ACLU Challenges Unconstitutional Spying Law
In July 2008, Congress capitulated to the White House's demands and scare tactics by passing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, giving the NSA even more power to spy on Americans without warrants than it exercised under its illegal surveillance program.
The ACLU is asking the court to protect the privacy rights of all Americans and declare the FAA unconstitutional.
Why the FISA Amendments Act is Unconstitutional The FISA Amendments Act gives the government nearly unfettered access to Americans' international communications. Government surveillance that sweeps up the communications of U.S. citizens and residents should be conducted in a manner that comports with the Constitution, and in particular with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "general warrants" and unreasonable searches. The FISA Amendments Act allows the government to engage in mass acquisition of U.S. citizens' and residents' international communications with virtually no restrictions. Some of the main problems with the law are:
>> Read an extended analysis of why the FAA is unconstitutional >> More on the FAA lawsuit Read More »
I have a simple question; Why does the government need up to 67 days to do a physical search of anyone, including USA citizens? See FISA Amendments Act Sec. 107, titled "Physical Search". I mean, i realize a cavity search can take a little time, but 67 DAYS!?!? Come on, that's ridiculous! Did Mr. Obame really read this thing before he agreed to sign on to it??! This section refers Only to "Physical Searches", not your computers, phone conversations, etc., just a body search!!!!
If Senator Obama would just answer that one question, (and, by the way, i have quite a few more), it would help me better to understand his vote. Keep in mind, according to this section, Sec. 103 and Sec. 803, the Attorney General can do this at his Own discretion, for the 1st 7 days, (Not even having to request a warrant!!!). Then, on the 7th day, when he Must request a warrant, even if he is turned down, he can continue his "Physical Search" for another 60 days, while he awaits his appeal answer from FISA court!!! And, if the person is wronged, big deal!; the AG has No worries; NONE of this can ever be brought up in ANY court or to any legislator, police officer, etc., etc. That according to Sec. 107 and Sec. 803!!! This is just a way to detain someone, including USA citizens, withOUT a warrant!!
Did you ever Really read this abominous act, Mr. Obama?!?
Dear Senator Obama:
Remember how basically all Guiliani knew in the campaign was a noun, a verb and 911?
Well – No one bought it, least of all me, who as I mentioned was there under Tower 1 on Sept 11th. I was supposed to be at Jury duty...but that is another long sad tale. My point is that while I may have been ahead of the curve here by being there when the attack happened and seeing the aftermath, i.e. How angry NY’ers were and still are that people don’t seem to think we may have the critical and most valuable point of view on this terror subject because it was we who got attacked, While – I may have been thinking this way all along – the fact is that Guiliani and McSame are not scaring ANYONE with security.
Senator, I ask you again:
Breaking the 4th amendment is not a remedy and has no correlation to the threat of "terror" You know that and so do most Americans. Why do you continue to ignore the issue of what 23288 members, supporters on your website want you to account for?
The very reason your platform of hope grew like a snowball rolling down a hill was because people DO care about their hopes, dreams and free speech and they don’t buy a noun a verb and 911 anymore.
L,Suz Andreasen
www.suzandreasen.com
NY, NY
I came across this Obama blog entry this morning that pretty much expresses where I am at after Senator Obama's decision to support the FISA bill.
Gordon
----------------------
Dissent at All Levels
From Bryan K. Long
I think it is fair to say that Senator Obama and most Obama supporters are
opposed to the Republican tactic of silencing dissent by calling it
unpatriotic. We recognize that it is the responsibility of every citizen to
speak out against our Government's actions when we think those actions are
against our nation's best interests. Similarly, it is the responsibility of
every Obama supporter to speak out when the Senator takes positions or
actions which we feel betray the best interests of the nation.
