The Fine Print On Wiretapping Review 151
notarus writes "Congress' new bill to 'force' the wiretapping program to be reviewed by FISA has some very doublespeak provisions. One nice line: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.'"
So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, is there any way to stop them before they've entirely subjugated any tiny bit of control we still have over the behemoth that governs us?
They don't even flinch when they're accused of torture; instead, they argue they have the "right" to torture suspects. They don't even blink when they're caught spying on the communications of millions of innocent Americans; instead, they say they're doing it to protect us, and they blame the whistleblowers for undermining them.
What can you do to stop a criminal who accuses his victims? It's like a murderer who, when his crimes are exposed, calls for the exposers to be jailed for bringing grief to the families of the dead. This government has no remorse, and doesn't seem to even understand what it's doing -- unless it's all intentional, which is that much worse.
Is there any way to end the rampage before we're all locked up to protect us from "terrorists"?
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
The beatings will continue.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
And unfortunately, the media have been hyping the "War on Terror" because it's sensational; they get more viewers and more ad revenue by playing into the hands of the power-hungry. Only very recently have the big media even slightly questioned what's going on -- and that's only because it's gone too far even for their taste. It's no longer in their financial interest to incite terror when the terror brings about laws that limit their business, but they'll happily promote government and corporate propaganda as long as it gives them a net profit.
Re:What can we do (Score:2)
I've recently moved to the US (under a special rule, I am getting a Social Security number next week to allow me to look for work (I didn't talk to INS, and I don't have a green card). It concerns me that I live in such a country, but I am interested in making this place a little more palatable. Basically, I am interested in knowing exactly what you need to vote in this country, and where I can go to get information on who to v
Re:What can we do (Score:1)
Welcome! (Score:5, Informative)
Project Vote Smart [vote-smart.org] may be a good place to start (the website interface is a little confusing; if you pick the wrong state you can change it on the left-hand side of the page). Voting requirements are quite different depending on the state you're in. While the information on this website gives you a pretty good idea of what you need to do, you should look up your state's elections website (the link to which should be available on Project Vote Smart) to make sure you've got the most up-to-date information, and feel free to call your local election office with any questions (they can be found on Project Vote Smart if you know what county of your state you're in). The following points are, in my opinion, the most important to look for:
As far as deciding who to vote for, the least-biased sources take the most work to examine. Our next election in November will affect Congress (every member of the House of Representatives and a number of members of the Senate) -- when t
Re:Welcome! (Score:2)
Re:What can we do (Score:2)
Basically, it doesn't matter. The first requirement to vote is that you be a citizen of the USA. Which you may be in seven years, but you aren't now, from the sound of your post.
Once you get over that particulr hurdle, you can worry about who to vote for/against.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
But American citizens couldn't possibly be agents of a foreign power - if they were it would be treason, and there are laws in place for that already.
Doesn't protect the random Middle-Eastern citizen from being swept off the street while vacationing in Europe, though.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
It is possible to be a traitor without being a terrorist. I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, so if someone could provide one, I'd appreciate it.
This bill has nothing to do with someone of Russian, Arabic, Chinese or anyother descent calling some relatives in a hostile country with schematics of a fighter jet. It's all about the government changing the rules so that, w
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Informative)
Benedict Arnold.
The Rosenbergs.
Timothy McVeigh (Score:2)
So what foreign power was Timothy McVeigh?
Re:Timothy McVeigh (Score:1, Funny)
He was Iraqi. Just like the 9-11 hijackers, duh!
I bet you feel stupid now!
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the point that the OP was making is that if someone's being investigated, they're not necessarily guilty of the crime. They might turn out to be entirely innocent; the investigation is based on some suspicion of guilt, and its purpose is to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Now, if you are being investigated as a "terrorist" under these rules, you instantly lose your legal rights. It doesn't matter if you've never h
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by citizens of the nation where the attack occurs.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2, Informative)
If you are unjustly accused of being an agent of a foriegn power, or communicating with one, and the government has not issued a wiretap warrant signed by a judge, then guess what? The case against you is tossed out.
