AT&T Tech Support 360
August 17, 2006 9:44 AM PDT
Federal judge orders halt to NSA spy program
- Related Stories
-
Feds appeal loss in NSA wiretap case
July 31, 2006 -
AT&T leaks sensitive info in NSA suit
May 26, 2006 -
FAQ: NSA's data mining explained
May 12, 2006 -
AT&T sued over NSA spy program
January 31, 2006
(continued from previous page)
Clients defended by ACLU in the suit praised the district court's decision, saying it would allow them to carry out their professional duties without fear of being spied upon.
"I'm extremely relieved to know that this court believes in the right of our clients, who are all people accused of crimes, to the confidentiality that has long believed to be essential to the criminal justice system," said Nancy Hollander, a New Mexico-based attorney who spoke on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
New York University professor Barney Rubin, a plaintiff in the case who has authored several books on Afghanistan, said the ruling gave him "greater confidence" that he would be able to conduct interviews with subjects located in the nation considered a state sponsor of terror without worrying his conversations would be scooped up by the NSA.
It wasn't immediately clear what impact the ruling will have on a number of other cases challenging the legality of the NSA program. On July 20, a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege and ruled that a case brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group, against AT&T could proceed--a move that the government readily appealed.
Five days later, however, a federal judge in Chicago granted the Justice Department's request to throw out another suit related to the NSA program brought by the ACLU.
A number of congressional proposals also seek to broaden wiretapping law, essentially making the existing NSA program legal. One controversial bill endorsed by the Bush administration proposes moving all cases disputing electronic surveillance programs to a secret court.
Congressional Democrats on Thursday generally applauded the decision, while Republicans decried it as a potential threat to the war on terror.
"If the courts of final review rule that these procedures don't work, we will find a way that does," U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Dennis Hastert said in a statement. "We hope that the Democrats will join us in an effort to make sure America continues these vital terrorist surveillance programs.
The Democratic co-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the judge's ruling reaffirmed his ongoing belief that the NSA program was illegal. "We can and should wiretap terrorists under the current FISA law," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said in a statement. "The problem has been the Bush-Cheney administration's insistence on doing it illegally, without checks and balances to prevent abusing the rights of Americans."
The ACLU said it was confident that the constitutional arguments raised by Taylor's opinion would prompt the politicians to rethink taking such steps. "Members of Congress have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution," said ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson, "and they're going to have to take this decision very seriously."
See more CNET content tagged:
Bush Administration,
stay,
NSA,
federal judge,
government
-JimP
This is a victory for terrorists and criminals, nothing more!
That's what I don't get - why do people get so freaked out about this if they're not breaking the law? Something I'd venture to say most people are NOT doing.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
You may think its all well and good to have Republicans listening in on treasonous Americans now, but what happens when a Democrat gets elected and decides that now *you* are the traitor whose every move and phone must be monitored?
in fact left-wing, Anti-American, and pro-terrorist why not call her
that. Some people are you know.
the Court enforce."
However, I also think that the with one party controlling both Congress and the presidency we're probably not going to see any real momentum in ending the NSA spy program.
what point does it violate anyone's Constitutional rights?
I would really like the government to spy on our enemies,
wouldn't you? It is kind of important to know when people are
trying to kill you, don't you think?
Can someone please give me an example of this program's
horrifying abuse of American citizens or do you not like it just
because it is there?
What confuses me is that normally when presidents ignore the constitution and rules we have set in place that govern us they get in trouble for these things.
I guess that maybe that's the "old way" of doing things. Now we break the laws and declare it legal, which it remains so until proven otherwise?
Is CNET reporting this for "Technology" Reasons?
Another Concerned Citizen
which is really hard to argue against on the
terms that they framed the issue in.
However, if you feel that perhaps the
Constitution gets in the way of the security
(sic) of the USA, then campaign to change it. We
repealed the 18th Ammendment with the 21st, we
can certainly repeal the 4th Ammendment with a
28th. That would be the way to do it, change the
law rather than just decide to ignore it.
