the domain of the states. There is no need to guarantee the states the right to have their own military because if it the right to regulate state military isn't in the Constitution, then the Constitution already says it is a state right.

Of course, if we WERE to take the view that the second amendment was designed to make sure the states had military to fight off the federal government, then we would need to see the Civil War as a great loss, and should be demanding that our national guards start blockading the AT&T buildings to keep the federal government from performing warrantless wiretaps.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

The Constitution has all kinds of unprecedented guarantees in it. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is a reiteration of explicit protections from intrusion that are merely implicit in the rest of the Constitution. Which starts with people creating a government with no powers, then enumerating them.

But the Second Amendment is unique among the others in including an (awkwardly worded) justification for its guarantee. It was flawed from the start. But it does explicitly scope the basis

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

That is entirely the point.

Although the Constitution also states in Article II.8 [cornell.edu] that Congress has the power to create, fund and specify the rules of operation/behavior for armies and navies.

Though a strict constitutionalist would say that those rules should respect the construction of the rest of the Constitution, and write those rules to constitute those armed forces only during wartime. That only after Congress has declared war can the United States deploy those military forces. Just like in the Revoluti

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

"Regulated" did indeed mean "supplied", as supplies of military materiel came from the king "regulus". The meaning of "regular" in "standard without exception" is also from the same: "as according to the king".

I think the 2nd Amendment is full of puns that tweak the king's discarded power. They used a word that said the power of the army to secure the free state would come not from the divine right of kings, but from people bringing their own guns.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

And you don't understand what power Bush now has with his unrestricted domestic spying operations.

Moderation -1
    100% Offtopic

Secret TrollMods don't even know the topic is Bush's unlimited power of unrestricted domestic spying operations, and what we have to do to stop him and his successors.

Re:

[Iron Condor]

Intelligent and well educated citizens ought to be able to possess weapons up to (and beyond) tactical nuclear weapons.

I.e. Americans need not apply. Surely you will agree that people who continuously elect those governments you consider so incapable of handling weapons can not be considered "intelligent and well educated", right?

Re:

[RightSaidFred99]

There is no persuasion to their position, actually, if you understand English and the concept of a parenthetical phrase.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" .

The only part of that sentence that means anything is the bold part, the rest is parenthetical. It's really very simple.

Let's practice. "Because I like the way you spend all your money on porn, I am going to give you $1,000,000."

Now,

Re:

[wwahammy]

The amendment is not created in a vacuum. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights includes a phrase explaining the reason for the amendment. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that, gee, maybe these words written in the supreme law of the country mean something? This isn't the Declaration of Independence where people were trying to convince others of something, this is a legal document.

Try this: "Pornography, being necessary for the sexual health of the nation, the right of the people keep and hold DVD playe

Re:

[Phanatic1a]

The line was already drawn by US v. Miller, in which the USSC ruled that weapons of no utility to a militia aren't protected.

That would pretty clearly rule out nukes. It would pretty clearly rule in man-portable small arms.

Re:

[geminidomino]

Wait, wasn't the whole 'logic' (and I use that word VERY loosely) behind the 'Assault Weapons Ban' the fact that so-called 'assault weapons' (which, if I remember correctly, is scare-speak for full auto) are ONLY of use to military purposes?

Re:

[NMerriam]

Also, and something that's not been adequately explained to me, but where is the line? M-16s OK? What about RPGs? AA Missiles? Nukes? There's either a line that most people can get behind, and shut your griping, or it's all in or all out. Make up your minds.

Though to be fair, every amendment is vague like that, and deliberately so. Sure, we have freedom of speech, but the courts (and most people) accept that there are limitations to that. There's rarely a specific line you can point to and say "that's exa

Re:I wish I could join the ACLU

[belmolis]

What's so crazy about the International Tribunal on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? The name and casting of it as a court is a little funny, but basically it is just an inquiry into the Bush administration's mishandling of the relief and reconstruction efforts. Since this not only affects the people in the area but involves the waste of hundreds of millions of tax dollars, this certainly seems a worthwhile topic for investigation, and there is ample evidence already of gross inefficiency and corruption.

With regard to the Second Amendment, while I like you disagree with the ACLU's position, I don't see why that should prevent you from supporting the ACLU. The ACLU doesn't actively oppose individual gun rights, it just doesn't include them in its agenda.

Re:

[/dev/trash]

We are not the EU. We're still a sovereign nation and we'll handle our internal shit ourselves.

Re:I wish I could join the ACLU

[belmolis]

Funny, that's what China always says when people complain about its violations of human rights and occupation of Tibet.

