MARTIN - Get with the program, its the same constitution that allowed your future generations savings to be transfered to Haliburton and Exxon, murdered over a million Iraqis, lets Kissenger walk free, assassinated Allende and Lumumba, distributes weapons of mass destruction to undemocratic states and others that refuse to obey U.N. resolutions.
There is hardly a U.S. president alive who should not be infront of a human rights court and you think this is the issue?
You think the last straw is FISA? Dont you remember the Rio Summit chaired by Gorbachev when Bush Snr refused to protect the environment, later Kyoto, not to mention the ban on Land Mines.
We are talking about a country that elected George W Bush, TWIICE!!!! and you are proposing a sane argument to the electorate?????????????????????????? I tell you what, pose your argument to Paris Hilton and if she gets it I will follow you around the world.
FISA Fight: Attack Of The Epic Failure
Crossposted at Boztopia and Open Left.
Today is going to go down as a dark day in our nation's history, as the Senate completes its total capitulation to the Bush administration and its corporate masters, through passing legislation that dramatically expands the government's surveillance powers and immunizes the companies responsible for illegally spying on us from any form of legal redress for the victims.
It's unbelievable that nearly three years of campaigning, legislating, debating, and shouting from the rooftops on this issue, one of the most important of the time, has had almost no effect. Worse yet, the new law that is about to be passed is the worst possible permutation imaginable--not only does it perform all the aforementioned perfidious tasks of justifying lawbreaking and expanding our surveillance state, it practically removes all oversight from the process and allows the surveillance system to be easily tailored to pick on purely domestic issues, ranging from illegal online gambling to P2P file sharing. All the Attorney General and the DNI have to do now is say, "Hey, the President authorized this. Here's his signature," and the FISA judge has to essentially sign off on a rubber-stamp for surveillance of potentially dozens--hundreds--of people, all without individual warrants. Because, of course, no sitting President or Attorney General would ever abuse such a system for their own ends. No sir.
This was a battle the Democrats absolutely could have won. They could have stood their ground and fought the new laws every step of the way, and gotten good press, more donations, and the respect of their constitutents. Instead, they knuckled under to protect their corrupt leadership from being hit by lawsuits for their part in the surveillance, and in so doing, granted one of the most corrupt and authoritarian American presidents in our history one of his greatest victories--the unchecked expansion of "Total Information Awareness," a vast data dragnet where your every move is catalogued, cross-referenced, and analyzed for "suspicious behavior." It's the stated aim of current DNI Mike McConnell to not only expand the government's surveillance reach not only to the Internet and databases, but to outsource that surveillance to corporate partners such as AT&T--the same company which is up to its eyeballs in the illegal spying scandal.
Barack Obama's surrender on the FISA fight was a perfect example of giving in when fighting back could have accomplished so much more. Obama surrendered both his base and his convictions (He's a Constitutional law professor, for fuck's sake!) to please the chattering class of so-called "centrist" pundits and weed carriers who demand repeated obeisance to Republican and corporatist aims in order to appear Sensible, Serious, and Respectable. With a word, he could have roused his supporters and activists to fight this thing to the bitter end, and assured his place in history as an avatar of real change. Instead, he folded, and now it's hard to see him as anything more than a typical politician who promises whatever's politically convenient at the time.
It's a dark day. For our country, our history, our values, and our people. We will beat this back, though--make no mistake. There are always new battles to be fought, and we will win. But every time it's going to be a little harder, and every time we should count less on the support of the people who claim to represent us--because this decision has made clear that their interests are no longer our interests. The Constitution just doesn't matter enough anymore.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Michale,
You probably should have stuck to your technique of evasion and obfuscation, because I literally destroyed you in this debate.
:D If you say so...
Simply because you refuse to accept the facts, does not destruction make.. :D
But, I do appreciate the opportunity to prove how utterly ignorant you are of the issues facing us.
Please don't be offended by this.
There is no shame in not knowing everything..
I am going to move on to other commentaries now. I'll be generous to you and let you have the last word.
It's the least I can do after so utterly destroying your credibility...
Michale.....
I'll let others decide who won this debate, suffice to say you utterly failed to answer, or even address the bulk of my arguments.