Bush's "there ought to be limits to freedom"
comment specifically referred to problems
he has with the 1st Ammendment -- that too could
be repealed. That would eliminate all the issues
he's had with the press, the nagging problems
with faith-based programs, etc. all at once and
let him get on to other things like fighting
terrorists. Maybe he could even get it together
and ferret out Al Qaeda.
If we repealed the 5th and 6th Ammendments, then
all these problems with "enemy combatants",
secret courts, and indefinite incarceration
without trial would go away too.
What I am saying is that the Constitution is
something that can be changed - talk to your
Congressman or Senator about it. Not that I'm
saying it's a good idea, of course. Doing so -
just like ignoring it whenever it's inconvenient
as we do now - is conceding defeat to the "death
to America" crowd. But, if you feel strongly
enough you ought to campaign for it.
I think that a lot of us were brought up to
associate that "g-ddamned piece of paper,"
particularly the Bill of Rights, with our
identity as a nation, right up there with the
Declaration of Independence. Changing it, just
as ignoring it, would be death to America - at
least as we know it.
Judge Taylor is the receiptant,
It would be poetic justice if the potential repercussions only fell on those who promote this naive, destructive idealogy.
Care to explain what this decision has to do with the war in Iraq?
The "war against terrorism" is a nice soundbite, but it is nothing more than that.
War has a very specific meaning, and there are very specific procedures to authorize. None of these things fit on the "war on terrorism".
the President.
don't get me wrong... i don't want them spying on calls inside the US going around inside the US without a warrant (which they are not doing), but this whole thing is about calls going outside the US to known terrorists. Our constitution does not apply to these people!
But then again, the political left will do better if America looses. It is so upsetting that according to them, everything bad in the world is America's fault.... and they call themselves patriots, yet when Bush or Chenny call the recient capture of terrorists in the UK a reminder of our enimy, the libs call it "offensive to use that event for political gain" These wiretaps are for the collection of intelligence, not the prosicution of americans. if anything here were braught to a court, it would be turned down. but it aids in the country's protection.
demanding capitulation through fear.
The NSA spy program circumvents our Constitution and has
absolutely no oversight (the President doesn't count). It removes
a key check in the checks and balances of our government. Add
to that the ability to declare anyone a combatant and deny them
their Constitutional rights and you have more than just potential
for abuse.
We are a nation of laws and despite what you and Mr. Bush may
believe, the PRESIDENT and HIS ADMINISTRATION are subject to
those laws. Truthfully, he makes Nixon look like a piker.
I'm more frightened that none of this bothers you at all.
You blame this on the political left. The reality is that our leaders
have gone so far to the extreme right that even Reagan
conservatives are now considered part of the left. So you are
correct, but only because you have lumped 80% of the country
into the "political left".
The reality is that as long as we are free, we can never be 100%
safe. There is always the potential for one person to inflict
massive pain. If we are willing to give up our rights indefinitely
for a never-ending war, we have already lost.
As it is, anyone that stands to oppose this administration's
actions has been declared in collusion with the enemy, a
terrorist sympathizer or unpatriotic. Again, that not only doesn't
bother you. You are actually joining in on the name calling.
to eavesdrop, only domestic-domestic calls
required FISA warrants. This decision effects
that program, not the other one.
Incidentally, our Constitution doesn't apply
outside the US, but it does apply to those in it
(even if there's one party in the US, and the
other outside). It doesn't matter so much,
though, since that part of the eavesdropping
happens outside our jurisdiction so it'd be
legal.
I'm not sure what "libs" are, but I think that
Cheney's news conference (a first for his office
to instigate one) was obviously for political
gain. He outed and prematurely terminated an
investigation that had been ongoing for a year,
they raised the threat level and imposed new
security restrictions though the threat was
extant for months and the precise nature of it
known (why not when the threat was understood
rather than after the suspects apprehended), and
he specifically made references to elections and
political allies (including an endorsement and a
admonition on how people should vote). Whether
or not it was reactive or proactive can be
debated, but as to whether or not it was
politicized cannot.
numerous spelling errors. look for it. you'll see in the "right" there
are a great many illiterates. amazing, really.
oh, and this all contains the earmarks of fascism. keep your head in
the sand and wait until it's too late. the left will truly be the only
ones "left".