Re:I wish I could join the ACLU

[belmolis]

I'll explain it to you. The OP complained that the International Tribune was crazy without explaining why. /dev/trash offered as a reason for objecting to the International Tribune the fact that the US is a sovereign country and that nobody has any business looking into how the US handles its own affairs. My comment about China points out the dubious validity of hiding behind sovereignty. You can agree or disagree, but each post is straightforwardly connected to its predecessor.

Re:

[MillionthMonkey]

We are not the EU. We're still a sovereign nation and we'll handle our internal shit ourselves.

You know, that explains a lot. I never realized the GOP considered itself a sovereign nation that lives inside this one, but it makes perfect sense now.

After they lose the election and get driven from power, they're going to open a chain of casinos.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't recall the ACLU acting against the 2nd Amendment, nor do I recall the NRA acting against the other Amendments (unspecified "socially-conservative positions" notwithstanding). Therefore, I don't see the problem with supporting both.

Re:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

They're right. For any sort of citizen militia to be effective at present, they'd need much more than what we can have legally. They don't address hunting or protection issues though.

The only hole in that argument that I can think of is that it requires believing the US military would USE those sorts of weapons against American citizens on American soil. Since the US military has in the past flat out REFUSED to be deployed on US soil, I have a hard time believing they'd use those sorts of weapons, restri

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

Bush's military used those weapons on Americans in New Orleans after Katrina.

The National Guard is now trained in Iraq to use them on civilians in cities. Those Guard will soon be restationed back in the USA. As economic collapses and more Katrina-scale disasters repeatedly "threaten public safety".

Re:

[geminidomino]

They're right. For any sort of citizen militia to be effective at present, they'd need much more than what we can have legally. They don't address hunting or protection issues though.

The only hole in that argument that I can think of is that it requires believing the US military would USE those sorts of weapons against American citizens on American soil. Since the US military has in the past flat out REFUSED to be deployed on US soil, I have a hard time believing they'd use those sorts of weapons, restricting the discussion to personal weapons anyway.

Given the events of the past 5 years or so though, this argument seems far less convincing... all the Fed need do is accuse a whole state of being 'terrorists' or whatever and a part of me can believe they'd allow that to justify almost any atrocity against Americans..

As you say... 5 years ago I would have had a lot more faith in the military. Nowadays, I view them, as a whole, a lot more like I view cops: brainwashed, by design or by circumstance, into viewing anyone not in the uniform as 'one of *them*'.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

They're wrong. The Second Amendment is about defending ourselves from our own government, they're dead-on about that. I disagree that it is solely about States being the only entities in need of protection from an errant central government. The reality is, we individual citizens might just as well find ourselves in conflict with our State governments. What makes them so especially trustworthy, compared to the Federal Government? That's a fiction in itself. The Founders wanted us, the Citizens of these Unite

How true.

[WindBourne]

It is amazing what a wonderful job we did in invading and occupying Iraq. Or are those ppl in an organized army with comparable equipment? The truth is, that Rifles and handguns DO help. We need to retain them.

With all that said, I have been an ACLU supporter over the years. Sometimes a member and other times not, but always a supporter. The real problem is that they really do not have a choice on the cases they take. They take those that are attacking our civil liberties even when it is disgusting (such

Re:

[NMerriam]

The ACLU markets itself as a defender of civil liberties, but then explicitly comes out in favor of arms-control policies that are ideally suited to a police state.

The ACLU has never, to my knowledge, come out in favor of any legislation restricting the ownership of guns. They basically are neutral on a legislative level, but actively pro-individual-liberty on all other amendments. I agree it's a strange position, but even they acknowledge that the NRA has tons of money and resources to through at the gun

Losers!

[einhverfr]

Freakin commies in bed with the terrorists. What do they think this country is? A Republic governed by a Constitution? If they want the rule of law they can all go to Canada.

I am extremely confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails."

I thought the whole hullabaloo was about *domestic* surveillance. Monitoring of internal US communications. This is how the story break a few years ago. But every time someone accidently brings that up, everyone else only talks about cross-borde

Re:

[DavidTC]

The administration likes to claim it's only applying to international traffic, so that's how some people refer to it.

However a) the NSA has repeatedly admitted it doesn't have the technology to just intercept international calls, b) there is no oversight, and c) the Bush administration just rammed a bill through Congress letting them tap people without a warrant as long as the target is not in the US.

For those who don't know what that means, 'targets' of a tap do not, in fact, have to be at either ends of

Re:

[slughead]

the Bush administration just rammed a [bad] bill through Congress

Even when the democrats control congress, Bush still has to be responsible for everything. Amazing. How did he do it, I wonder? I know he has a slightly less dismal approval rating (lowest since Hoover), but does that really amount to political capital?

