A.C.L.U. Files Suit Over Phone Surveillance Program(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
A.C.L.U. Files Suit Over Phone Surveillance Program
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?pagewanted=all
51 comments
A scarier time? The executive branch has been given the power to murder Americans without any proper civilian judicial oversight. The executive branch has been given the power to indefinitely detain Americans, without any civilian judicial oversight. All the while the Feds are tracking and recording everything they can get their hands on.
A few drone strikes? We've built drone bases around the globe and are murdering thousands of innocent civilians with those strikes.
Fund revolutions in other countries? We're doing that in Syria right now. We actively participated in the revolution in Libya.
A few drone strikes? We've built drone bases around the globe and are murdering thousands of innocent civilians with those strikes.
Fund revolutions in other countries? We're doing that in Syria right now. We actively participated in the revolution in Libya.
Massive hyperbole. I guarantee you its not the first time in history Americans have been killed on the battlefield while fighting for the other side. The executive branch has been given no power to indefinitely detain Americans. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The people who have been detained are not Americans.
The scale of proxy wars engaged in then versus today can scarcely be compared its so different.
The scale of proxy wars engaged in then versus today can scarcely be compared its so different.
> The executive branch has been given no power to indefinitely detain Americans
Wrong.
1) Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants; see Jose Padilla, an American citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)#Habeas...
2) Sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA FY2012 (which Obama is defending right now in Obama v. Hedges): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012#Controversy_over_ind...
Wrong.
1) Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants; see Jose Padilla, an American citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)#Habeas...
2) Sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA FY2012 (which Obama is defending right now in Obama v. Hedges): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012#Controversy_over_ind...
Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court. Obama v hedges has nothing to do with indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama's signing statement explicitly said the act should not be interpreted to encompass US citizens. Given that and the precedent in Hamdi v. Rumsfield, iys clear those NDAA provisions do not apply to citizens.
In Hedges v Obama [1], the trial court blocked the government's power to indefinitely detain. The ruling was immediately appealed and the trial court's decision was stayed. I take it from the government's rush to appeal that there are people are being detained right now that would have had to be released had the ban been upheld.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
The injunction in Hedges blocked the detainment power in its entirety (on the basis of being unconstitutionally vague), not only detainment with respect to American citizens. Obama is fighting to preserve the detainment power, not for the power to detain American citizens, which would be contrary to his signing statement and the expressed intent of Congress.
>Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court
You're OK with indefinitely detaining American citizens until the government slaps some charges on & convicts? Spooky.
You're OK with indefinitely detaining American citizens until the government slaps some charges on & convicts? Spooky.
I'm not "OK" with what happened to Padilla, but the contention was that the executive branch "has been given the power" to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and that assertion is false.
Read the history of the Padilla case: http://www.nyclu.org/case/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-cha....
See also: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-supreme-cou....
There was a legal wrangling over the scope of the President's detention powers, and Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court was rendered moot by the government deciding to charge him. No U.S. citizen has been indefinitely detained since.
Read the history of the Padilla case: http://www.nyclu.org/case/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-cha....
See also: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-supreme-cou....
There was a legal wrangling over the scope of the President's detention powers, and Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court was rendered moot by the government deciding to charge him. No U.S. citizen has been indefinitely detained since.
The drone strikes seldom occur on what a reasonable person would consider a battlefield (weddings, etc.). I think that is what parent is getting at.
Certainly American intelligence operatives have murdered their countrymen quietly over the decades. A big difference to me (at least) is that these assassinations are completely out in the open, publicly announced and such.
Certainly American intelligence operatives have murdered their countrymen quietly over the decades. A big difference to me (at least) is that these assassinations are completely out in the open, publicly announced and such.
Anwar al-Awlaki was specifically targeted for assassination, not killed on a battlefield.
Yemen, lacking an effective civilian law enforcement system that could give him due process was itself a battlefield.
