Fighting the Unconstitutional Spying Law

This week, a cynical and sniveling Congress handed President Bush a crowning jewel in his career-long attack on civil liberties in the form of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). As a result, the Fourth Amendment was essentially eviscerated.

The bill, which the president signed into law on Thursday, gives him even more power to spy on innocent Americans without a warrant than he asked for -- in fact, it goes further to extend the power of the executive to collect our phone and email communications than the president's original, illegal secret spying program.

The FAA permits mass acquisition of the international and, in some instances, domestic communications of U.S. citizens and residents without prior judicial approval, without specifying the person, phone line, email address, facility, place or property to be monitored; without any finding of suspicion or probable cause; without meaningful judicial supervision; and without rules or safeguards to protect U.S. communications swept up in surveillance of people abroad.

The FAA fails to strike a constitutional balance between the government's interest in protecting national security and the rights of people in the United States to privacy and freedom of speech. Because we could not stand by and let this go unchallenged, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit 45 minutes after the bill become law -- challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking to halt its enforcement.

Our clients in the lawsuit are attorneys, academics, human rights organizations and journalists who depend on the right to privacy when conducting overseas communications, and whose work is threatened by highly invasive surveillance conducted without meaningful judicial oversight. Because of the nature of their work, our clients have reason to believe that their communications have been, and will continue to be, intercepted by the government.

Congress let us down when it bowed to White House pressure and passed the FAA, so now we turn to the judicial branch to reverse the damage. The courts can and must overturn this unconstitutional law, and the ACLU will continue to fight for the privacy rights of all Americans to be restored.

Comments

[research]

Ya'll totality don't get it.

This bill is the SPY ON ANYONE IN THE WORLD BILL.

Thanks to the vote to shred the 4th amendment and give Orwellian surveillance power to president most people wouldn't trust with a 20 dollar bill, all Bush or Cheneny have to do is say:

I don't like what "research" says. He must be a foreign agitator. Spy on all his record, all his internet all his phone calls.

and it will happen for 7 days.

Then the FISA court will say "no! that's totally unreasonable, stop it!"

BushCo will say "We appeal" and automatically get 60 more days to spy on me or anyone in the WORLD.

60 days later the court will say: "Still NO! Stop it!"

BushCo still get to keep any and all data collected during the now illegal spying.

I suppose, then Bush will say "Spy on him because he has foreign friends" New reason, new round of spying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOA1YAglmUw
FISA for dummies video explains it real simple.

[research]

Read the ALCU's take on it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/10/aclu/index.html

[GunnyJ]

Something had to approved and passed into law............for right now. Besides, how many of us are doing anything which will warrant (lol) such an intrusion of our privacy?

[tommybones]

Your entire premise is false. The idea that "something HAD" to be passed into law is simply not true. And the idea that the risk to privacy isn't that bad is extremely naive and short-sighted. Have we not seen enough examples of government misuse of power over the past 8 years?

[TheIndependenceParty]

Wrong! FISA was never repealed and has worked fine when a president uses it, ... as they all have. Ironically this president went around the law long before 9/11 and still could not catch the bad guys. It happened on Bush's watch!

FAA simply gives Bush another law to break. Can't wait to read the Signing Statement he attaches to this abomination!

[bgregs]

Actually, NOTHING had to be passed into law! The original, 1978 FISA law was still in effect, and would CONTINUE to be in effect unless they passed something! However, what they passed (and got signed) is a complete GUTTING of both the original FISA law AND the Fourth Amendment!

[tommybones]

Here's a very simple question, Michale. It's so simple that even you can comprehend it.

Which is more likely:

a) the new powers included in the new FISA bill will be abused and used for political purposes
b) these new powers will make the job much harder for the press to get information from foreign sources, who will worry about reprisals
c) these powers will make whistle-blowers, essential to prevent abuses, think twice about coming forward for fear of being wire-tapped
d) a, b, and c
e) the new powers will actually catch a "terrorist" who is dumb enough to talk openly about his nefarious plans on an unsecured telephone or internet line

Take your time....

[tommybones]

In case you may be having trouble with this quiz, I'll give you another one, on a much related topic:

Which choice best describes the results of the "terror watch list":

a) Has led to the harassment of numerous peace activists
b) Has led to the harassment of numerous completely innocent American citizens
c) Has led to foreigners being denied entrance to the country for political reasons, which have nothing to do with terrorism
d) Now contains an estimated one million+ names
e) a, b, c and d
f) Has led to the arrest and conviction of a single terrorist

Take your time...