I don't like him either, but it seems like we're being counterproductive to ignore the fact that both the major parties are responsible. Once you lose your fear of the worst of two evil candidat

Re:

[jjohnson]

The Democrats in Congress are hamstrung by their bare majority in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi has passed all the bills in the House that she said she would--she's actually been surprisingly effective. But Reid can't get anything passed in the Senate because the Republicans are filibustering everything, so the matching bill doesn't show up in committee. The investigative committees are currently the only place where Democrats have real power.

The Republicans in Congress have one goal--prevent the Democrats fr

What's the punishment?

[RyanFenton]

What's the punishment if they don't comply? Who would be the target of the punishment? Who would enforce this punishment?

I ask these questions, because I can't think of an incident in this past term in office where the Bush administration complied with any request that wasn't directly self-serving. Without a meaningful cost that could actually be enacted, I don't see this administration answering to anyone about anything that they wouldn't like to do already.

Ryan Fenton

Re:

[sumdumass]

The US marshals are under the executive, they would have had to defy a direct order if the president refused to leave with them.

What will happen is the president's team will appeal the decision to a higher court claiming national security and other things. The courts would probably side with the president seeing how they didn't on other requests for the stuff. However, I am wondering how the UCLA got a hearing from a secrete court who only job it to review and approve or deny certain warrants. It seems high

Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

[trentfoley]

The judge that signed this order is the same judge that presided over the Microsoft anti-trust trial after Thomas Penfield Jackson was removed from the case. She has apparently now become presiding judge over FISC. She certainly gets around. [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[NMerriam]

She certainly gets around.

I think it's a sign of spending too much time on the internet when you assume any link labeled "she certainly gets around" will go to a naked picture of someone.

Not new, unfortunately...

[tgd]

This sort of behavior has been the standard operating procedure for our government for seventy years, unfortunately.

I was recently reading a couple of books on the history of the atomic weapons program in the US, particularly around the spy cases brought against a bunch of people involved.

A shocking number of known Soviet spies were unable to be tried because of the massive amount of illegal wiretapping that had been done against US citizens during that time. It wasn't until decades later that FOIA releases started to show just how many cases were quietly dropped to avoid it becoming public about the illegal surveillance and wiretapping.

The biggest difference now is via legal "loopholes" like Guantanamo Bay, and secret courts, people can be imprisoned without a trial or with a secret trial where the government can actually use the illegal wiretaps as evidence.

In my opinion, they're going after the wrong thing here. What do they hope to do? Stop the wiretaps? It'll *never* happen. What needs to be targeted is the illegal courts that allow them to make use of the illegal wiretaps.

Burying the lede.

[lheal]

Why all the hyperventilating? From the end of TFA:

The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

So release the court orders and such. It's the ACLU's job to be paranoid, but I'm glad they see the value in keeping some things classified. All of these charges that the Bush Administration is trampling over the Constitution and spying on everyone is only helpful to partisans.

Re:

[lheal]

The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

Too bad it isn't difficult to attain because of requirements other than
family name and status.

So you would rather it were difficult to attain because of requirements other than family name and status?

I think you meant "Too bad it's only difficult to attain for those without family name and status." Right?

Re:

[lheal]

Actually, your English and logic was correct. The premise that one needs a famous family name and status to get elected is incorrect, though, and I think is generalized from too small a sample.

Re:

[lheal]

Thanks, AC. I'm sure you won't read this, but maybe someone else will.

I'm no fan of George Bush. I just don't think he's the demon everyone makes him out to be. He's just a guy trying to do a really hard job.

See, I don't think the President has 'trampled all over the Constitution'. If he has broken some rule or another, then the damage has been inadvertent, collateral and temporary, not part of a key piece of some grand dictatorial design.

Re:

[einhverfr]

Thanks, AC. I'm sure you won't read this, but maybe someone else will.

Well, someone else did :-)

I'm no fan of George Bush. I just don't think he's the demon everyone makes him out to be. He's just a guy trying to do a really hard job.

I would not classify Bush as a demon. He has done some good stuff, some bad stuff, and some horrible stuff. But so have most Presidents. My large fear relates to the structure of the government. We are a government of Laws. not a government of Men.

I have been known to point out that, since the only other two presidents named "George" were Washington and George H. W. Bush, it is not incorrect to refer to the current president as George III.

See, I don't think the President has 'trampled all over the Constitution'. If he has broken some rule or another, then the damage has been inadvertent, collateral and temporary, not part of a key piece of some grand dictatorial design.

How does your second point support

slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

This story is tagged "slashkos". As if a story about the FISA Court objecting to unwarranted (pun intended :P) invasions of Americans' privacy is somehow a "liberal" issue.

I remember when "Conservatives" used to be the most sensitive Americans to government invasion of personal lives. When "Conservatives" used to swear to lay down their very lives to prevent "big government" from gaining unbalanced power over people.

That was a long time ago. Those "Conservatives" are dead, or sold out to the lust for power and the money it brings.

