There has been a split between legal scholars regarding the legality of Bush's NSA Domestic spying program. Some scholars say it is not legal, and some say it is legal. The ACLU filed suit today against the NSA in an attempt to stop the domestic spying.
quote:ACLU Sues to Stop NSA Spying on Americans
Tuesday 17 January 2005
Prominent journalists, nonprofit groups, terrorism experts and community advocates join first lawsuit to challenge new NSA spying program.
New York - Saying that the Bush administration's illegal spying on Americans must end, the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the National Security Agency seeking to stop a secret electronic surveillance program that has been in place since shortly after September 11, 2001.
"President Bush may believe he can authorize spying on Americans without judicial or Congressional approval, but this program is illegal and we intend to put a stop to it," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "The current surveillance of Americans is a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since the days of Richard Nixon."
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations (including the ACLU) who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East. Because of the nature of their calls and e-mails, they believe their communications are being intercepted by the NSA under the spying program. The program is disrupting their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, and engage in advocacy. The program, which was first disclosed by The New York Times on December 16, has sparked national and international furor and has been condemned by lawmakers across the political spectrum.
In addition to the ACLU, the plaintiffs in today's case are:
Authors and journalists James Bamford, Christopher Hitchens and Tara McKelvey
Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin of New York University's Center on International Cooperation and democracy scholar Larry Diamond, a fellow at the Hoover Institution
Nonprofit advocacy groups NACDL, Greenpeace, and Council on American Islamic Relations, who joined the lawsuit on behalf of their staff and membership
"The prohibition against government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, who is lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA. "President Bush's claim that he is not bound by the law is simply astounding. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate Constitutional principles."
---
In the legal complaint filed, the ACLU said the spying program violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution.
The ACLU also charged that the program violates the Constitution because President Bush exceeded his authority under separation of powers principles. Congress has enacted two statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III of the federal criminal code, which are "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance. . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted."
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan, seeks a court order declaring that the NSA spying is illegal and ordering its immediate and permanent halt. Attorneys in the case are Beeson, Jameel Jaffer, and Melissa Goodman of the national ACLU Foundation, and Michael Steinberg of the ACLU of Michigan.The lawsuit names as defendants the NSA and Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, the current the Director of the NSA. ACLU Suit
What do you think about the NSA spying we are hearing about in the news today?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*clap clap*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If it's not illegal, it should be. Either way the President is doing something wrong - failing to promote the correct laws, or violating those laws.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Ironically, the NSA knew that this lawsuit was coming almost two weeks ago... Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
rofl
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Well, this is not a Domestic spying program. So we should not have computers perform electronic data gathering on overseas calls from known terrorists placed to unknown people in the US? How should we monitor that? This link has some interesting reading on FISA failures
FISA Failures Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What do you think about the NSA spying we are hearing about in the news today?
It is because of things like this that I am glad the ACLU is around.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK: the issue isn't who is being spied on, its the protections that aren't being followed when an American citizen (who is not a proven terrorist, at all) is being spied upon.
For instance, it has come out that this program required all of a shift supervisor's approval to start surveillance, when the Congress has made clear their intention that, even if post hoc, approval be given (in at very least extraordinarily similar situations, and quite possibly in this very situation) by a high level federal court.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: So we should not have computers perform electronic data gathering on overseas calls from known terrorists placed to unknown people in the US?
So get a warrant.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I take it neither of you have read the link I provided? I see, so as long as a known terrorist calls an American citizen or at least the phone of an American citizen or at the very least someone who may be an American citizen then we cannot gather intelligence? Hmm, doesn't that sound like the perfect way for terrorists to communicate freely? We are NOT spying on random Americans, we are using computers to gather data on foreign calls to known or suspected terrorists. We are not using computers to gather data on random Americans. They have to meet specfic parameters to even have a computer start to gather data. Even at that point 'eavesdropping' is not occuring in the sense that someone, a living person, is monitoring the coversation. The flip response of "So get a warrant" would be fine in a perfect world. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. Too much of politics, interagency squabbles, and the culture of not sharing any information between agencies start entering into the world of Intelligence especially after adding in the high level courts.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
DK, the FISA court is not interagency, not political, and specifically set up to be quick, secure, and easy to get approval from. The only reason not to go to that court is if you are doing something illegal.