IT is not where a lot of my friends make a living; many of them are/were intel analysts (open source, meaning they do not do the classified stuff, they do large-scale cultural analysis that is the background to the classified reports; we all know the majority are not reading their work, hecne the problems) because language skills with a certain Middle Eastern language. And they will all tell you the same thing: every strike radicalizes more people, and is causing more problems than they intend to solve. They know this by the way through local media they are paid to read. Also every one I know from Yemen, and I know a few, will tell you the same thing as our government has progressively fucked up their country so bad no one sees straight. Agitating people in a lawless state, as you hint at, is only asking for desperate people to do desperate things.
But what do I know, this rationalizing logic (and to be fair it is not yours, it is the USG) is disgusting. But it works in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and worked so well in Iraq, yeah?
No, it did not. Strategy bad, implementation bad, and results bad. What a surprise.
But what do I know, this rationalizing logic (and to be fair it is not yours, it is the USG) is disgusting. But it works in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and worked so well in Iraq, yeah?
No, it did not. Strategy bad, implementation bad, and results bad. What a surprise.
That's tangential to my point. It may be a bad idea to pursue any specific criminal into Yemen. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that sovereign states can do so because in a lawless country there is no "cannot" in the face of physical ability to act. "Should" is a wholly different question.
This distinction is not irrelevant. In our system of government, courts decide "can" while the political process decides "should." But we have a tendency of equating the two, and responding to every instance of "shouldn't" with "you can't do that!" "Can" Obama pursue terrorist suspects into Yemen with force? Yes! Should he? Who knows.
This distinction is not irrelevant. In our system of government, courts decide "can" while the political process decides "should." But we have a tendency of equating the two, and responding to every instance of "shouldn't" with "you can't do that!" "Can" Obama pursue terrorist suspects into Yemen with force? Yes! Should he? Who knows.
To you it may be tangential, but my large amount of time in the Middle East (and I happen to like it here) has taught me that, unfortunately, stateless states should implode on themselves. They will anyway. The only reason they are able to cause damage is we shorten our proximity to them with forward operating bases and less legitimate covers in countries where the population does not approve of our presence, even nominally. That dislike is because of those very same FOBs, which are there to make the stateless stateful.
If we can learn anything from networking jokes, no amount of guns will make UDP TCP, just like forcing Yemenis to accept legitimacy based on your definition of the need for stateful intervention to prevent stateless chaos and terrorism (the biggest fad word of the decade) and will not work (I would not be surprised, knowing my history of ancient Greece, if the terrain and disconnected government are not so uncommon, see Afghanistan also).
I agree on the should-can dichotomy. The problem is that I was under the impression the should was important in the betterment of society than the can, and that has recently changed. But maybe because I was raised by lawyers, I was taught the should was more important the can, hence the idea of constitutional powers. I am under the impression that is the outrage with PRISM/FISA/general government malfeasance these days: like a cop who badgers someone he pulls over and does not follow his legal obligations, the USG in Yemen, in signals intelligence, in everything to be honest, does what it can and worries about the should later, and will find any excuse in the should category that is exceptional to justify a "can" they knew to be a "cannot." It is disgusting.
It is ok: my time abroad taught me all governments are shams, and we best tolerate them just to make them pleased with themselves. The USG is like all other bullies, and any government bully must be convinced in its total allegiance of the flock or it must (can) flex its muscle even though it knows it should not. Unfortunately when the bully beats too many people, they gang up and trounce on him.
Sorry, end rant. Not meant to be directed at you. Your last point is really good, but it defines exactly what makes me want to be Scandinavian. I do not want to support my government even tacitly anymore.
If we can learn anything from networking jokes, no amount of guns will make UDP TCP, just like forcing Yemenis to accept legitimacy based on your definition of the need for stateful intervention to prevent stateless chaos and terrorism (the biggest fad word of the decade) and will not work (I would not be surprised, knowing my history of ancient Greece, if the terrain and disconnected government are not so uncommon, see Afghanistan also).