Today's "Conservatives" will sell any liberty for any illusion of "security". And even a geek blog like Slashdot can notice. "Slashkos" indeed.

Re:

[grassy_knoll]

It seems the differences between liberal and conservative are something like:

Liberal: No private ownership of firearms. Abortions on demand. Gay marriage legalized.
Conservative: Less or no restrictions on private ownership of firearms. Abortions strictly regulated or banned. Gay marriage illegal.

As both movements are comprised of politicians, I don't see the Democrats ( if they win the next election ) giving up any of the executive authority Bush has acquired. Politicians seek power like teenagers seek

Re:

[jjohnson]

I predict that a Democratic president will very publicly repudiate the powers the Bush Administration has claimed--it's the only PR defense against the Republicans crying "hypocrisy" . I doubt it'll make much difference in the actual operations of the executive (what, the NSA and CIA weren't tapping American's phone lines without a warrant before 9/11?), but what the Bush Administration did was try to legalize those powers, and that's what they're getting hammered for.

Re:

[grassy_knoll]

I hope you're right... but I kinda doubt it.

The PR defense against the Republicans crying hypocrisy would be to use the current Republican talking points in favor of the expansion of the executive and quote the Republicans directly.

I just dont see a politician, either Dem or Repub, willingly giving up power.

Re:

[jjohnson]

I suspect that when President Clinton looks at the PR value of passing a bill saying 'shut down Guantanamo, restore FISA, purge the Justice Department and no political operatives in the West Wing', adds to it the diplomatic value, and weighs it against the quality of intelligence gained by torture, it'll be a no-brainer. I'm sure the executive will still do what it's always done, it just won't try to do it the macho pseudo-legitimacy the Bush Administration tried to do it with.

One of the genius aspects of

Re:

[grassy_knoll]

Well, purging the justice dept. wouldn't require a bill. Firing all the US Attorneys is rather standard when a new President takes office ( See: Bill Clinton ).

As to everything else, you're ok with "the executive will still do what it's always done" so long as "it just won't try to do it the macho pseudo-legitimacy the Bush Administration tried to do it with."?

I read that as: "I don't care what Bush does, I just don't like how he does it". In other words, if Bush was a Democrat, you'd be happy with everyt

Re:

[jjohnson]

By purging the Justice Department, I was thinking of all the Kyle Sampsons and Monica Goodlings still in place. Part of Rove's strategy for a permanent majority was to stack the civil service with loyal Republicans started young.

No, I'm not okay with any of it, but I recognize that the difference between the executive doing it and not doing it has little to do with which party is in power, and less to do with the laws. Governments always do things they shouldn't, for good reasons or bad. What's especiall

Re:

[NMerriam]

As to everything else, you're ok with "the executive will still do what it's always done" so long as "it just won't try to do it the macho pseudo-legitimacy the Bush Administration tried to do it with."?

I read that as: "I don't care what Bush does, I just don't like how he does it". In other words, if Bush was a Democrat, you'd be happy with everything he did?

I think the more appropriate way to interpret it is that most adults understand that any intelligence agency or military commander will sometimes be

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

First of all, who says that people who oppose abortion don't donate a weekend a year volunteering with adoption or motherhood support groups? And in fact many anti-abortion folks do advocate adoption as an alternative to abortion.

I do. The number of people who do anything material to help find better lives for unwanted children is vanishingly small compared to those just shooting off their mouths. And no, there is no "up in arms" over the discarded blastocysts at fertility clinics. It's only an issue at all

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

You still have your guns. Liberals haven't taken any from you.

But you also still obviously have your paranoia and schizophrenic disconnection from reality.

I wish someone would take your guns before you hurt someone.

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous fascist Coward, the FISA Court is stopping the NSA from wiretapping you. Telecom abuse. Which is most certainly Slashdot material.

But since you're so insane that you think the FISA Court is engaged in "mindless anti-administration bashing", who cares what you think? Karl Rove, is that you, now that you've "retired" and have time to pollute Slashdot instead of trolling on DKos?

Re:

[sumdumass]

there hasn't been one person except bush bashers claiming that the wiretapping was going on outside international calls with suspected terrorist.

They were only wire tapping him if he was doing such a thing. This is exactly like they said, How does a secrete court who's job it to approve or disapprove wire taps under certain conditions get to a hearing about this? It doesn't unless there is something going on.

So before you go ranting about how honorable this is, look at what is driving it. It is bush bashing

Re:

[jjohnson]

Not one person? What about those Washington lawyers who were accidentally delivered a phone log of themselves being tapped? You know, the ones in the ACLU suit?

Re:

[sumdumass]

Lol.. You know, the ones who were working for suspected terrorist funding organizations. The ones who where making calls to over seas. Yea those ones, the same ones you are talking about. They even claim to have suspected they were being monitored because of who and what they were doing.