Hanging your entire case on the concept that international and domestic communications cannot be separated, even if true (though you failed to provide a single fact that proves this point) fails to address the 4th amendment violations that occur AFTER the communications have been "flagged;" when they are REVIEWED (a.k.a. searched) by a GOVERNMENT AGENT, all prior to a "Judge" issuing a "warrant," based on "probable cause," which "particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Additionally, you COMPLETELY IGNORED my points about potential abuses. Why? Well, because those threats are very real and you have no answer that could alleviate these concerns.
Next, you contradicted yourself several times by claiming only a "computer" analyzes the communication, when earlier you admitted that once a computer finishes violating your 4th amendment rights, having then "flagged" your communications based on some words (chosen, no doubt by a covert government agent), it makes its way into the hands of a government employee (yes, a human being) who studies (a.k.a. searches) that communication without due process as described above, in conflict with the 4th amendment.
The ACLU position on the new FISA bill:
The FAA violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows the government to gobble up the constitutionally protected communications of American citizens and residents without getting individualized warrants, and without specifying the time, place or length of the surveillance, and not specifying how the info gathered will be disseminated, or how long it"ll be kept. (You know, the who/what/where/when/why.)
The FAA also violates the First Amendment by chilling lawful expressive speech without adequate justification by authorizing the government to intercept constitutionally protected communications without judicial oversight.
The challenged law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the government to continue surveillance activities even if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has deemed those activities illegal.
Next stop.... court.
@tommybones
}}}}}Okay, so your entire argument is based on a lie or ignorance.
No, it's based on the facts...
It's simply NOT possible to differentiate between American communications and other communications without any sort of monitoring or analyzing of the communication itself.
These are the facts whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
This is why I said at the very beginning of this long running marathon debate that FISA is ill-equipped for CT operations.
Michale.....
Yeah, you keep on saying that you have facts to back you up, even though every time that we ask you for some you come back with OPINION, and then when we call you out on that you say that you OPINION is a fact!
@tommybones
OK, let's approach this from a different perspective..
It's a fact that telecommunications are world-wide.
There is no American communication lines and British communication lines and German communication lines.
It's worldwide...
This being the case, it's IMPOSSIBLE to know what kinds of communications are being monitored until they are analyzed...
Using your reasoning, because communications MIGHT be American, intelligence authorities cannot monitor ANY communications.
That is a fallacy that does not take into account the very real dangers that exist in today's world.
Michale.....
No. Once again you are playing word games.
The U.S. government certainly can isolate communications coming into or going out of the United States. The idea that we all lose our 4th amendment protections merely because we don't know how many of those communications are from foreigners abroad to foreigners stateside has no basis in the Constitution.
}}}}The U.S. government certainly can isolate communications coming into or going out of the United States.
No, it cannot.
It's THAT simple...
Michale.....
Now, let's take the example to its darkest place:
Phone call from Washington to Paris passes through government hard drive
Government hard drive analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communication based on specific words (which words? decided by whom?)
Now a government agent listens to that communication (establishes it is a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR, logs that communication, files it)
At this point, an AMERICAN SENATOR has had his private communications listened to, logged, recorded and analyzed without a warrant issued in a court of law by a judge, based on probable cause. The Senator was talking to his mistress in Paris!
Then, quite clearly AFTER the search has already taken place, the agent takes his findings (from the search itself) and then applies for a warrant to perform the search he has already completed and to CONTINUE AND EXPAND THE SEARCH. The Judge, precluded from hearing the name of the person being targeted, or even the location, only hears a report from the agent stating certain words were used. The Judge issues a cease and desist order. The agent files an appeal. During the appeal, which lasts two months, the agent listens to all the communications of the Democratic Senator. He records and logs everything.
Suddenly, on a key piece of legislation, this same Senator flips his position and votes for an unpopular bill.
Nobody can understand why.....
These types of hypotheticals are all quite possible and can be extrapolated endlessly.
No one's communications are listened to. They are analyzed by a computer..
All communications are analyzed by computer many MANY times during the course of it's travel from point A to point B. They HAVE to be to properly route the traffic...
