Judge Stikes Down NSA Wire Tapping Program

Remove all ads!

The NSA's program which allowed the warrantless wire tapping of phone lines was ruled unconstitional by a federal judge. The ruling was that the NSA must immediately stop this program. The basis of the ruling was that it violated the right of privacy. It is kind of sad that it took this long, with a program that seemed illegal from the start. Now I await the Republican spin-doctors reply to this.

 

Why do you hate America?

 

(You mean USA, you don't mean Brasil or Mexico etc.)

I think he does hate it, but he does not hate you yankees, the people. NSA seems to.

 

At least it did happen. Frankly I was expecting it to go unchecked for an indefinite period of time (read: forever). After all we're talking about an agency that has the word "surveillance" in its name - it would be a bit naive to expect them not to violate privacy in the name of "security" or whatever.

And before anyone jumps at me and says that the NSA should in fact be allowed to tap phones of suspects and whatnot, let me point one thing: it's *warrantless* tapping we're talking about.

 

Exactly. The government's arguement was that sometimes they don't have time to get a warrant, because by then the conversation would be over. However, that arguement was scuttled from the start, as there is already a provision that allows you to apply for after-the-fact warrants. If time is an issue, and you can't get the warrant without risking losing the intelligence, there is a 72-hour window where you can send in the application for a warrant after the fact.

 

Montresor, the Rabbit foretold how the judge's rule will now get properly distorted. It was in response to this:

*poof*

 

This never had to get out of hand...why in the world did the administration not go through the proper channels to wire-tap legally in the first place? It's sad that a judge had to force George to obey the law.

Speaking of George....I am sooo glad I am not the person who has to explain to him the particulars of what the big bad judge lady meant by her decision. Can you imagine the frustration of explaining legal matters with that oaf?

Edit: I completely dismiss the reason of time constraints which the administration gives. I was curious wether anyone has an idea as to their real agenda for not following the rules.

[ August 17, 2006, 23:51: Message edited by: nunsbane ]

 

Maybe "God told me to"?

Maybe now we can get back to some semblance of being a country governed by the people for the people.

 

I think quite simply it is because W feels like he is above the law - or at least that the law does not apply to him. The judge in this case ruled it was unconstitutional based on a right of privacy, but I'd argue that also violates the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizures as well. I think one thing that most people are missing here is that not only is this unconstitutional, it's also ILLEGAL. NSA is breaking the law on GWB's orders.

And, since I had something to contribute to the topic, I can now address these others comments:

Anyone who has read even one comment by Death Rabbit would know this was sarcasm. He doesn't seriously think that I hate America (which, if anyone is wondering, I don't). OTOH, while I'm still pretty sure, I'm not entirely sure that Trellheim's quote is sarcasm:

I was under the impression that this was sarcasm too. (As an aside - of course I don't hate "yankees" - heck I'm from the U.S. myself, so I'm one of those "yankees".

[ August 18, 2006, 14:18: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Just for clarification to those somehow unfamiliar with my status as SP's resident lovable @sshole - I was making fun of certain Republicans who had an annoying tendency to question the patriotism of anyone critical of any impositions of power taken by the Bush administration in the name of "national security" in the wake of 9/11.

Hence, I was wearing my "Republican Spin-doctor" hat for that post. In fact, my actual opinion is such the opposite of that that if someone had said something similar and been serious, theyd've have to have their trousers taken in to compensate for the "new one" I would have ripped them.

I'm pretty serious when I post here as often as I'm being a smart ass, but I'd thought I applied a thick enough coat of sarcasm on that one that the distinction would be unmistakable.

 

Question: Have there actually been any cases of misuse of illegal wire-tapping?

And how does an after-the-fact warrant help? I mean, they already have the information, if they don't get the warrant, they probably aren't just going to throw it out (if it is good)

 

Saber, is any illegal wiretap NOT a misuse, by definition?

 

If the intelligence is good, then the warrant is justified, and thus their actions aren't illegal. The thing is that right now the government can listen in to your conversations even if you have done nothing that they could get a warrant for. The after-the-fact warrant system is in place because it is understood that judges don't work weekends, and if you find an opportunity to gain intelligence and can't wait until Monday you don't want to miss the opportunity. However, the onus is on the government to determine that they are performing a reasonable search. That is, that the information they possess would be enough to get a warrant if there was a means of getting a warrant quick enough. It is not carte blanche to perform any search you want without reasonable cause.

 

I meant, have they arrested people without warrants that resulted in terrorist missions failing, or have they arrested normal people who maybe did something wrong once that is completely irrelevant to the case?

And Aldeth, even if they didn't get the warrant, if a government has caught a terrorist, they aren't just going to let them go, are they?

 

AFAIK, neither. I'm positive they haven't arrested people without warrants that stopped terrorists missions, as this would be a great way to publicize why this program would be a good thing: See! It catches terrorists! You have to let us do this! So I'm quite confident that condition A has never been met. As to condition B, if we did "wrongly" arrest someone the government probably wouldn't fess up to it, and find something else to charge the poor sap with that was totally unrelated to terrorism. Just as the foiling of a terror plot would be a boon to this regulation, a false arrest would be its doom. That's why I don't think either have happened.

But if they do in fact stop a terrorist, it should be a piece of cake to prove that a warrant would have been issued if time allowed. The problem I have is that the NSA which runs this program is also self-policing itself as to what constitutes reasonable cause for suspicion. That's why you're required to get the warrant - even if it's after the fact - it's to show that you had your reasons even if it turned out that the person had done nothing wrong. I don't have a problem with the NSA listening in to a conversaion if there's a reason to do so, but I do have a problem if they are out there just fishing for leads.

For example, say a terrorist have friends who do not know he is a terrorist. However, the government does have suspicions on this terrorist. As a result, they tap the lines of everyone who calls him or he calls on a regular basis to get more information. For something like that, I have no problem. Terrorists don't "go it alone", they are part of networks. So it's not good enough just to listen to who the suspected terrorist is talking to. You also have to listen to whomever is talking to who the suspected terrorist is talking to as well.

On the other hand, if the suspected terrorist lives in an apartment building, it is not justifiable to tap everyone who lives within a block of the terrorist just to make sure they aren't terrorists too.