Re:

[jjohnson]

So you admit that American citizens were being tapped? Lawyers, no less, who have a legally privileged relationship with the person on the other end of the phone.

It seems like a good time to remind you that the NSA admitted that it can't distinguish, in its tapping mechanism, between domestic and international calls. So effectively, the NSA was listening to all of a law firm's phone traffic, no matter who they were talking to.

And all that says to you is "Bah! More Bush-bashing!"?

Re:

[sumdumass]

The entire point behind the problem is that americans were in the conversations. They don't need a warrant to listen to non americans. As for admitting, I don't remember denying this fact. That was the point of the conversations.

I'm also very glad you brought up the "he NSA admitted that it can't distinguish, in its tapping mechanism, between domestic and international calls. So effectively, the NSA was listening to all of a law firm's phone traffic, no matter who they were talking to."

I have seen that at a

Re:

[gilroy]

It doesn't really matter what's driving this. What matters is, there is a law that has been on the books and functioning for nearly 30 years. It makes it a felony to conduct wiretapping of Americans except under the aegis of a court order. The President has publicly admitted that he has approved warrantless wiretaps of a sort that, prima facie, violate the conditions of the law -- and, indeed, the administration has never disagreed with that prima facie reading. (They claim the law is invalid or outdate

Re:

[NMerriam]

there hasn't been one person except bush bashers claiming that the wiretapping was going on outside international calls with suspected terrorist.

President Bush (as well as Gonzales) publicly acknowledged that the taps are listening in on Americans. I'm pretty sure they aren't Bush-Bashers.

Of course, the whole program is classified, as well as the "other programs" that have been acknowledged to exist (again, by Gonzales) but not discussed at all, so we simply have to take their word for it that it's only b

Re:

[NMerriam]

It all comes down to reasonable and probably cause as the constitution protects us. If they are talking with the enemy, then I (like most Americans who aren't against bush) believe there is both reasonable and probable cause to wiretap them.

I'm not sure you understand the Constitution if you think "they are talking with the enemy" is some sort of magic phrase that obviates the needs for warrants to eavesdrop on Americans. If there's probable cause, then you can go to the FISA court (retroactively even!) a

Re:

[NMerriam]

I can see your full of it. The constitution doesn't say that a warrant is needed for each and every search. It says that unreasonable searches and seizures can't happen. So is it reasonable or not to listen in on the american side of a conversation when gathering battlefield inteligence?

I just stopped reading right there, because the Supreme Court over many decades and ideological shifts has already spoken on the matter. Eavesdropping on phone calls with Americans on the line requires a warrant from a co

Re:

[Doc Ruby]

You are a retard. You are measuring whether something has happened by whether it's reported in the corporate mass media.

Now you're telling me that the FISA Court is running "blatant administration bashing". Because it favors the ACLU, which protects your rights.

You don't deserve the liberty we're fighting for you to keep. But we have to drag you along with the rest of us, because liberty is universal. Even retards like you have inalienable rights, though you are aggressively giving them away.

Now shut up and

Re:slashkos

[Doc Ruby]

How is pointing out that privacy invasion isn't a uniquely liberal issue acknowledging that Democrats are anti-privacy and fewer liberties? Unless of course you're the kind of rightwinger who sees everything that way, no matter what the facts are.

BTW, by far the biggest jumps in government size since WWII have been by Eisenhower, then Nixon, then Reagan, then Bush. Each of them multiplied the size of the government, rather than the fractional increments during Democratic administrations. But why would facts matter when you've got Republican slogans to repeat instead?

Re:And "liberals" do anything to "get" Bush

[The Master Control P]

Including labeling fanatical Islamic terrorists who would kill them in a moment's notice "freedom fighters".

Ah, the neverending ability of humans to rationalize evil as long as it's someone else suffering from it. I imagine you cheered Osama bin Laden on as he terrorized and killed Soviet troops during the 80s? It was okay, because they were the Others.

Re:And "liberals" do anything to "get" Bush

[Doc Ruby]

Let's see your facts instead of your unsupported rant. Just like an Anonymous Bush worshipper Coward to do (poorly) exactly what you criticize most.

If liberals would do "anything", they'd just impeach him on the mountain of evidence of his many crimes. Like the many FISA violations a Federal court already decided Bush violated again and again, and now the FISA Court itself is trying to stop with the action we're discussing in this story. Are you ready now to say that the FISA Court is "liberal" and just out to get Bush?

And how easily you pisspants Republican cowards morph from talking about how Bush illegally spies on Americans into your demented "support the troops: keep killing them". No one is rooting for Americans to lose. Some of us are pointing out that they have already lost, as is perfectly clear, because they were run into the ground by the Bush regime you worship. This isn't a fucking Cubs game, you obnoxious Anonymous bloodthirsty Coward. Your stupid insanity is killing American troops for nothing, and making us less safe every day.