Obey the law. Preserve essential liberty while STILL fighting the terrorists. And if you can't do both at the same time, then step aside and make room for someone who can!
If anyone is stupid enough to think this rejection of NSA tactics encourages terrorism, keep in mind that Great Britain busted the terrorist ring last week WITHOUT such illegal wiretaps. They did it BY THE BOOK.
Rape? Wow...
Some believe everything they're told by the side/group/politicalparty they are already aligned with, while others believe that our current leaders, "legitimate" or not, are doing the best they can to keep all of us safe.
That! is what being on the same team (America) is all about... regardless of whether "my" party is currently in the pilot seat.
While I have been a conservative and republican for many years, maybe not so in the future.
Judge Taylor has crafted "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" here. Now for some other judge, maybe a Regan appointee, to make the data-mining illegal as well?
As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967):
Implicit in the term ?national defense? is the notion of defending
those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would
indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would
sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties . . . which makes the
defense of the Nation worthwhile.
ok, lets amend the constitution, would that make you happy?
let's hear your solution to this growing murderous religion?
M.I. 5 or 6 went to the U.S. FISA Court and obtained warrents
before doing any monitoring of any of the 20+ (emphesis on the
"+") suspects they were monitoring because they were following
U.S. laws "BY THE BOOK"?
Do you have any clue as to what "monitoring" laws apply in
England and how they would stand up in any U.S. court?
Do you think maybe if the exact same laws were applied in the
U.S. you might not be screaming even louder because they did it
"BY THE BOOK" (their book) when they busted the terrorist ring
last week?
Every single one that is complaining because it's being listened, it's because he's telling something isn't worth saying, too wrong to be acceptable, or too stupid to be useful.
If you have nothing to hide, why not let us go through your
belongings in your car, in your house, on your computer. Surely
you have nothing to hide, so you won't mind the body cavity
search?
What, you feel violated? How could that be? You have nothing to
hide, right?
This argument is used to justify abuse of power. The
Constitution doesn't apply only if you have something to hide. It
applies in all cases to keep the abuse of power to a minimum. It
then adds checks and balances between the government to
further minimize. In six short years, we've seen this setup torn
down with more fear mongering.
If you have nothing to hide, you should be fine with giving up
your dignity, your privacy, your freedom. After all, it is for your
protection. Sure, you're violated -- but don't you feel safe now.
The problem is simple. It takes too long to make change happen through our current political BS and no action system. As a president you have to cut through the crap and make things as best you can with what you've got.
Electronic voting booths that can't count or have accountability. Democracy is taking a turn for the circus! Can we be serious when we blame other countries for not wanting to become like us and accept Wal-mart mentality and misconducts?
We are having a law/electronic/patent/social melt down and everyone is pointing at everyone else while no one has accountability for their actions.
What a slippery slop we all must conform and live with. Good luck and God Bless Everyone - Everywhere!
Best regards,
Mac
in times of war or not the freedoms of Americans should never be removed.
I guess you want internment camps for all muslims but this time run by Japan american citizens?
It will not work. Cry of terror is always what is being used to kill freedoms.
I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't give the government the right to assume I am committing some wrong and force me to prove I'm innoncent. That's not the way freedom works people. And for all you "I have nothing to hide" goobs, protesting a government that is tyrannical is the truest form of patriotism. Just ask the colonists.
[Oh, we KNOW this, as a fact?!?]
...tyrannical...?
[http://Appears that the left has done a good job of getting some people overly riled up by constantly driving home the fear motivated talking points...|http://Appears that the left has done a good job of getting some people overly riled up by constantly driving home the fear motivated talking points...]
Just an observation, but I think it's safe to say that we live in a slightly different world than the Colonists did...
communication with known terrorist. It is preventing about
wiretapping *without a warrant*
If a suspect is suspected to be contact with a known terrorist, they
will always obtain such warrant easily.