Accountability can not be delayed until after the election; we cannot afford
to sacrifice principles for political expediency and we must demand the same
from Senator Obama. It is true that we must not give up on him -- yesterday
I was ready to, but today with cooler head I know he is still much better
than the alternative. I disagree with Mr. Pitts only when he suggests that
many might just give up without speaking out: the truth is that the 23,000
who signed onto the Get FISA Right group are among the most informed and
ardent of Obama's supporters. Despite their anger, they will vote for him
anyway. But their ardor has been cooled, and they will be watching Senator
Obama with more dubious eyes.
Hi Frank and Obama campaign – Yes, I do have another initiative going and thanks for your support. But if you close this list -- the largest list on myBO — 23,284 supporters are you not censoring the work we have put in and squashing the supporters who care? I think that is a big mistake. You are basically shooing away ardent 23284 supporters and don’t you think this may make them even more angry and work even harder to move on to independents, McCain and God only knows who else? And – what is more over – if you close your largest list, what are you telling us? Our support was nice for you while it suited the campaigns needs but you don’t need us now that we voice our concerns and dissent. I think this is censorship. I don’t agree that you are going to help O win because you negate this whole group an large one which can and will be more angry. Think about it. Do you want this fallout? L,Suz Andreasen
-- All the best, Suz Andreasen SUZ ANDREASEN COUTURE http://www.suzandreasen.com WOMEN WANT JEWELRY http://www.womenwantjewelry.com A little shop where you are a gem too... Customerservice@womenwantjewelry.com 7/11/08 10:54 PM, "Frank Ploof" <ploof1@att.net> wrote:
I am deeply saddened and angry at the fact Barack Obama chose to support the FISA legislation. Just when I thought I was witnessing the rise of a leader not seen for decades, I am starting to feel I am witnessing, nothing more, then just another politician coming to power. The spineless record of Nancy Pelosi's congress has, unfortuntely, become something I have grown used to, but Barack Obama caving in? I did not see this coming. Barack voted along with a majority of our Senate for a continuation of no real accountability, and for the weakening of the 4th amendment. The passage of the FISA bill is am American tragedy. The thought of watching BushCo. walk into the sunset getting away with everything they have done is not something I can swallow. At the very least I encourage everyone to withold donations to the Obama campaign for a full month. If this keeps up I will be writing someone in come November.
Yes, I am disappointed. I had hopes that the FISA bill would not go through or if it would that it would not grant retroactive immunity to the Telecons and it would not allow data-mining of phone and email communications. In fact, the FISA bill wasn't really the FISA bill. FISA was the court set up in the 70's to allow us to surveil threats against the nation while still following the 4th Amendment, which until now meant that if you wanted to tap a phone or email chain, you had to get a warrant from a court. That's all, if you want to listen in, get a warrant. The Bush administration did not want to do that. So in violation of FISA, they began the NSA Surveillance program secretly and got caught. They should have called this legislation that was just passed the "Restore the NSA Surveillance Program" bill. And the Senate, including my candidate, gave it to them.
Yes, I do understand why my candidate had to make this particular vote. If Barack Obama had voted against this bill, the Republican hit machine would have come after him hard as "soft on terrorism" and "naive about national security" and they would have had some well-meaning Americans believing it. By voting for the bill, they take the argument away from them, giving them nothing to rant about. In this particular race, at this particular time, it is Barack Obama's race to lose and it would be unwise to give red meat to the opposition.
And yes, I do believe that a President Obama will restore the Bill of Rights and bring an end to this recent notion by the Bush Administration that what we really need in the United States is not a President, but a King.
But I am still disappointed. I thought this was an argument that we could win on the merits. Or at the very least that it would be something that the DEMOCRAT controlled House and Senate could delay past the election which would have meant that the status quo, the original FISA law that required warrants, would have been the rule. We seem to be following the "don't mess with the status-quo" strategy on Health Care and Immigration Reform and Tax Reform, I figured we could snooze this issue into oblivion too. But it wasn't to be. No, to win an election, we had to show how tough we are willing to be, by totally caving in to the opposition.
"...solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. "
"Section 9. ... No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. "
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."