Like thinking that pointing out a problem that has to be solved by stopping its perpetuation is somehow rooting for the problem. How do you manage to even brush your teeth with insanity like that ruling your brain? I bet you don't.

Quoting a Washington Republican Post writer predicting problems for Democrats is just the kind of stupid Republican faceplant that is keeping this war going, well after it's hopeless.

And claiming that liberals believe the US is the greatest evil in the world is more of the same denial projection you broken "Conservatives" can't help but spew. Since you've attacked all the freedom and rights protection that makes this country the best, while scrambling to find someone standing up for them to blame it on.

Your factfree post is a sniveling example of why you Conservatives must never be allowed to wield any power in America ever again. Your "Conservative Revolution" has thrown this country low. I bet you've got a similar insane rant insisting that we must torture anyone who gets near our roundup crews.

You're a Coward. Not just an Anonymous Coward, but a scared baby who will do anything so the big men who say "boo" will tell you you're "strong". Just get out of the way already and let the adults run the country. We might have a chance to save it so you can live in it a free man. Not the abject slave you and your Bush regime have worked so hard to lower us all to.

Re:The quote was from a Dem House Whip, dumbass

[Doc Ruby]

No, Anonymous Republican fascist Coward, Clyburn did not say what you are claiming he was quoted as saying. The WP reporter interpreted it in paraphrase to suit his own typically Washington Post Republican bias. And you are lying to say that Clyburn was quoted as saying that.

What Clyburn actually was quoted as saying:

"I think there would be enough support in that [rightwing Democrats] group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us [to easily change course in Iraq]" Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
[...]
Clyburn said that [a generally positive report] would be "a real big problem for us."

Which the WP reporters paraphrased as:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Mond, ay that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
[...]
Without their [rightwing Democrats'] support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

Balz and Cillizza are two Republican boosters writing for the Republican corporate media Washington Post. The simple fact is that Democrats have a small (but larger than their majority margin) fifth column faction, the "Blue Dog Democrats", who vote with Republicans, and who wait for any pro-Bush propaganda Bush manufactures as excuse to vote with Republicans. Balz and Cillizza have turned that propaganda problem for the Whip, who marshals Democratic votes on bills, into a material problem for Democrats, implying that Democrats would find winning to be a problem. When the problem is that Bush, not Petraeus, is writing the report [latimes.com] to lie about progress when it's still a worsening catastrophe.

And of course you pick up that propaganda victory and run with it, Anonymous Republican Coward. Because you are a coward. You let Bush scare you into invading, when we needed to capture Osama (where is he, anyway, tough guy?) and destroy the Taliban, who your DC boys are letting retake Afghanistan and threaten the (nuclear) Pakistan that harbors them.

I'd point out that Vietnam's fate, after we stopped propping up its fake government to massacre its people, was to next successfully defend itself from the China (now among our greatest "allies" with Pakistan) we pretended was going to engulf the world in Communism. Next Vietnam shut down the Cambodian genocide we created with our covert war there. And since then, Vietnam has finally lived in decades of peace after centuries of the colonialism your favorite US buddies (including specifically Cheney, Rumsfeld and their cronies) fought so hard (though not in person, of course, but in air-conditioned remote control offices) to keep for themselves. But lost, and lost horribly, at such terrible, irreparable cost to America. Instead of just accepting Ho Chih Minh's post-WWII plea for a Marshall Plan for SE Asia, which would have given the US the same leverage there against China that we had in Europe against Russia. But the Vietnam War was too profitable for US corporations and Cold War fearmongering to Republican cowards like you to pass up. Exactly like those same Republican mass murderers are doing with Iraq right now. I'd point it out, but what's the point? You Republican cowards can't hear the truth about the blood on your hands and the piss in your pants. You need to kill more people to distract yourselves from your record of failure.

You sick bitches have got everything about Iraq wrong, just like you alzheimers fucktards got Vietnam so horribly wrong last time around. You should never be let anywhere near decisionmaking power. O

Re:

[Man On Pink Corner]

Hundreds of millions of Americans owning guns hasn't made us more secure. It's made us less secure.

Gee, I don't believe that the post was about security. I believe it was about freedom.

May your chains set lightly upon you, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Re:

[Elf-friend]

Today's Republicans are merely reverting to the Federalism of their forebears. It was the Democrats who championed states' rights, small government, individual liberties, and true "Conservatism," before the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" drove most of the "Old Right" out of that party. After years of disorganization, they rallied around Reagan, who proclaimed a new vision of the Republican party - one more in line with the displaced "States' Rights Democrats" than with the traditional stances of the G

Re:

[NMerriam]

If someone views themselves as a politician then, yes, I agree. However, I would like to think, and until I research enough, I would like to think that most of the Founding Fathers were pure and noble. At least magnitudes more so than any politician in the last 100 years.