People have this idea that the Constitution protects them from search or siezure by police. It does not. It protects you from having those items siezed
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
If they don't have a warrant and they monitor your calls, they are in violation of the law and should be tried. Period. I'm a little antsy about retroactive warrants, but I at
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
In other words: The people do have a constitutional right preventing unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to perform a search may be issued without probable cause. A
A bit of Devil's advocate here (Score:2)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Define "unreasonable" and no, a dictionary answer won't do. You see, that is the problem with the Constitution. I
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Come again? [wikipedia.org]
They were looking for arabs before he got caught for a traffic violation, you know...
What about Foreign Travel Agents? (Score:3, Funny)
Even worse....
What if you are a Travel Agent working in the US (w/o US citizenship). Or an e
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Bend over (Score:3, Interesting)
We can safely bet it will not be vetoed by POTUS!
Re:Bend over (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bend over (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you understand? It's a different world! 9/11 changed everything! The US has never ever ever faced an enemy as dangerous to its very existence as AlQaedaSaddamHusseinHezbollahSomeGuyDownTheStreet
Oh, and in case you forgot, 9/11! 9/11! MP3 pirates! 9/11! Child porn! 9/11! 9/11!
the 9-11 changed everything rationale (Score:5, Insightful)
Like you, I'm getting pretty fed up with this excuse for trampling on the constitution and human faces in secret prisons scattered worldwide. While 9/11 was certainly a horrific tragedy, it certainly doesn't represent a threat of such proportions that we need to sidestep the trivialities of the constitution to preserve the continued existence of America.
While it's a completely different conflict, consider the threat that the Civil War posed to the country. 9-11 was baby crap compared to how close America came to disolving during the Civil War.
So, yeah, America has been guided through some spectacularly difficult times by that Constitution. And these neocons who are second guessing the original authors of the document, well, I wouldn't exactly put them on the same shelf of great thinkers occupied by the likes of Ben Franklin.
Seth
Re:the 9-11 changed everything rationale (Score:2, Interesting)
Well duh, it was a civil war.
But Lincoln restored Habeas Corpus when the civil war ended. When is the war on terra going to end?
Re:the 9-11 changed everything rationale (Score:1)
Even then, they could extend it even more, I suppose. It says 'authorization to use military force against the people, organizations, governments, or parties that caused the September 11, 2001 attacks and the people, organizations, governments, or parties that help or protect them.
Re:the 9-11 changed everything rationale (Score:2)
So, yeah, America has been guided through some spectacularly difficult times by that Constitution.
If you're actually referring to the US Civil war, the US Constitution wasn't so much of a guiding hand in that conflict, but a major point of contention. Ask a northerner why they fought the Civil War, and they'll tell you "slavery". Ask a southerner, and they'll tell you "states rights".
Truth be told, they are both correct, but in the analysys, the southern states had the stronger constitutional position
Re:the 9-11 changed everything rationale (Score:2)
When Lincoln appointed FakeCongress on 4-July-1861, he put a pretty face on what has been a military dictatorship.
Show me when FakeCongress was replaced with a real congress, and the wartime emergency government actually replaced. I can't find the paperwork.
Re:the 9-11 changed everything rationale (Score:2)
<DevilsAdvocate>
Why in the hell can't we use 9/11 as any excuse what so ever to trample on the rights of terrorists who are out to destroy *us* and *our* way of life!
</DevilsAdvocate>
The true irony here is that we destroy our way of life in the reckless pursuit of these Emmanuel Goldsteins; Warrantless spying on Americans by an agency barred in its charter from having any domestic operations [google.com], America joining the ranks of countries who disregard the Geneva frickin' Conventions [google.com], Citizens - fore [google.com]
Re:Bend over (Score:3)
Re:Bend over (Score:2)
What part of "foreign powers and agents of foreign powers" wasn't clear? This whole article, and the fact that it's on slashdot is stupid. Of course such a line would be inserted into any bill. Congress CAN NOT ever pass a law that limits the powers of the president if those powers are allowed by the constitution (including
Read the whole article, it's important (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing the bill allows FISC to issue, not individual warrants, but permission for exactly the kind of driftnet fishing expedition that's never been legal against US citizens.