Michale.....
Several flaws here...
First, you already pointed out, in your own words, that once the computer flags a communication, a HUMAN BEING studies it. A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. This happens without a warrant and without probable cause.
Second, a government computer searching your private communications still qualifies as a SEARCH. Again, without probable cause or a warrant.
However you try to spin this, common sense tells you that your opinion doesn't satisfy the 4th amendment. Clearly.
You'd be more honest if you just took the position that you believe the 4th amendment is flawed and we should amend it. Because the contortions you are putting yourself through in an attempt to make your position jive with the 4th amendment just aren't cutting it.
Now, I'll go one step further...
Take the same scenario, but with one small change:
Phone call from New York to Paris passes through government hard drive
Government hard drive analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communication based on specific words (which words? decided by whom?)
Now a 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 without a warrant issued in a court of law by a judge, based on probable cause.
Then, quite clearly AFTER the search has already happened, the agent decides the citizen is NOT a threat and doesn't even bother applying for a warrant.
Now, here are the facts:
Citizen searched, without a warrant and without probable cause. Period. As clear-cut a violation of the 4th amendment as you can find.
Michale seems to think the following equation doesn't violate the 4th amendment:
Phone call from New York to Paris passes through government hard drive
Government hard drive analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communication based on specific words (which words? decided by whom?)
Now a 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 without a warrant issued in a court of law by a judge, based on probable cause.
Then, quite clearly AFTER the search has already taken place, the agent takes his findings (from the search itself) and then applies for a warrant to perform the search he has already completed.
Now, Michale can double-talk all day long about how he thinks past rulings by SCOTUS etc makes this legal, but what he CANNOT do, is tell us in his own words, using plain English, how this is not a CLEAR 4th amendment violation.
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."
Michale,
"Once the human analysis is done and there is cause for concern, monitoring of your specifics will be coded and a warrant will be requested..."
This is where your argument falls apart. Explain how studying a communication PRIOR to a warrant being issued, which at this point the government KNOWS is from an American Citizen, would satisfy the 4th amendment? 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."
In your scenario, the search happens prior to the warrant. How is this not a clear violation? The 4th amendment clearly implies a warrant must be sought prior to the search, not the other way around. In your scenario, the government searches, THEN applies for a specific warrant, describing the person they already searched. Common sense tells you that it violates the 4th amendment.
Plain english, please.... (in other words, explain how I am wrong, logically, instead of hiding behind "well in the case of double-talk vs. obfuscation the SCOTUS ruled... which is meaningless, since none of us know enough about the specific details of those cases to know how they relate to THIS new bill, including you)
}}}}In your scenario, the search happens prior to the warrant. How is this not a clear violation?
It's easy to explain. Just refer to my narcotics warrant, Joe Blow/Jon Public precedent.
Cops obtain a warrant and tap Joe Blow's phone. It's a LEGAL "search". In that LEGAL search, the hear Jon Public talking about committing a different crime. So, the cops get a NEW warrant to tap Jon Public's phone.
In the case of Jon Public, the "search" happened prior to the Jon Public warrant. But it's not a violation because the first search was perfectly legal..
I can't recall the exact terminology within the Rules Of Evidence but the precedent does exist.
How this translates to HR6304 is as follows.
It is perfectly legal for intelligence ops to monitor foreign communications. But, because today's telecommunications technology is completely intermixed, Americans communications are mixed in. It's unavoidable.
So, when CT ops, while executing a perfectly legal search, come across evidence of a crime committed by an American, it provides PC for a NEW warrant.
An example of a search PRIOR to a warrant providing the PC for said warrant.
If you'll recall at the beginning of our discussions, I stated on many occasions that FISA is not suited for CT operations. Ya'all just laughed and said I was full of it.
But, as you see, I was right once again.
Michale.....
How is that the same thing? In your scenario, the cops had a warrant, issued by a judge, to search that specific person based on probable cause. In the course of that legal search, they found something else etc.
In my example, the search happens prior to ANY warrant being issued and without probable cause or judicial oversight. Talk about apples and oranges....