While I don't think many people are "pure and noble", you're right that the essential difference is the people today who view themselves as professional politicians. To them it's about winning or losing, fulfilling a lifelong dream of bei

Re:

[grassy_knoll]

I don't usually respond to AC posts, but very true.

What if they don't?

[man_ls]

While overwhelmingly positive, this ruling still has to actually be complied with.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, the Administration refuses to comply. Who goes to jail, and who takes them? Is it the President? The heads of the various organizations that didn't comply? Nobody, since the Judicial branch can't really enforce anything without the cooperation of agencies under other branches of government?

I'd like to know, even if it's an unrealistic situation that they'd flat out ignore that sort of an or

Re:

[jjohnson]

This is the (predictable) problem with the ./ summary--it gets a few facts right, and misses the point entirely.

The Bush Administration has to respond--that's all. An argument that the ACLU has no goddamned right to see what they're requesting is a response. The judge might rule against the Bush Administration, but that just means years more of the Justice Department's stonewalling that they perfected during the Padilla and Moussaoui fiascos.

After Bush leaves (ever thought of that?)

[Danathar]

Being all up in arms about this stuff is fine. But I have SERIOUS concerns that people are SO foamed up at the mouth with Bush that when the next Democrat wins the presidency everybody will be so happy that nobody will pay attention like they are now.

I predict that with the exception of some high-profile non-productive executive orders the next prez (no matter which party) will keep most the powers that Bush has acquired via executive orders.

I may sound jaded, but let's not delude ourselves.

Re:

[stubear]

You don't sound jaded, I believe you're spot on. The Democrats are refusing to do anything about the current administration, beyond some token gestures designed to gain good will for their platforms in the upcoming election, because they know they have a shot at obtaining that same level of power put in place by the President Bush. If teh Democrats lose the election in '08, watch every one of they cry bloody murder and work to destroy the powers they failed to obtain.

Re:

[jjohnson]

In fairness to Congressional Democrats, they may have titular control of Congress, and control of the committees (which grants broad investigative powers that they're using), they're hamstrung by their bare majority in the Senate. The House has passed all of Nancy Pelosi's bills that she promised, only to see them get filibustered in the Senate (meaning that the Senate equivalent bill that gets rationalized in committee with the House bill never gets passed). The Republicans in the Senate have one strateg

Re:

[sumdumass]

They would need more then 60 seats. A time table would get vetoed and for once you would see Bush on th offensive and going after his attackers.

He would probably call a national press conference and reserve time on TV and say that congress is playing games with out soldiers lives, explain the he vetoed the bill because of unrealistic demands, say something about we are all going to die if Iraq fails and then name a few key democrats who are doing it.

The public would then flood the offices with phone calls a

Re:

[jjohnson]

I'm saying that if they couldn't break a veto but could beat a filibuster, they would go on the offensive. Bush can thump his chest all he wants on national TV, but the public has turned against him, and if the Democrats in Congress could point to a tough bill and say "the only thing standing between you and Johnny coming home is Bush's veto", they'd win the PR war, especially heading into the 2008 elections. It would look good to the moderates and independents who want to see something done that signals

Re:

[jjohnson]

I believe that the Republicans will spend every moment of the next Democratic presidency screeching about any use of executive privilege at all; I believe that the Republicans who know the details of the powers the Bush Administration have grabbed, will at every possible opportunity accuse the Democratic president of misusing those powers.

I think that the Democratic president will make a very public showing of repudiating and rescinding these powers because that's the only PR defense against Republican char

In other news...

[sgilti]

the FISA court has announced that it will be stepping down at the end of the month, for personal reasons. It claims to have been mulling over this decision for months.

Patriot Act

[flyingfsck]

As far as I can figure, the actual issue is that the Administration holds that the Patriot Act overrules the older legislation and that they are not bound by the FISA process. I tend to agree, since that was the whole point of passing the Patriot Act. It basically suspends part of the constitution and places the USA in a partial state of emergency.

Re:Patriot Act -- USAPATRIOT

[Hal9000_sn3]

There is no such thing as a Patriot Act, there is a USAPATRIOT Act, calling it a Patriot Act makes it seem like it has something to do with patriotism, which it does not.

Re:

[NMerriam]

As far as I can figure, the actual issue is that the Administration holds that the Patriot Act overrules the older legislation and that they are not bound by the FISA process. I tend to agree, since that was the whole point of passing the Patriot Act. It basically suspends part of the constitution and places the USA in a partial state of emergency.

It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, the administration has basically argued that because we're at war and he's the commander in chief of the military, he

Nice to hear, but possibly meaningless

[moxley]

It's nice to hear that even the FISA court is demanding that the Administration respect the law - but there are two problems I see that keep me from feeling like this is going to make any difference.