I agree that we are NOT spying on Random Americans. We are spying on Americans that the President and his people have labeled to be possible threats. If this is legal, what happens when a not-so-noble of a President gets in power? What happens when he says "Trust me, we are spying only on threats" but to him, political opponents are the threats.
Don't forget, it was on of this administration's people that called the head of the NEA a terrorist. If the President says they are a terrorist (not this President, but some future one) does that give him the power to spy on the head of the NEA?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I see, so as long as a known terrorist calls an American citizen or at least the phone of an American citizen or at the very least someone who may be an American citizen then we cannot gather intelligence?
...without a warrant. Posted by Ray Bingham (Member # 9006) on :
Hooray! So when I'm dying of anthrax poisoning, at least I can say my terrorist neighbor wasn't being wire tapped "without a warrant"! Yay!!
What a great country!
--Ray
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure I read it. It seems that most of the problem was with the FBI failing to understand the process and the requirements to get a warrant. Also, it is possible to get a warrant retroactively under FISA - why aren't we at least requiring that, if timeliness is the issue.
The answer to these issues is to better train the agents and to imporve the system, not to give the President (and remember, it won't always be a president you like) carte blanche to decide who has civil rights and who doesn't.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Hooray! So when I'm dying of anthrax poisoning, at least I can say my terrorist neighbor wasn't being wire tapped "without a warrant"! Yay!!
What a great country!
I believe that our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights are what make this a great country, so I hope that, in a similar circumstance, I would be able to say that with pride rather than sarcasm.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The link I provided above does show the failings of FISA, and the FBI in obtaining warrants. I think it is odd that FISA is seen as this perfect non interagency, non political, quick, secure, easy way to get approvals from. Nothing in government is anything like that except this one specific court? What do we do when we have a not so noble President in office? Well, what do we do now when we have a not so noble FBI agent, police officer, firefighter, prison guard, and so on? There were many approvals that had to be obtained, it was for a specific amount of time and then had to be reapproved, many people knew about the program, the whole thing was leaked to the press so I am not concerned about what might happen. This is a slippery slope arguement which never seems to work. If the head of the NEA or the head of the Republican party or even if it was me were having converstaions with known or suspected terrorists who were calling from overseas then yes, it does give the NSA the permission to use computers for data gathering purposes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Just because a certain right can be taken advantage of by terrorists does not mean that right should be eliminated.
I mean, we could just go kill every citizen who we suspect might be helping terrorists, and that would make us safer from terrorists, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing to do.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
How do you get a warrant for computers to search for a very specific set of circumstances that does not name actual specific people?
The President was not and did not use carte blanche to decide who has civil rights and who doesn't. There is a very specific set of circumstances that were set forth, not a carte blanche we are monitoring everyone. So that did not and is not happening.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Killing citizens is vastly different than having computers doing a search so that arguement doesn't hold much water
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How do you get a warrant for computers to search for a very specific set of circumstances that does not name actual specific people?
I'm pretty sure it's possible to get a warrant for a computer or email address without a name of the person.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Killing citizens is vastly different than having computers doing a search so that arguement doesn't hold much water
It does a pretty good job of showing that "It makes us safer" does not make an action good or justifiable.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
No it doesn't. Killing people who we might suspect of helping terrorist puts everyone in immediate mortal danger. Computers doing searches does not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ture. Searching computers does not put is in mortal danger. It just violates civil rights.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I don't think that has been proven yet?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:What do we do when we have a not so noble President in office? Well, what do we do now when we have a not so noble FBI agent, police officer, firefighter, prison guard, and so on?
If the Not-so-noble FBI Agent, Police Officer,etc taps a phone with out a warrant, they go to jail. President Bush is demanding that he, and all future Presidents, do not face any punishment for doing so.