Then comes the real land mine. If someone does challenge a domestic spying program, this bill says FISC can "dismiss a challenge to the legality of an electronic surveillance program for any reason". Think about that: "any reason". Not "any legal reason", not "any rational reason", not "any reason related to national security". This simply means the court can throw out any complaint without a hearing just because it wants to.
"...foreign powers and agents of foreign powers" makes this sound much better than it really is. Just remember that if spying on "agents" doesn't allow enough abuse to satisfy the people behind this, they'll interpret it as "suspected agents". After that, it will somehow expand to "alleged agents" and then to "possible agents", meaning everybody. Then they'll be able to bug the Democratic Party [wikipedia.org] as before, only this time it will be legal.
Re:Read the whole article, it's important (Score:2)
the bill still has to go before the congress, and then the senate then to committee then to the president's desk
maybe zonk was sleeping on the job because the submitters commentary, the parent comments, etc had nothing to do with the content of any article about this news i could find
Re:Read the whole article, it's important (Score:2, Funny)
br> You must be new here.
Re:Read the whole article, it's important (Score:1)
Then comes the real land mine. If someone does challenge a domestic spying program, this bill says FISC can "dismiss a challenge to the legality of an electronic surveillance program for any reason". Think about that: "any reason". Not "any legal reason", not "any rational reason", not "any reason related to national security". This simply means the court can throw out any complaint without a hearing just because it wants to.
Re:Read the whole article, it's important (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Read the whole article, it's important (Score:2)
Usual Suspects (Score:2, Insightful)
Lichtblau says the FISA Court's position would be "unusual". The FISA Court [cornell.edu] is the ONLY venue that is ALWAYS in the position of deciding whether US persons are legitimate wiretap subjects. It's position is not just not "unusual"
Hey, Mods... (Score:2)
Re:Hey, Mods... (Score:2)
Re:Usual Suspects (Score:2)
100% Troll
TrollMods actually want Bush to spy on them like a tyrant.
Courts (Score:1, Redundant)
In the words of... (Score:2, Funny)
In defence of freedom?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In defence of freedom?! (Score:2)
Nope, not an 'offical' endorsment. afterall, she wouldn't want my 'official' endorsment anyways. depending on how the next few weeks pan out, we might be a little closer to knowing if hillary actually stands a shot at a presidential bid or not though.
anyways, keeping annoying criminals locked up is important
rehabilitating criminals is important too
legal analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare you (Score:2)
Re:legal analysis (Score:2, Insightful)
it was refreshing to find your post.
Re:How dare you? Here's how. (Score:1)
Re:How dare you? Here's how. (Score:2, Insightful)
How fortunate.. you lost him right when he finished!
Also, withholding an opinion (until sufficient analysis is done) is better than jumping to conclusions without careful thought, as you seem apt to do. In fact, the OP's point was that many people posting here hadn't analyzed the story correctly and had the completely wrong idea (and yet are still ranting on)
Re:How dare you? Here's how. (Score:2)
Once you fall for the Fear Card being played, and toss away Due Process, you are EXACTLY as Evil as any Nazi was, the only differences being the methods and bodycount.
Re:How dare you? Here's how. (Score:2)
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly within the power of congress to present a bill that would reduce the effectiveness of a previously passed bill.
My take on this is that anything going through congress should be thought through with the mindset that terrorism is not a factor. Terrorism today is like the war on drugs or the war on communism. It never ends and it's a tool used by the powers that be to do things to the citizenry that would under normal circumstances be impossible. If you strip away the fundamental principals of society to deal with a problem, then the solution is worse than the problem.
We are dealing with three things here - 1) we live an an information age society that is fundamentally different than the one's which gave birth to the majority of our laws and 2) we have a general populous that is ignorant of that which makes our society great. The third thing is that political maneuvering is based on a polling structure that encourages answering without any pontification or even any background information. Sure, we would all like to live in a well thought out society, but we can't even force the issue of working in a well thought out environment. We can blame our congressman for making bad decisions, but a better solution would be to become involved to the point where we were helping governmental decision making in general better.
