Comments on: FISA Battle Is More Politics than Policy

By: bystander

bystander — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:49:24 +0000

Robert Turner said, "It

By: mlillis

mlillis — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:02:51 +0000

In response to althippo: The answer is nothing. Without the court's oversight, the program assumes a form that relies on the public trusting the NSA to target only those it says it will. Even White House supporters concede this involves an infringement of Fourth Amendment rights, but in the face of terrorist threats, they say, the trade-off becomes justified. (UVA's Robert Turner told me that "you get a lot of violations," but in the context of the task at hand, they are worth enduring.) The public already accepts airport searches, for example, which target folks without the slightest probable cause or individualized suspicion — clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. The wiretapping program is something of an extension of that concept.
Not that we'll ever know if there have been abuses or not. As the ACLU discovered this week, because the program is secret, there's no way to tell who's been targeted (And without proof that you've been targeted, the courts have ruled, you lack the legal standing to sue.) As Stanford's Allen Weiner told me this week: "We have no basis for assessing the claims the White House is making about the importance of this authority. It's ultimately an empirical question, and we just don't have the data."

By: althippo

althippo — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:19:51 +0000

Here's what I don't understand: what safeguards are in place to prevent Bush or some future president to do what Nixon did? What in this revised FISA prevents spying on political opponents? What prevents wiretapping of grassroots groups that are opposed to current administration policies?

By: gilmanc

gilmanc — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:29:57 +0000

It is amusing to me how, under the auspices of national security, Americans will give away their rights. Yet these same Americans will not, under any circumstances, allow the government access to their money in order to actually make the nation more secure.

I guess that means civilian rights are worth less than money.

By: pajarito

pajarito — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:26:30 +0000

Telecoms (corporate citizens?) must comply with a lawful court order for information, they can't refuse to allow proper, lawful access without contempt problems. Thus, the administration's argument that "they won't cooperate" is specious. The administration bill cuts the court's role, and may actually lead to refusal to cooperate. But then, the administration can always prosecute uncooperative (legal?) telecom executives, as they've done, with a cooperative attorney general.

Colatteral damage --- My 4th amendment rights?!!!!

By: bystander

bystander — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Robert Turner said, "It

By: mlillis

mlillis — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

In response to althippo: The answer is nothing. Without the court’s oversight, the program assumes a form that relies on the public trusting the NSA to target only those it says it will. Even White House supporters concede this involves an infringement of Fourth Amendment rights, but in the face of terrorist threats, they say, the trade-off becomes justified. (UVA’s Robert Turner told me that "you get a lot of violations," but in the context of the task at hand, they are worth enduring.) The public already accepts airport searches, for example, which target folks without the slightest probable cause or individualized suspicion — clear violations of the Fourth Amendment. The wiretapping program is something of an extension of that concept.
Not that we’ll ever know if there have been abuses or not. As the ACLU discovered this week, because the program is secret, there’s no way to tell who’s been targeted (And without proof that you’ve been targeted, the courts have ruled, you lack the legal standing to sue.) As Stanford’s Allen Weiner told me this week: "We have no basis for assessing the claims the White House is making about the importance of this authority. It’s ultimately an empirical question, and we just don’t have the data."

By: althippo

althippo — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Here’s what I don’t understand: what safeguards are in place to prevent Bush or some future president to do what Nixon did? What in this revised FISA prevents spying on political opponents? What prevents wiretapping of grassroots groups that are opposed to current administration policies?

By: gilmanc

gilmanc — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

I guess that means civilian rights are worth less than money.

By: pajarito

pajarito — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

Telecoms (corporate citizens?) must comply with a lawful court order for information, they can’t refuse to allow proper, lawful access without contempt problems. Thus, the administration’s argument that "they won’t cooperate" is specious. The administration bill cuts the court’s role, and may actually lead to refusal to cooperate. But then, the administration can always prosecute uncooperative (legal?) telecom executives, as they’ve done, with a cooperative attorney general.

Colatteral damage — My 4th amendment rights?!!!!