Ray, I understand and will help. To make sure that you have a slightly slimmer chance of dieing of Antrax poison, I'll just buy a break-away door to make it easier for the apparently legal--Big Gov Goon Squad to make me disappear one night because I dared to get on the bad side of a President.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: If the Not-so-noble FBI Agent, Police Officer,etc taps a phone with out a warrant, they go to jail.
That is a completely different example as no limits or specifications have been set on the wire tap. Warrantless searches are allowed in some circumstances.
quote: President Bush is demanding that he, and all future Presidents, do not face any punishment for doing so.
Except that is not what they are doing. You are accusing President Bush of things that he, or rather the NSA is not doing.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It is because of things like this that I am glad the ACLU is around.
Were it not for their staunch support of abortion rights, I would join.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:no limits or specifications have been set on the wire tap.
And what limits and specifications have been set on the wire taps the NSA are doing? Only those that the NSA, or the President, puts on themselves. I'm sure the corrupt FBI agent puts limits on the wire taps he does illegally too.
Do I think that President Bush is using these wire taps to spy on political opponents? No.
Do I think that this line of reasoning that the President is using would open up such spying to some future, less forthright President? Yes.
quote:You are accusing President Bush of things that he, or rather the NSA is not doing.
I accused him of demanding the right to listen to the communications of American Citizens, and read their e-mails, log their surfing, etc, if they have been in contact, however remotely, with someone he and the NSA deem a threat.
I accused him of setting a precedent that I believe is dangerous.
To be more accurate with my accusations would require more information on what is going on. However for obvious security reasons, (and possibly for political reasons) such information will not be given to people like you and me.
Some court could determine if what is happening is really a threat to our civil liberties. It would ahve to be some neutral court set up by third parties--say Congress--who's some job is to determine such things. But we've already bypassed such a court.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Were it not for their staunch support of abortion rights, I would join.
Join the EFF, then. Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Were it not for their staunch support of abortion rights, I would join.
Because, as we know, the all-encompassing litmus test of pro-abortion vs. pro-life completely overshadows any positions they might hold on other topics... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's Icarus's business what sorts of organizations he wants to join, TheHumanTarget. You've got no business rolling your eyes at him over it at all.
I tend not to join organizations that hold positions I strongly disagree with, particularly on serious issues. I guess that makes me some sort of hot-button jerk, right?
Right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: Were it not for their staunch support of abortion rights, I would join.
Because, as we know, the all-encompassing litmus test of pro-abortion vs. pro-life completely overshadows any positions they might hold on other topics...
It does when they use their general funding to advocate for legalization of something I consider to be the killing of a human being. The EFF suggestion might be a good one, though.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you, Rakeesh and Dagonee.
Jesus, I can't seem to say anything at Hatrack without getting jumped all over lately.
THT, this is not the same as being a single-issue voter, which I am not, so if you've been saving that response for the next single-issue voter you encounter, you fired prematurely.
It is completely reasonable, I think, to refrain from giving money to an organization that has as one of its very highest priorities the expansion of the right to commit an act I consider murder. (I am not interested in debating abortion in this thread; we have other threads for that. But I hope it's not rude of me to not mince words here, since the purpose of this thread is not to debate the issue of abortion.) Certainly your balanced and well-reasoned argument to the contrary has failed to sway me. (Look, I can make a smilie too! Do I win?)
-o-
Storm, I believe you've told me that before. The problem is, the EFF is pretty much about "electronic" rigths, such as internet, right? I think there is a lot more that is troubling than just what goes on over the internet. Also, if I recall correctly, they were a big proponent of copyrighted music-sharing rights, which I do not actually agree with them on.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Hooray! So when I'm dying of anthrax poisoning, at least I can say my terrorist neighbor wasn't being wire tapped "without a warrant"! Yay!!
What a great country!
How many people have died of anthrax poisoning in the last twenty years in this country? Five.
Four of those took place in October 2001, the height of the anthrax panic.