The first is that this administration just ignores laws and other governmental agencies/branches at will. They consider themselves above the law and act accordinly. They ignored congressional subpoenas, so I doubt that the FISA court is going to have any more luck - and that brings me to the second issue I have:

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Right Bush ... wrong voice.

Re:

[belmolis]

The article links to a portion of the ACLU site containing additional information, including the actual order. But since you obviously can't read, it won't do you any good, will it?

Re:Interesting ...

[bmo]

"so a secret court takes steps towards transparency."

No, a secret court has had enough of being called irrelevant. EVERY president since Carter (Carter created it) has actually gone to get warrants from the court and the court has generally granted them. This administration, however, has wilfully ignored them _and_ said out in public that the FISA court system is an obstacle.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this _knows_ that the FISA judges are pissed off.

I am not one bit surprised that they sided with the ACLU.

--
BMO

More tan that.

[Irvu]

Actually this administration has said that the Judicial branch as a whole is an obstacle. They have sought to circumvent every level of the court system and complained about them publicly. Keep in mind that Federal Judges rotate through the FISA court on fixed terms there are no judges who are "just FISA". What this suggests is that many federal judges are pissed at being called at best irrelevant or at worst Anti-American. One would hope that Congress also discovers a spine at some point.

Re:More tan that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they're almost there. Next week they're going to hold a non-binding vote on whether or not a spine is a good thing.

Re:

[PMuse]

This administration, however, has wilfully ignored them _and_ said out in public that the FISA court system is an obstacle.

Of course the FISA court system is an obstacle. So were the levies in New Orleans. The^H^H^H One of the many problems with this administration is that they don't understand the value of a obstacle.

For that matter, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution were designed to be obstacles.

Re:Interesting ...

[jfern]

Nice try, but no cigar.

Yesterday, some of Bush's defenders pointed out on conservative websites that the Clinton administration had authorized a search of the home of Aldrich Ames, a suspected Soviet spy, without a warrant in 1993.

But legal specialists said the Ames case is irrelevant because it involved a physical search of Ames's home, and the 1978 law did not require warrants for physical searches. The year after the Ames search, 1994, the law was amended to require warrants for physical searches and wiretaps.

Link [boston.com]

Re:

[bmo]

"actually, Clinton used warrentless wiretaps in the Ames case."

Under the rules, you can do the tap or search and go back later and get the warrant within a certain time frame. It's a few days, IIRC. It sounds backwards, but it's better than the alternative of the "bad old days" when there wasn't _any_ way to conduct secret wiretaps with any guidance, so the FBI just did them willy nilly, collecting evidence that would never see the light of day in a real courtroom, because it wouldn't be admissible. The

NSA never had warrants to do what they do

[thule]

It has been pointed out multiple times that the *target* of the wiretaps are not US Persons. The *targets* are people outside the US. It has long been the job of the NSA/CIA to monitor foreign communications. There is nothing new here. The NSA wasn't involved in criminal law and law enforcement of people living in the US, so they never needed a warrant.

If you were to call a suspect that has his phone tapped under a warrant, *your* side of the conversation can be monitored. They do not need a warrant fo

Re:

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Why do you hate freem so much?

Who the heck is freem?

Unless you mean Freem... [wikiality.com]

Re:

[Spy der Mann]

I didn't know about the FISA court until I read this news. As far as I'm concerned, they kept the secret pretty well.

Re:FWIW

[fyngyrz]

No... but somewhere, a computer just set the flag for "irrational behavior" in your file to True. So if they need to come to get you for any reason, they'll probably come with guns drawn. Good job. You really showed them something, didn't you?

Re:

[deniable]

Were you using the word fucking as an adjective or a verb? If it's a verb, and given that you are Adult Film Producer, have you produced any evidence of this? There are several South Pacific markets that want to know.

Re:

[sumdumass]

f it was so "unconstitutional" and "dangerous" and such an "affront to liberty" and a gigantic "invasion of privacy" a few months ago, what the fuck are they doing voting FOR a law that specifically authorizes those exact same acts?

Maybe a few months ago, they were campaigning and like other things, this was just something else to get votes for them. Actually, it would be more like making sure the opponent doesn't get votes.

Sounds about right to me. they think it is necessary but was willing to dog it wh

Re:

[sumdumass]

there is a pretty solid legal construct that says congress cannot imped the president on duties the constitution demands of him. Being commander in chief in time of war/conflict, battlefield inteligence is a crucial role in conducting the duties of commander in chief. The FISA law did so and therefore couldn't be construed to restrict the president in his actions against the war on terror.

This is why you are hearing people say stuff like the war on terror is a bumper sticker and a campaign slogan. It is is