[Michale32086]

@bgregs

}}}}First, the AG IS the coach! The Congress is the general manager.

Exactly.. Yet BlindJester's assertion is that it should be Congress that devises the CT protocols, not the AG/DNI...

The "coach" devises the plays (protocols). The General Manager simply dictates the desired result..

}}}}}}Second, do we REALLY have to point out to you the relevant sections AGAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

What do you mean, AGAIN? You haven't pointed out ANY "relevant" sections at all...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

We can point out many sections that contain problems. Your argument fails to take into account the problems are found THROUGHOUT THE BILL, in NUMEROUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS. It is rife with ambiguous wording that opens the door, quite easily, to abuse. Additionally, the abuse that can occur, in many cases, would be nearly impossible to trace, due to the restricted nature of the so-called "oversight".

In other words, you'd be LUCKY to find ANY section or subsection which doesn't have something potentially problematic within it.

Throw a dart at the bill and you're going to find potential abuse.

Tell me, do you trust Alberto Gonzalez's opinion of what is "reasonable"? If the answer is no, then you've made our case for us, as enormous power is given to the AG to determine what is a "reasonable" criteria for a search.

A rational person would look with horror at a scenario where Alberto Gonzalez, Mukasey or Ashcroft has the power to determine what constitutes a “reasonable” search criterion. Oh wait, there's more... those same Attorney Generals are given the power to determine if the searchers complied with the restrictions that THEY had determined is "reasonable." Essentially, the AG provides his own oversight to his own spying. Yeah, that's a great idea. I feel safer, don't you?

Tell me, Michale, yes or no... would you trust Alberto Gonzalez to determine what constitutes a “reasonable” search criterion? Yes or no?

(I guarantee he will not answer this, by the way)

[blindjester]

My assertion was much more comprehensive than that. Quoting one small section of the 19,000 word bill (in sec. 702), I showed that:

1. The details (important details!) of the surveillance procedures would be worked out later by AG Mukasey, not by legislation (which is the only part of my posting you responded to);
2. The standard is that the procedures must only be _reasonably_ designed to prevent abuse (a low standard);
3. The standards only have to attempt to prevent _intentional_ infringement on our privacy;
4. Interception of Americans' communications is only restricted if the citizens are _known at the time_ to be present in the US.

With so many loopholes, the intelligence community can color outside the lines all they want. If our privacy is violated we would have to show that they violated their own procedures, AND it was intentional, AND they knew for a fact that we were in the US at the time it occurred.

That allows for unreasonable searches, without probable cause, without "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Also, the earth circles the sun. Let's argue that liberal talking point next.

[tommybones]

Ouch. Well done.

[tommybones]

Michale asserts, "But why let a little thing like FACTS disrupt your irrational and illogical thinking, eh?"

I invite him to tell me why the following concern is either irrational or illogical:

Chris Hedges, NY Times reporter:

"This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours.

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man's story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity."

Michael? I have numerous other points like this which I challenge you to prove are "illogical and irrational." We can take them one at a time. (not holding my breath for a response, however)

[tommybones]

Michael? Should I start "chirping" at your silence, like you constantly do?

[blindjester]

Good post, Mr. Romero. It's hard to understand how any American could support this law.

Like Rachel Maddow said: "And remember the thing we used to have called the Constitution? That was awesome!"

[racom]

The 'I know all there is to know about FISA' troll is back, don't reply to him, it just boosts his huge ego.
I'm curious why he hasn't yet asked Anthony 'have you read the bill', 'you have to read the bill' and all the other obfuscations he excels in. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to assume that the ACLU has read the bill and just might know something about civil liberties legislation!!!

[Michale32086]

@tommybones

}}}}}}}}}}}}
At least the smurfs wouldn't "smurf" their constituents in the "smurf" by "smurfing" their Constitutional rights.
}}}}}}}}}}}}

Neither has Senator Obama and the majority of Democrats..

But why let a little thing like FACTS disrupt your irrational and illogical thinking, eh?

Michale.....

[tommybones]

For some reason Michale, you keep confusing your "opinion" with "facts." Additionally, I welcome an answer to the numerous posts I have directed at you, which I feel are quite "logical" and rational, but which have been completely ignored by you, no doubt because YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.

Go back to the numerous threads and anyone can see a litany of my posts left unanswered. Why is that? YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. Heck, there are enough examples on this thread alone....