I certainly see that government will always push the limits of it's own power and understand that laws which grant power to the government should be written with a conservative (conservative, not right-wing) mindset. But I also can see that lawmakers have a different perspective than the general populous. They sometimes have a better historical perspective. They sometimes have access to information that the general public does not which factors into their decision making, and they sometimes have motivations completely unrelated to a particular bill that push them to vote one way or another. In the end, they have to live with their decisions just as much as we do. If their track record is so bad, then why is the re-election rate upwards of 90%? Surely it couldn't be pure apathy on the part of their detractors.
Re:FUD (Score:1)
Girls Gone Wild?
KFG
Re:FUD (Score:3, Informative)
changes as of 6.14 [eff.org]
The bill is S. 2453. Working title is National Security Surveillance Act of 2006.
There are a couple of other bills worth noting. One is S. 2455 (Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006), sponsored by Senators DeWine and Graham. The other is S . 3001 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006) sponsored by Senators Specter and Feinstein.
I've been following these bills since their introduction. I knew that one or more of them would
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:1)
Re:FUD (Score:2)
This spans a repeated disregard for any legality or responsibility that doesn't fit their ideals or agenda. This is not about having representatives and an administration that 'knows' better than the people this is about authoritarian worship, along
Wake-up call for techies! (Score:4, Interesting)
We need laws that protect us DESPITE this inevitable progression. I.e., since freedom will lose on the battlefield of what information government has access to, we need to find ANOTHER battlefield where freedom can win. And the only viable candidate I see is to greatly strengthen laws controlling what government can DO with data, even if it possesses same.
This winds up being a system design issue, as tough as the flip-side problem of "How will government integrate all that information to get at it anyway." So we need to start solving it right away, just like the integration problem is already being worked on, then get that solution out into the public consciousness.
I think I've made a good start at http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/06/freedom-ev
Nothing in any Act can limit the president thusly (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is, nothing in any Act can constrain the executives authority to conduct foriegn intelligence data gathering. That is a prerogative of the Executive, as enumerated in the Constitution, as interpreted (repeatedly) by the Supreme Court. An amendment to the Constitution is required. First, we establish that foreign intel gathering is seperate from domestic gathering for purpose of applying 4th amendment:
Katz v. Uni
FISA != SCOTUS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:FISA != SCOTUS (Score:2)
No, there's a more troubling thing here than an attempt to dilute the reach of SCOTUS: In the US, in general, courts don't do prior review. They rule only on "actual cases and controversies" -- meaning they don't green-light legislation ahead of time. Partly
Re:FISA != SCOTUS (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh good god, the naivety of people is really driving me fucking nuts these days.
Of course they thought it through. That's *why* they're fucking doing it, you simpleton.
Grow up, pull off the rose colored glasses and deal with the reality you're in, not the delusional fantasy world you wish you were in.
Are you that out of touch with reality that you actually believe they'll fuck it up
Constitutional authority (Score:5, Insightful)
The Legislative body doesn't have that power anyway.
Re:Constitutional authority (Score:2)
Bad example line (Score:2)
What about signing statements? (Score:1, Flamebait)
That's really how things work, right? Check and balances are a throwback to pre-21st century America: they're quaint and cute, but they don't actually apply.
What about Constitutional Responosibilities? (Score:3, Insightful)
So the arguement is moot.
What's the point again? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, um...what's the whole point of this act, if the President can simply decide that this doesn't apply to what he's doing? Are we just paying our Congressmen to generate laws and paperwork that have no meaning or way for enforcement?
Whatever happened to a system of checks and balances? Geez.
Don't get your panties in a bunch (Score:3)
As for the President we've already seen that the courts can and will override the Executive branch when they claim Constitutional privledges (Hamdan v Rumsfeld). In that case they said "go back to the Legislative branch to get clarifying law, until then we say this is beyond your Constituti
Re:Don't get your panties in a bunch (Score:2)
Besides, quite a few of the sentors who went and got the breifing did not come back with "they are doing domestic wiretapping" they just wanted it under this law. Which, because it was international calls it is OK not to have a warrent.
Re:Don't get your panties in a bunch (Score:2)
If this language is boiler-plate, we need new boilers.
Do something about it (Score:3, Informative)
Cindy Cohn, EFF's stellar Legal Director, sez, "Senator Specter and the Bush Administration today announced that they have reached a deal to send all of the cases concerning the illegal NSA wiretapping (including EFF's) to the secret FISA court. This is being spun in the press as a big concession by the Administration but in truth it's an abomination -- the FISA court acts in secret and doesn't even hear argument from both sides. This bill will likely move fast, so we only have a limited window to try to stop it. Here's s direct link to EFF's action center [eff.org] to let you write to the relevant Congressional committees."
It takes less than 30 seconds to send an e-mail to your congresscritter, and it's really the least you can do if you really care about this issue.
Simple Math..... (Score:3, Funny)
B. They don't work for us.
C. They ignore the constitution.
D. They probably killed Kennedy and faked 9/11.
E. How is any of this a surprise?
F. Halliburton
G. Profit!
Are these the droids you were looking for?
9/11 vs mccarthyism (Score:4, Insightful)
60's had vietnam. fix that and the world will be safe again.
70's had watergate. fix that...
80's and 90's had war on drugs. if we can fix that, all our problems will be solved.
skip to the '00 century and we now have 'war on terror.
and guess what, it won't be won, it won't fix ANY of our problems and next decade (god willing) we'll have forgotton all about this silly gov power-play and we'll have a BRAND NEW chicken-little thing to run around saying 'the sky is falling', etc.
people - there IS no reason to keep giving gov more and more power. give it more power and we seem to get no new returns on our investment. soon, the gov has its fun and then goes off to choose another plaything.
this is just how the world works. and no, nothing got any better for winning or attempting to win any of these 'battles'. because they are not winnable and if it takes 10 or 30 years, we WILL finally realize that.
not everything in life is a 'war on
2010's... war on Linux? (Score:2)
Re:FIRST POST (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't matter anyway... (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't matter anyway... (Score:3, Interesting)
President: "Under my constitutional authority
Supreme Court, playing along: "You don't have that constitutional authority."
Rubber-stamp Congress: "Under the President's constitutional authority
Supreme Court: "The law clarifies the President's constitutional authority
Bang! You and I and everyone else who gives a damn about freedom can howl all we want, but all it takes is one Supreme Court decision to enshrine this previously-nonexistent authority as precedent.
I feel
Re:Wouldn't matter anyway... (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't matter anyway... (Score:2)
Nice Troll, Supreme Court Has Overrulled Bush (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wouldn't matter anyway... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really true, at the moment, as the recent ruling on the tribunals shows; however. .
To show close you are to the truth compare and contrast C. Thomas' minority opinion in the imminent domain case, where he was both legally sound and right, with his minority opinion in the tribunal case, where he completely ignores his own legal philosophy in order to favor absolute powers for the president.
The cognitive disonance is scarey, as is t
Re:That quote from TFS reminds me of... (Score:2)
Oh, I just re-read the first four words of my post. Never mind.
Re:Ummmm doublespeak? (Score:2)
There is the deepseated fundamental flaw in your entire "point".
As soon as you have to throw in, "and the magic faeries came and make everything wonderful" which is exactly equivalent to your statement, your entire argument becomes completely worthless.
Think it *all* the way through next time.
Re:Ummmm doublespeak? (Score:1)
(Not saying I dissagree with it, you know, the internet an all...hi NSA slashdot political views supervsor!)
Re:Ummmm doublespeak? (Score:2)
I'm not sure if your music's too loud, or if the whole being dead for tax reasons thing is screwing up the communication, but I don't know if you're approving, disapproving, or just commenting
Re:Ummmm doublespeak? (Score:1)
Loud? Is that what I still do for a living? I can't hear anymore.
Re:Ummmm doublespeak? (Score:1)
You missed the "when the Legislature cannot be convened" part. As long as the legislature can do its job, the president doesn't get to take over. Also, the domestic part only take effect when a State asks the Legislature for help, not just whenever the Legislature sees fit - that's what the "on Application of the Legislature" part is talking about.
Re:Ummmm doublespeak? (Score:2)
Actually thats not right either. The Geneva conventions do apply certain protections to all people, but those are far
Re:All you 'wire tap' people are idiots (Score:2)
Re:Doublespeak? (Score:1)