@bgregs
}}}}}
Evidence of crime gathered by illegal measures is non-admissible, therefore the whole argument falls apart right there!
}}}}}
As has been established, it is perfectly legal for US authorities to monitor foreign communications. If an American makes a call that gets mixed up in those communications then authorities can act on that information. See my JoeBlow/JonPublic precedent..
But I'll give you another example..
US Authorities are monitoring Syrian phone calls. It's all monitored IN country and NO external lines are monitored. Perfectly legal, as the SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions.
Now, an American IN Syria makes a call to another American in Syria about details of a terrorist attack. A warrant is issued on both Americans.
It was a perfectly legal monitoring that snared Americans who happened to be using Syrian phone lines.
Nothing illegal and nothing unconstitutional...
Michale.....
No, it has NOT been established that US intelligence agencies don't need a warrant. In fact, ever since there have BEEN US intelligence agencies they HAVE needed warrants!!! Once you get that one through your skull, then we can talk!!
The ONLY place that US intelligence agencies DON'T need a warrant is in your mind!!!
@AbbieXHoffman
}}}}
The SCOTUS also said that slavery was constitutional, refusing women the right to vote was constitutional, denying an abortion was constitutional and then..... changed their mind.
}}}}
Thank you. That's been my point on how the US Constitution must be a flexible document that allows for changing times... In the case of HR6304, the US Constitution must allow for changing technologies.
}}}}How is it possible for something to be constitutional at one time and not at another?
Uh.... Maybe because times change??
But, I do agree with you that any challenge to HR6304 will probably fail.. I doubt that it will get as high as the SCOTUS, but the lower courts will in all likelihood rule in favor of the legislature..
Michale.....
"But, I do agree with you that any challenge to HR6304 will probably fail.. "
Which is why its so important to be on your senators and congresspersons asses about this, especially BO, the possible POTUS and also since he ran on anti-Bush platform.
"How is it possible for something to be constitutional at one time and not at another?" It was a rhetorical question posed and then answered immediately.
"Thank you. That's been my point on how the US Constitution must be a flexible document that allows for changing times... In the case of HR6304, the US Constitution must allow for changing technologies."
Except the legislature is getting it wrong now (in our opinions) and over time, it will be proved to be unconstitutional. It will just take some time for a collections of cases where it will be proven step by step in little ways to be unconstitutional. Then it will be reformed.
You really should step back and realize that different interpretations of the law are why we have political parties to begin with. You sound foolish trying to prove others wrong ontheir interpretations just like you sound foolish trying to convince a democrat to be a republican. Neither are wrong, it's interpretation.
@tommybones
}}}}The U.S. government certainly can isolate communications coming in and out of the country,
You are wrong. It's impossible in today's worldwide telecommunications technology to isolate American communications from foreign communications.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, those are the facts.
Michale.....
I didn't say "american communications," I said ALL communications. The moment they enter the country, they are subject to the 4th amendment. More word games, Michale....
Additionally, your point implies that we all lose our 4th amendment protections the moment we communicate in any way with someone across the border. How does that jive with the 4th amendment? It doesn't. I don't see any exclusion clause stating an American citizen, in their own home, are exempt from these protections for ANY reason.
For those who know Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges, two writers I have great respect for:
"According to the ACLU, the Democratic-controlled Congress has handed Bush a gift-wrapped grant of new domestic spying authority. The group says its lawsuit is perhaps the last chance to sustain Americans' confidence that a government snoop isn't listening in on every one of their international calls.
"This lawsuit is the ACLU at its best," said journalist and author Naomi Klein, another plaintiff in the suit. "It's defending the law even when the lawmakers won't"
The ACLU is representing journalists, human rights activists, lawyers and others whose jobs are likely to put them in contact with people overseas.
Klein, along with journalist and author Hedges said the already-difficult task of gathering information from dissidents and whistle-blowers in the US and abroad would be made even more difficult with the draconian rules and lax oversight governing surveillance inherent in the FISA update."
Follow the money, watch this video:
http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2008/07/10/finance-favors-and-fisa/
Now we have a little clearer picture of why some of the traitorous votes selling out our constitution.
Posted July 9, 2008 | 02:33 PM (EST)