My Dad once said to me in response to my silence on an issue: "Son, why sit there quietly and let people think you're an idiot when you can speak up and prove it to them." Sometimes, opening one's mouth just reinforces what they already believe.
So, dear Senator Obama (my guy) you go and say that our problem is that we weren't listening to you during the campaign. Well, I'm upset to hear that when I thought I was listening to you my mind or ears must have been playing tricks on me. So ... I looked it up and here's what I found:
“I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty,” (Barack Obama, Wisconsin during primary). That's when you said you'd filibuster any legislation giving immunicy to the telcons.
Now, just in case you're not listening to us let me be clear; you're on thin ice here. Not that most of us won't vote for you (although you're in great danger of turning off the Hiliary supporters for sure) but you are letting all of the air out of your balloon.
Stop before it's too late. And, above all, don't tell us it's our problem sir. It's your problem. Your job is to convince us you're really the Barack Obama we thought you were. Our job is to hold your feet to the fire (and, hopefully out of your mouth) so you don't forget who got you where you are. It was my money and that of loads and loads of other "little people" who made your campaign war chest so fat and effective.
And, just for a final poke: gutting the Fourth Amendment is not good for our security, our privacy or our democracy. In fact, it sucks! Ask any Constitutional scholar and, by all means, read the important words of the Founders with respect to this critically important component of any democracy and effective self-government. Without it, we might just as well be monarchy.
Perhaps I'm still in shock. I simply can't believe that so many of our elected officials who have sworn to uphold the Constitution have supported a law that violates the 4th Amendment. No, I'm beyond shock. I'm bereft. I' feeling the loss mightily.
I'm hurt that I mustered the energy during the primaries to phone-bank, canvass and pester everybody I knew in support of a man who said he was going to restore our civil rights and he has turned around and given momentum to the RovChenian trajectory.
Since he's told us that he's willing to lose our support over this, I am left hopeless. Having hope about our political potential was a very short-lived experience for me. I suppose I'm glad I had a season of it. I'm not sure where to go from here....
Dear Senator Obama,
I trusted you as a constitutional lawyer to do the RIGHT thing and vote No to FISA. I don't care if you say it is a compromise, the bottom line, is you lost my vote.
The 4th amendment is something I hold as dearly as Republicans hold their rights for guns.
I campaigned like a dog for you- converting hispanic voters, phone canvassing - you name it and I did it starting in August 07.
But with this vote, you lost me, just like Hillary lost me when she refused to come out against the war.
Whatever your logic is or was, is not good enough for me as a voter. I trusted you, you broke the trust with the vote, something you could have easily done the right thing on. You see Senator, we, average Americans trust you, our elected officials to cast their votes for us. This is something you spoke of over and over again in your speeches which is why I worked so hard for you.
Now, the trust is broken.
Suz Andreasen
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
That was the statement issued by the Obama campaign late last year. Pretty clear? For the record, today Senator Obama voted against the filibuster, and then voted for the bill that has retroactive immunity.
It's hard to know what to say, isn't it? Obama will be a better president - by far - than either Bush or McCain. I still believe that. And I still believe he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton, although it is worth noting that Senator Clinton kept her promise: she voted both for the filibuster and against this horrible bill.
Some pundits are saying that Obama and his advisors didn't expect so much resistance on this issue, that they didn't realize how important it is to many thousands of Americans. But for me, it's deeper than that. The most disheartening aspect of Senator Obama's definitive reversal on this issue is that ... well, it turns out that it just isn't important to Barack Obama.
Everyone who cares about America's direction should read Glenn Greenwald's account of the day's Senate proceedings, entitled "Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama", emphasis mine.Here's the most need to know stuff:
Cloture on the bill just passed 72-26. Obama voted in favor of cloture along with all Republicans. Hillary Clinton voted against cloture.After the cloture vote, the Senate just approved final passage of the FISA bill, by a vote of 69-28. Obama voted with all Republicans for the bill. Hillary Clinton voted against it.