So forgive me if I'm not ready to through out the Bill of Rights so you can feel safe from the antrax threat.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, I mentioned it before, but I didn't remember if you had acknowledged it, so I tossed it out again thinking you might not have seen it.
Their stance is a little more complex than just allowing people to share and screw the artist. I think if you go to their site and look around, see what they have to say, you fears might be assauged.
Then again, maybe not.
As to the fact that civil rights go beyond the internet, of course you are right. I don't know what to say. I guess the question is, might it be better to join an organization that is in line with 95% plus of our views and do something, than, in effect, do nothing?
Dunno. I will certainly understand if you don't like them. That's your choice. I just want you to make an informed choice.
I am curious, after you or anyone else reads their views on things, what you guys about them, what you find objectionable.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
Another lawsuit has been filed, and more are said to be 'on the way' ...
quote:Hitchens Joins Authors Seeking US Wiretapping Ban By Suzanne Goldenberg The Guardian UK
Wednesday 18 January 2006
Legal challenge to domestic spy program. Former 'war on terror' ally tells of phone call fears.
The British writer Christopher Hitchens, one of the most reliable allies of the US administration's conduct of the war on terror, has joined a lawsuit seeking a ban on a domestic spy program authorized by President George Bush.
In two lawsuits filed separately yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union in Detroit and the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York City, the National Security Agency is accused of violating the constitution by eavesdropping on people without court oversight.
They represent the first legal challenge to the surveillance program, which has outraged members of Congress and led to charges that Mr. Bush has overstepped his authority as president.
In the ACLU suit, Hitchens joins other writers, Greenpeace and the Council on American-Islamic Relations in seeking an immediate end to the wiretaps, saying they violate constitutional rights to privacy and free speech.
The suit brought by Hitchens, Tara McKelvey, a senior editor at American Prospect magazine, James Bamford, author of two books on the NSA, and Barnett Rubin, an academic at New York University, addresses one of the primary fears surrounding the extrajudicial surveillance of telephone calls and email - that the NSA used the eavesdropping program to spy on opponents of the Bush administration. Hitchens and the other plaintiffs said they feared their email and telephone calls were monitored, compromising their contacts in the Middle East. "People will say it's wartime and we have a deadly enemy, and I agree with that. I was in favor of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan very strongly, but it is even more important in such a time that we don't give away power to the unaccountable agencies that helped get us into this in the first place," Hitchens told the Guardian. "It is extremely important we know what the rules are and there has to be a line drawn. You mustn't turn emergency or panic measures into custom or practice."
In a separate suit brought against President Bush as well as the chiefs of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and other security agencies, the Centre for Constitutional Rights says it fears its legal work was hampered by the eavesdropping program.
The CCR, whose lawyers represent detainees at Guantánamo and other suspects in the war on terror, said it believes communications with clients' families could have come under surveillance.
The two law suits arrive at a time when President Bush is under increasing pressure to demonstrate the legality of the NSA surveillance program, which operated free of any judicial oversight. The suit brought by Hitchens
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
The NSA is 'data mining' using phrases and words fed into a computer, along with followups on specific names, email addresses, and phone numbers that showed up on hard drives of computers captured from 'suspicious' people. That info is from NBC Nightly news. An example used on PBS's NOW: a French graduate Student talking to her friends in the States about her thesis on Jihadists, would pop-up too. Or this board could pop-up, because we are discussing this subject.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silkie: ... along with followups on specific names, email addresses, and phone numbers that showed up on hard drives of computers captured from 'suspicious' people.
Oh I forgot to mention: they then follow up on each of those email's addressbooks, adding those email addresses to the surveilance, and the phone numbers called from the phone numbers found on the suspicious person's database, etc etc etc... which could actually increase the number of people being watched perhaps to the millions.
Did anyone see FOX last night? It was amusing seeing them talking about how the ACLU was ruining the government's ability to protect us. How they were aiding the terrorists, giving comfort and whatnot. Those people are freaks. I had it on for about 3 minutes during commercials and wondered how anyone could take them seriously.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)