I agree on the should-can dichotomy. The problem is that I was under the impression the should was important in the betterment of society than the can, and that has recently changed. But maybe because I was raised by lawyers, I was taught the should was more important the can, hence the idea of constitutional powers. I am under the impression that is the outrage with PRISM/FISA/general government malfeasance these days: like a cop who badgers someone he pulls over and does not follow his legal obligations, the USG in Yemen, in signals intelligence, in everything to be honest, does what it can and worries about the should later, and will find any excuse in the should category that is exceptional to justify a "can" they knew to be a "cannot." It is disgusting.
It is ok: my time abroad taught me all governments are shams, and we best tolerate them just to make them pleased with themselves. The USG is like all other bullies, and any government bully must be convinced in its total allegiance of the flock or it must (can) flex its muscle even though it knows it should not. Unfortunately when the bully beats too many people, they gang up and trounce on him.
Sorry, end rant. Not meant to be directed at you. Your last point is really good, but it defines exactly what makes me want to be Scandinavian. I do not want to support my government even tacitly anymore.
The entire world is a battlefield in the war on terror, even "the homeland". Which means that they can kill anyone they want anywhere in the world via secret order using secret evidence with no oversight. And terror can never be defeated so the war is permanent. This is a dangerous bullshit war that will continue to destroy our way of life until it is stopped.
Ok then, then what about his 16 year old son? Another American citizen (born in Denver), killed two weeks later in a drone strike. Does killing teens jive with your idea of due process?
[deleted](1)
Another, perhaps overlooked fact, is that the path to the Supreme Court often starts with a lowly lawsuit claiming damages. Without somebody filing an initial suit at the local level, the case won't ever have the opportunity for SCOTUS review.
Reagan funded revolutions in Eastern Europe and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Obama's State Department is giving arms and money to Islamic revolutionaries in Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, and other countries. "We came, we saw, he died!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewante...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
And there isn't even a geostrategic goal like turning Afghanistan against the USSR; it's just setting fire to formerly stable Muslim nations in the name of "democracy", just as Bush did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewante...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
And there isn't even a geostrategic goal like turning Afghanistan against the USSR; it's just setting fire to formerly stable Muslim nations in the name of "democracy", just as Bush did.
that faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades...
In hindsight Bush. vs. Gore did a lot to erode this faith, and the ruling was probably a mistake.
Although, to it's credit, the court did not overturn Obamacare, probably because deciding such a partian battle would have further eroded this faith.
In hindsight Bush. vs. Gore did a lot to erode this faith, and the ruling was probably a mistake.
Although, to it's credit, the court did not overturn Obamacare, probably because deciding such a partian battle would have further eroded this faith.
Liberals are mad about citizens united, but Roberts is doing yeoman's work. In hindsight, do you really want the government deciding what is political speech and what is impermissible electioneering? Or that the corporations targeted by the NSA have no speech rights? Then he threaded the needle with obamacare. Upholding it, but reiterating the narrower commerce power of Lopez.
It may not be "illegal" per se, but I would certainly say that it's either unconstitutional or at the very least against the spirit of the constitution. For whatever the hell that's worth...
Whether its against the spirit of the constitution depends on how you perceive the nature of monitoring. The "spirit" of the 4th amendment is to keep the police from invading your personal space. If you think of your gdrive as a natural extension of your desk drawer, then I can see how you could interpret it as against the spirit, because the NSA looking through those documents is like the police rummaging through your desk.
That's not the only way to view the situation, though. That's the "software" view of the world. I take a "hardware" view of the world. That data is sitting on Google's property. Its servers, its hard drives. You've given up posession of that data. Under that view, rummaging through that data is neither unconstitutional nor against the spirit thereof.
more generally, the constitution just has nothing to say about the larger issue of "tracking." The founders wrote the 4th with a specific grievance in mind: British searches of houses with very broad warrants. They just didn't address the government collecting information you left out in the world to track you.
That's not the only way to view the situation, though. That's the "software" view of the world. I take a "hardware" view of the world. That data is sitting on Google's property. Its servers, its hard drives. You've given up posession of that data. Under that view, rummaging through that data is neither unconstitutional nor against the spirit thereof.
more generally, the constitution just has nothing to say about the larger issue of "tracking." The founders wrote the 4th with a specific grievance in mind: British searches of houses with very broad warrants. They just didn't address the government collecting information you left out in the world to track you.