You see, Michale, your tactics come straight out of the propagandists playbook. You seem to follow several rules:

1. ignore points that eviscerate your propaganda
2. ask questions that are virtually IMPOSSIBLE to answer within the constraints of whatever forum you are in, then claim victory when the impossible task was not achieved
3. above all, use obfuscation to avoid real debate.
4. flood the debate with information that seems relevant to the topic, but upon close inspection adds NOTHING to your point. This allows the debate to go of on a tangent, which is good, because avoiding the truth is of the utmost importance.
5. repeat points you have previously made, even if they have been proven inaccurate numerous times in the past

There are many more rules... but you get the idea...

[bgregs]

When are you going to actually GIVE some facts????? Once again, you have MERELY stated your opinion that the bill is not unconstitutional, and then when presented with EVIDENCE that it is, you simply resort to calling your own opinion FACT, and everyone else's opinion wrong!

[BlaineKinsey]

You are wrong about the applicability and effect of the amendments to Section 702 of Title VII in the new FISA legislation. Section 702(b) states that the government "may not intentionally target" a U.S. person or a person inside the the U.S., and Section 702(c)(4) states: "Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Section 702(d)(1) states that the Attorney General shall adopt targeting procedures that are "reasonably designed" to ensure that any authorized acquisition "is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States." Subsection 702(g)(4) states: "A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted." These sections are crafted to allow the government to engage in electronic surveillance, without specific targets and without warrants and without probable cause, of U.S. citizens and legal U.S. residents in many situations that would require warrants under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

[tommybones]

Thanks, Blaine.

Your cogent analysis hits the nail on the head. Not only do you reference the statute ( as Michale continues to demand ad nauseam), but you show clearly and in plain english why this bill carries so many potential civil rights abuses.

Don't expect a real response to this thoughtful and logical rebuttal, as Michale has proven time and again that any sufficient response to his propaganda will be ignored or misrepresented.

I would love to see Michale attempt to tackle your point line by line but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Thanks again. Well done.

[dmthurman]

This reminds me of the old question, "How many angel's can dance on the head of a Pin?" This is an age old arguement that is predicated on both parties agreeing to argue their points based on a shared delusion. Their shared delusion isn't whether angels exist or not, it's whether angel's can actually Dance.

[Michale32086]

@Blindjester

}}}}}}}
The Attorney General (not congress) will adopt PROCEDURES that are REASONABLY designed to prevent INTENTIONAL acquisition of communication from citizens who are KNOWN AT THE TIME to be in the United States
}}}}}}}

Uh... Sorry to burst your bubble here, son... But..

A} You don't have the General Manager of a football team design plays for the team.. You have coaches do it, because they are the experts..

and

B} Even if you have a problem with CT professionals outlining the procedures to follow, there is nothing in what you quote, that violates the US Constitution.

So, again. SOMEONE show me the section or subsection of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Anthony Romero is certainly quaking in his boots at the legal opinion of some clown named Michale. After all, he's only the head of the ACLU, which has fought and won more Constitutional cases than any organization in the history of the nation.

He clearly states what the main (not the ONLY, mind you) violation is:

"The FAA permits mass acquisition of the international and, in some instances, domestic communications of U.S. citizens and residents without prior judicial approval, without specifying the person, phone line, email address, facility, place or property to be monitored; without any finding of suspicion or probable cause; without meaningful judicial supervision; and without rules or safeguards to protect U.S. communications swept up in surveillance of people abroad."

Let me remind you of what the 4th amendment says (yet again):

It protects 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."

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see how clearly this new law violates these principles.

[Michale32086]

So, point to the section and/or subsection of HR6304 that violates the US Constitution?

It's a simple task.. And you'll get bonus points if you can do it without any childish and immature name-calling.

If you can support your position with facts, you have no position..

Michale.....

[blindjester]

That's your whole answer?

Thanks for admitting you can't respond to the rest.

[tommybones]

Michale thinks the following doesn't violate the 4th amendment:

Phone call from New York to Paris passes through government hard drive
Computer analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it)
"Flags" the communication based on specific words (which words? decided by whom?)
Government agent listens to that communication (establishes it is an American citizen, logs that communication, files it, makes a determination as to whether it warrants further investigation)

At this point, an American citizen has had his private communications listened to, logged, recorded and analyzed (a.k.a. searched and seized) WITHOUT A WARRANT ISSUED IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE, BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE.

Then, AFTER the search has already happened, the agent takes his findings (from the search) and applies for a warrant to perform the search he has ALREADY COMPLETED.

The 4th amendment clearly protects 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."

Meanwhile, the "need" for such powers rests in the idea that we will catch "terrorists" dumb enough to communicate openly on the phone or Internet about their nefarious plans. Not a single case of catching one of these buffoons has been presented in defense of this program, and with good reason. Meanwhile, the potential ABUSES that are much more likely to occur, can be listed ad nauseam.

[tommybones]

I'm turning blue holding my breath in anticipation of Michale responding to this point. But that won't stop him from pronouncing that I have "no argument." Methinks he is under the impression that an unacknowledged argument doesn't actually exist, like a tree falling in the woods.

[bgregs]

First, the AG IS the coach! The Congress is the general manager.

Second, do we REALLY have to point out to you the relevant sections AGAIN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Michale32086]

@castlerider

}}}}}}
I'm thinkin' the WH must have had some dirt on Congress, in some form or fashion.

It don't make sense the way it went down so chicken sh*t.
}}}}}}

It makes perfect sense if you accept the only logical conclusion..

But, because that is an answer you personally do not like, you don't even bother to consider it.

Highly illogical.

Michale.....

[bgregs]

It is NOT the "only logical conclusion"!!!! It's A (SINGULAR) possible explanation. There are at least three others:

1) The Congress was complicit.

2) The Congress was blackmailed.

3) The Congress was STUPID.

All of these are VALID possible reasons!

[Michale32086]

Actually, they are all illogical...

1. Complicit. No proof or even HINT of any evidence of illegal complicity has been put forth.

2. Blackmail. No proof or even HINT of any evidence of blackmail has been put forth.

3. Stupidity. You don't rise to be a Congress Critter by being "stupid".

Nothing but illogical and irrational hysteria...

Pretty much par for the course from you Anti-Obama types...

Michale.....

[lthuedk 1]

4) The Subversion is complete.

5) The Prosecutions are about to begin.

[Michale32086]

@strifeknot

}}}}}Evisceration of the Fourth Amendment is
}}}}}not in the best interests of this country.

And yet, not ONE SINGLE PERSON can show me how the 4th Amendment is being "eviscerated"..

Why is that???

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Michale,

Just a general word of advice. When you ask your fellow bloggers to show you "how the 4th amendment is being eviscerated," you need to then actually READ THE RESPONSES they provide.

For example, on the following thread, I answered your lament with an avalanche of examples:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-reina/fisa-got-questions-will-h_b_112035.html

You ignored them all, choosing instead to continue your propaganda campaign on another thread.

If you really have no interest in the answer to the question (which I strongly suspect is the case), then maybe you should stop asking the question.

[Michale32086]

Your Section 702 argument has already been completely refuted. That argument is not supported by the facts of HR6304..

Michale....

[blindjester]

"And yet, not ONE SINGLE PERSON can show me how the 4th Amendment is being "eviscerated".."

The law guarantees that innocent Americans will be spied on without probable cause.

QED

[Michale32086]

Prove it....

Prove that HR6304 "guarantees that innocent Americans will be spied on without probable cause."

{{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}} {{{chirp}}}

That's what I thought. Cricket city...

Michale.....

[bgregs]

And yet Michale CONTINUES to lie and claim that he has not been presented with EVIDENCE, IN SPITE of the fact that *I* have presented him with evidence, AND MANY others have ALSO done so!!!

[HearNoWeasel]

Thank God for the ACLU. I used to be a fan of lawyer jokes, but no more, since nowadays, civil courts seem to be the last recourse for citizens against a government that no longer works for the people.

THANK YOU for getting right on it! I donated to the ACLU as soon as I heard about your suits and will do so again. My hopes rest with you now.

[jdfast]

Its so simple. Follow the money. The telecoms spent about 100 Million + to congrerss since 2000. They have given all of congress on the averate of 8K this year. Now you know why they got the bill they wanted. The only way that they could loose money is in civil court. Since we can't take them to civil court, they will continue to purchase members of congress and mine our conversations for Homeland Security. Bye Bye 4th amendment. It was nice to know you. Hope that the ACLU has more balls than this congress.

[Titonwan]

If there was a way around the amnesty, that'd be great. Ain't gonna happen though. The rich just paid their way out of prison. This Democrat leadership is worse than the rethugs. Nancy, Harry and Jay must go!

[Michale32086]

Yea?? And who are you going to vote in THIS time??

The smurfs??? :^/

Michale.....

[tommybones]

At least the smurfs wouldn't "smurf" their constituents in the "smurf" by "smurfing" their Constitutional rights.