You have rented, by agreement with Google, a portion of the space on their servers. It's no different than a physical storage locker at a storage facility. Yes, that is property that is owned by a third party, but you've still entered into an agreement for the exclusive use of it and you have an expectation of privacy. Police are not allowed to search it without a warrant.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
ACLU & EFF, moving our society forward.
They both work tirelessly, mostly for people who don't even know they exist. Money donated to them is money well spent.
Or in the ACLU's case, people with irrational hatred toward them.
Scenario 1: NSA loses, People wins, Lawyers wins
Scenario 2: NSA wins, People lose, Lawyers wins
Now, who's the smartest?
Scenario 2: NSA wins, People lose, Lawyers wins
Now, who's the smartest?
I love to make anti-lawyer jokes as much as the next guy, but it's just not true for the ACLU, EFF, and other public interest organizations.
ACLU lawyers make a fraction of what they could working for private law firms.
According to this article from 2007, a job at the ACLU will get you $59k starting wage vs. $160k working for private law firms. Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback. I think we owe them our respect and gratitude.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015
ACLU lawyers make a fraction of what they could working for private law firms.
According to this article from 2007, a job at the ACLU will get you $59k starting wage vs. $160k working for private law firms. Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback. I think we owe them our respect and gratitude.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015
> Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback
This isn't always the case: http://www.studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/public-serv...
(At least employees of the ACLU foundation are eligible for loan forgiveness, and $59k is low enough that it would actually matter)
This isn't always the case: http://www.studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/public-serv...
(At least employees of the ACLU foundation are eligible for loan forgiveness, and $59k is low enough that it would actually matter)
I don't really care what motivates them, so long as they fight for freedom and get the job done.
I've never considered donating to the ACLU before this incident, but I've never considered them ambulance chasers either.
What do you mean by "ambulance chasers"?
Sorry, it might be an americanism: A lawyer working mostly for profit rather than principle.
#3 definition is probably the closest to common usage: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ambulance%20c...
#3 definition is probably the closest to common usage: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ambulance%20c...
It's a colloquial term for sleazy lawyer. Specifically, it's a lawyer who seeks out people who were injured, so that they can be that person's lawyer and sue whoever was responsible.
The court building janitors win too. I don't see your point.
Doubtful.
Most of the time you have to file N copies of a brief, where N > 10.
(There is a lot of electronic case filing now, but ..) For example, for the supreme court, you need 40 copies.
These poor bastards lose no matter what, because of how many times they have to empty the recycling bins.
(There is a lot of electronic case filing now, but ..) For example, for the supreme court, you need 40 copies.
These poor bastards lose no matter what, because of how many times they have to empty the recycling bins.
Xerox wins!
Cynicism ahead: periods of strife and conflict are among the best time to be a lawyer. The job isn't fun when everyone is happy and cooperative and agrees on everything.
In the 1970's and 1980's, the courts were extremely active in policing the government. It was by all measures a much scarier time. Obama has a few drone strikes--Reagan was funding revolutions in other countries. It was the height of the cold war and the threat of nuclear holocaust, and the palpable fear about communism paled anything we see today over terrorism. Even in the early 2000's, in the throes of the aftermath of 9/11, the Supreme Court forced the Bush administration to dramatically adjust its policy on giving legal representation to inmates at Guantanamo.
Since then what has happened is a process of delegitimization of the judiciary. And both sides of the aisle have been to blame for this: from the right's talk of activist judges to Obama's physically menacing over the Justices during his state of the union. The judiciary has been at fault too: having overextended itself in the culture wars of the 1960's and 1970's, it very self-conciously adopted a mantra of extreme judicial restraint.
What you have left today is a judiciary that might no longer be able to effectively police the government. I've made it clear elsewhere that I don't think the current surveillance program is illegal, but it might not matter one way or the other. The judiciary's role in our system of checks and balances is ultimately rooted in faith in the legitimacy of the institution, and that faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades.