Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Thread Started on Today at 4:38pm

AP - 55 minutes ago

DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

I can hear it coming now... Blah blah blah blah blah, activist judges, blah blah blah, legislating from the bench, blah blah.

I knew you were going to sy that. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yea, how dare they uphold our Constitution.

Except the NSA program is not governed by the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions.? It's a foolish decision but one that will likely be reversed, probably following a lengthy stay of the order.

P.S.? Hey SLC, how are those Karl Rove indictments coming along?? ;D

And how exactly does the NSA program not have to comply with the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions??

I am guessing not one person that has posted in this thread has read the opinion.? It is simply a gut reaction based on their political ideology.? It certainly doesn't surprise me that plaintiffs found one Carter appointee federal judge to rule this way.? I will reserve my opinion on the decision until I actually read it.



EDIT:
After reading the opinion, I am willing to bet anyone that this case will be reversed on the standing issue.

Let's see, last week the UK thwarted plans to destroy ten planes over, or on America. Yeah, we probably shouldn't be trying to track their plans. What were we thinking?

Your exactly right Berkley.  When the Supreme Court hears this case and sides with Bush, a panel of 9 judges who only purpose is to rule on constitutional matters will be "wrong."  And yes, I do have a problem with judges legislating from the bench.  How many lives have been saved to these searches?  It amazes me how people will run to the constitution when they "think" it will serve their purpose.  It's an all or nothing deal, you don't get to pick and choose which parts you follow.  Furthermore, people who lack a college degree, let alone a JD aren't really the kind of people I would goto for constitutional advice.

What is this?

The only thing that has been asked is that surveillance of USA citizens by the government be reviewed in a court and then to have a warrant issued. None of this applies to individuals that are not citizens of the USA. .


In regards to my post above::

"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 make the defense of the nation worthwhile."

From the judge. You guys are either a) Muddying up the argument on purpose, or b) Don?t really understand the issue. Based on what you are saying, I?m going to go with option B.




I?m not sure what you are talking about, and I?m not sure you do either???

Again it is not a matter of the searches. It is a matter of obtaining warrants to do so legally. This country was founded based on the rights and freedoms you seem eager to give away. Thousands and thousands of your countrymen died in order for you to have them. Yet here you are willing to give it up because it may keep you safe from a terror attack? Remembering that you probably have a higher odds of killing yourself then dying in an act of terror.

Again, the system has been ruled legal.? There is suspicion of criminal activity and they seek a warrant and/or justification after the fact.? We don't need the New York Times publishing that certain individuals are being watched.

 
Exactly, thus why I support the investigation of all suspected terrorist so that more men don't have to die.


What am I giving up?? My right to conduct terrorist activity?? Nay, I'm not giving up anything.? We're not talking about Big Brother no matter how much you try to make it look that way.



And the reason for such a statistic is because of the precautions we have in place.?

full article since it wasn't posted in the first post....

DETROIT ? A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The U.S. Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement saying the program is "an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror."

"In the ongoing conflict with Al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties."

The ruling won't take immediate effect so Taylor can hear a Justice request for a stay pending its appeal. For its part, the White House issued a statement saying the Bush administration couldn't disagree more with the decision.

"The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The terrorist surveillance program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program," reads a statement released by Press Secretary Tony Snow.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and those in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told reporters after the ruling.

He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

While siding with the ACLU on the wiretapping issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data-mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

The lawsuit alleged that the NSA "uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time." Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to data-mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.

However, the data-mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.

Beeson predicted the government would appeal the wiretapping ruling and request that the order to halt the program be postponed while the case makes its way through the system. She said the ACLU had not yet decided whether it would oppose such a postponement.

Why coulden't Bush and his boys go to court and get those warrants. People should be questioning that all by itself...

I have a fear that people (not all people, but a lot of people) in this country and on this messageboard just aren't getting how corrupt this Bush administration is. When are you guys going to wake up?

This is incorrect. ?The Fourth Amendment's application is not limited to citizens.


I am not sure that you understand it either. ?First, this case should have been nonjusticeable. ?Second, the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring the suit. ?In my opinion the judge's analysis is incorrect and this case will be reversed on standing. ?It's the easiest way for the courts to dodge the issue.

Agreed - This to me is the biggest red flag.  Bush and his cronies feel they are above the law/constitution and can do anything they want in the name of "fighting terrorism and keeping America safe!"

I'm not opposed to the surveillance, just the means by which Bush thinks he can go about and do so...

To me, this sums it up:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was the first to find the National Security Agency surveillance program unconstitutional, and she took the Bush administration to task for its arguments, saying it appeared to be saying the president had the "inherent power" to violate laws of Congress.

"There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

"The public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," she wrote.

Another genius who got her quotes and facts from the opinion of another person.  Do yourself a favor and read the decision for yourself.  We have alot of third person intellectuals around here.

First off, I'm a "he" not a "her"

Secondly, did I claim this was a "fact"??? no, i said this sums it up for me.  I agree with her assesment and her opinion.  I am allowed to have my own opinion aren't I? Or do you want to start surveillance of those as well?

hahaha just kidding on the last part, I'm not that far to the left ;)  but seriously, chill out dude - no need to get an attitude b/c somebody disagrees with you.

I am sorry, but for a liberal judge to make that statement is just ridiculous.  Also, the first part of this quote begs the question. 

You are wrong. The entire case is about Bush NOT obtaining a warrant. It is about Bush overstepping the LAW.

Bush was doing this before 9-11 anyway.


I already told you what you are giving up. I'm not talking about Big Brother. Again, I am talking about Bush not following the law. Stop with the strawman antics.

Warrants are such a PITA aren't they? That is what the British though also back in the 18th century. This is the primary reasons (See John Adams, and various members of the supreme court) that the colonists erupted into a revolution.

What do you have to lose? What are you giving up? Warrants are necessary to ensure that checks exist for protections for the individuals civil rights.  Otherwise it only invites the risk of abuse which we are seeing now.

The fourth Amendment does not extend to protect foreign nationals; why the need to spy on American citizens without a warrant?

FISA already gives them 72 hours to work without one, so you can not argue that it limits their investigation. Why does the president feel that he can violate the Bill of Rights as he sees fit?

The Fourth Amendment applies to the people, not just citizens.? Read the amendment; the extent to which the amendment applies is not clear.? It is a completely different question whether the Fourth Amendment applies to government action in a different country.? The amendment clearly doesn't cover those situations.

As to the first part, I never made that argument.?  As to the second, I think you are begging the question.? That is precisely the dispute.? The president believes that he has the power to do this, where others believe that he does not.? It is not as clear cut as you make it sound.

First you said it "does not", then you say it is "not clear" (My entire point in the first place is that it is set up to protect US citizens and that this government has full power to spy on anybody else without a warrant. Be it "the people" or "USA citizens" that the 4th amendment protects.) That point is moot anyway as I am speaking of Bush violating that Amendment by not obtaining a warrant to look into people's email, listen to their phone calls etc. You are completely ignoring my next point which was that FISA allows them 72 hours to work without one. So again, why does Bush feel that he can proceed outside the law and without obtaining a warrant? 72 hours is more than enough time to obtain a warrant for probably cause.

It doesn't "beg the question" by any means. The President is asking for an unlimited right to wiretap. His claims are that  he is "fighting terror", even though this began prior to 9-11. He claims he is the first president not bound by our Bill or Rights and is able to ignore the 4th amendment.

I want to hear one valid reason why the Executive Branch feels it can violate the Bill of Rights and ignore the Constitution. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence were created by individuals who were "patriotic" about giving trust to their government or allowing rulers to determine their freedom. Nor should we now.

Read my post.  I said that the Fourth Amendment's application to people that aren't citizens.  You argued that it does not help foreign nationals.  That is simply incorrect.  The Fourth Amendment does apply to foreign nationals in the US.  Furthermore, I never ignored your point regarding the 72 hours.  I never said you were incorrect on that point.  In fact, I agree with you.

Yes, it does beg the question.  You asked why the President feels that he can violate the Fourth Amendment as he sees fit.  He doesn't believe that he is violating the Fourth Amendment.  Nor do many consitutional scholars that are out there.  You are assuming that he violated the Fourth Amendment; I am not so sure.  I certainly wouldn't place my money on a decison written by a known liberal judge from Detroit.

Again, you are begging the question.  I think the appropriate question would be: I want to hear one reason feels he has Constitutional authority to do what he is doing without violating the Bill of Rights?  To this question there are many answers.

Of course he does not feel that he is violating it! That is the point! It doesn't mean that he is not.

Answer the question: Why does the President feel that he can ignore the law and spy without a warrant? And why would he want to do it without one in the first place?

Why would YOU support spying without a warrant?

I don't think the President/NSA/Governement should have to worry about warrants listening in on phone calls. Especially when they have sufficent evidence of terrorists movement and planning. To me, there's no problem if the governement listens in on my phone calls. I'm not a terroists and I'm not planning any attacks on Americans. The NSA is not interested in what "Sally" is fixing her kids for dinner. They're interested in people of Middle Eastern decent, Muslims, and Islamists.

I don't feel my civil rights are being violated at all by this government program. I do think it helps with the national security of this country and Americans. Doesn't makes us completely safe but it goes a long way in making Americans safer.

I thought I stated it in pretty plain terms.  Here it is plainer: he does not believe that he is violating the law. 

It is like me asking you: why do you think you can come on this board and violate the rules and insult people without any repercussion?  What will your answer be?  I don't do that; the latter part of the question assumes the first part is true, even though it may not be.

Your question makes assumptions that make it misleading and unanswerable.  As to the latter question, it is a pain to go to these courts, even with the 72 hour cushion.  I have had several federal prosecutors tell me so.  Additionally, considering all of the leaks that take place in our government with the more people the information gets exposed to, they probably think it is safer to tell as few people as possible.

So you are willing to give up your freedoms under the 4th amendment for nothing? Even when they already have 72 hours to spy before obtaining a warrant?

You feel that fighting a war (that was never declared by congress btw) on terror is worth giving up your freedoms that your founding fathers have fought so bravely for? That allowing a leader to act as he wishes without regard to law is actually ok????

Of course he knows he is breaking the law. It's the fawkin' law! You can not spy on people without obtaining a warrant. Bush is saying he doesn't need a warrant and to "trust him." You honestly want me to believe that he feels he is within the law? That is why a court just reminded him that he was NOT within the law. Thank God there are people left in this country who actually respect our Bill of Rights and the hard work put down by the people that framed it.

Pain to go to the courts? TOO BAD! It is how this country was set up. Our founding fathers set up this country in such a way so that one man does not have absolute power to ignore laws. Why do you think they wrote that in there? Hmmm? Do you think perhaps it was because they were tired of ONE MAN doing whatever he felt?

slcpunk - i have no idea what you're argument is.

but i do know that this will be overturned. many other judges (who know much more about the constitution that we do) believe that liberal judge was incorrect in her ruling.

I'm not giving up any freedoms for "nothing". I'm in a country where the goverment is trying really hard to stop terrorists attacks and killing Americans. Alot and nothing could happen in the 72 hour time period. Maybe one call comes thru and is heard by Intelligence. Something's up. Then, nothing else more is heard in that next 72 hour period. A warrant is then requested but denied by a judge. Now, by law the NSA isn't able to listen in on phone calls becasue the warrant was denied. The terrorists resume their talks and plans and go thru with their attack. All because of someone's privacy over the majority of Americans security.

I don't think I need Congress to declare a war on terror for me. I can see for myself that there are Muslims and Islamists everywhere that want to kill as many Americans and allies, mainly Britains, as they can anywhere in the world. My founding fathers had good intentions but they do not live in the times as we do now. Things change. The times have changed. And our enemies need to be stopped.

The nerve of some people! Getting a warrant is such a fucking hassle! For that matter so is a trial! Their could be an acquittal! Prosecutors should just be able to throw in prison whoever they want! For that matter why not just put cameras in all houses as a matter of course? Don't you know many of the terrorists plotted in houses!! What are you against filming terrorists?? I mean they're terrorists! How do we know someones a terrorist? Because the government said so! It's true in the sense that they said it! What more do people want?? Now I'm going to smoke crack and listen to "Real American" a hundred times so I can be in the proper mindset to believe the fucking nonsense the government spews!

Hmmm, sounds like you've had one too many bowls of fear for breakfast.  The law is the law, ignoring them or thinking you are above them has got to be the most un-american thing imaginable.  Our constitution is the very thing that MAKES us american.  The "times changed" alot over the course of our 200+ year history, but the manner and method which we go about in following our laws has not.  And nothing should ever change that.

If bush didn't like the 72 hour time period he should have tried to change the law, not go above it.

What are you a communist Hanna?!?! There's only one law Bush and America needs, Biblical law. He talks every night with his lawyer Jesus Christ, aka Bill Kristol whispering into his ear.

I like you a lot already............

I mean.......really!

 :hihi:

Now there is a surprise.........


********

Anyways.........The judge has spoken for the Constitution. That is good enough for me, and is a great step for America.

My hats off!






Fuckin' A RIGHT!

Or maybe it could just be that your asleep at the wheel. Or too many cups of koolaid. Whichever.

Your right about the law being the law. But speeding is breaking the law too. How many people do that everyday? Does that make alot of people un-American? Yes, the law shuld be changed. But if the governement needs to protect Americans in the mean time, I absolutely have no problems with these security programs whatsoever.

I have a real problem with any leader intentionally breaking the law.  Regardless how much are kool-aid drinking friends want to state that these wire taps are illegal, the jury is still out on that one.  One judge rules it illegal, but what about every other bit of judicial review on the matter?  Do we just side with the judge who upholds our opinion even if he/she is in the minority?  The concept of government officials doing as they please with disregard for the law or consequence is the scariest thing I can imagine.  However, I don't believe that this is the case in this matter.  But it still never amazes me how naive and stupid liberals can be on this matter.  In one sentence they advocate how evil and corrupt the government is.  Then in the next they advocate more central control and power given to said government.  Finally, they advocate the complete abolition of private firearms ownership; the last and only linde of defense against a tyranical government (remember, the police and military always side with the government).  Then again, when you believe the government was behind 9/11, I guess you're more likely to believe that big brother is watching you.

Come on, even you have to admit you are comparing apples to oranges.  But I'll play along.  Remember when the speed limit was 55???  Sammy Hagar even wrote a song about it (haha).  Well, that law sucked to many people...so THEY CHANGED IT!!! LEGALLY!!!!  People might have been going above 55 when that was the maximum, and guess what, if they got caught, they were charged and ticketed....b/c THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW!  And if you go over 65 now and get caught you get charged.  Bush wants to do 80 when the limit is 65 and he thinks he should be able to simply b/c he is the president.  That is not right.

Your boy bush got caught speeding so to speak.....think he'll get a ticket? Or will he be able to sweet talk the officer who pulled him over (aka, the american people).

Wow, talk about making assumptions....I don't remember ever saying the government was behind 9-11.  Infact that never crossed my mind as I saw the planes hit the WTC live on TV, only a mile or two from my apartment in NYC, never crossed my mind as my little brother was only blocks from the towers themselves, hiding in the basement of his apt. building, nor did it occur to me the govt was behind it when my ex girlfriend who told me stories of seeing people with her own two eyes leap to their deaths b/c they didn't want to burn to death.  And I don't remember thinking about any conspiracy theories when a week later I went to ground zero (or as close as the authorities would let us get) and literally smelling the death and destruction in the air.

Think twice before making assumptions a-hole.

You've must've never been given a warning by an officer.

Your assuming that Bush is my boy. How would you know? I've never said that Bush is a great president. You don't know what party if any I support. But you outright say something as fact about me. But in this area of concern, I do support his actions trying to make this country more secure. When alot of people are worried about someone listening in on their phone calls. If no one is do anything illegal then no one should have any concerns. I don't think it's putting anyone in danger if a suspected terrorists phone wire is tapped. But I do think it puts many Americans in danger if it's not allowed.

I live in NYC, I don't drive - I take the subway or cabs :)

I was referring that you side with the president on this issue, not that he is literally "your boy".

As for wiretapping...I'm not against it per say.  I am against ILLEGAL wire tapping.  GET A WARRANT for it!!!  Thats all I ask, follow the law, or attempt to change it.  But NOBODY is above it.

I am more against the precedent though wiretapping would imply - if its ok to check in on our phones, what is next?  But thats an entirely different debate.....

Speaking of surveillance, I wonder what happened here?

The Men Who Knew Too Much?

Two NSA Wiretapping Whistleblowers Found Dead

By Joseph Cannon

August 22, 2006

Is someone murdering people who know too much about NSA wiretapping overseas?

Two whistleblowers one in Italy, one in Greece uncovered a secret bugging system installed in cell phones around the world. Both met with untimely ends. The resultant scandals have received little press in the United States, despite the profound implications for American critics of the Bush administration.

Last month, Italian telecommunications security expert Adamo Bove either leaped or was pushed from a freeway overpass; he left no note and had no history of depression. Last year (March, 2005), Greek telecommunications expert Costas Tsalikidis met with a similarly enigmatic end. Both had uncovered American attempts to eavesdrop on government officials, anti-war activists, and private businessmen.

The Bove case relates to the long-standing controversy over the CIA's kidnapping of cleric Abu Omar, who was flown to Egypt and tortured. The post-Berlusconi government of Italy is attempting to arrest and try all of the CIA personnel involved. Bove used mobile phone records to trace more than two dozen American agents.

Bove had also revealed that his employer, Telecom Italia, had allowed illegal "spyware" undetectable wiretaps to infest Italy's largest communications system. His testimony helped to uncover the unsettling relationship between SISMI chief Marco Mancini and Telecom Italia head Giuliano Tavaroli. (Mancini, recently arrested by Italian investigators, has also come under some suspicion for his possible role in the strange affair of Major General Nicola Calipari, killed by American troops in Iraq.) In the 1990s, Bove had received wide praise for helping to secure convictions of two bosses in the Camorra, Naples' answer to the Sicilian Mafia.

The case of Costas Tsalikidis an engineer for Vodaphone, Greece's top telecommunications firm offers a similar picture. Tsalikidis discovered an extraordinarily spohisticated piece of spyware within his company's network. The Prime Minister and other top officials were targeted, along with Greek military officers, anti-war activists, various business figures and a cell phone within the American embassy itself. This page gives a full list of the targets, very few of whom could be considered as having even a remote connection to terrorism.

As investigative journalists Paolo Pontoniere and Jeffrey Klein report:

The Vodaphone eavesdropping was transmitted in real time via four antennae located near the U.S. embassy in Athens, according to an 11-month Greek government investigation. Some of these transmissions were sent to a phone in Laurel, Md., near America's National Security Agency.

According to Ta Nea, a Greek newspaper, Vodafone's CEO privately told the Greek government that the bugging culprits were "U.S. agents." Because Greece's prime minister feared domestic protests and a diplomatic war with the United States, he ordered the Vodafone CEO to withhold this conclusion from his own authorities investigating the case.

The CEO of Vodaphone in Greece, George Koronias, has like Giuliano Tavaroli, his Italian counterpart come under the suspicion of having a hidden relationship with American and British intelligence. At least three Vodafone comunications hubs (one expert says the number could be as high as 22) were compromised by the eavesdropping technology. Koronias had reported only two of these bugs, and had failed to alert a watchdog agency of the discovery of further listening devices.

Vodafone is a British company, comparable to Sprint in the United States. Testifying before a Greek parliamentary committee, Koronias insisted that no-one in the U.K. could have had any connection to the ultra-sophisticated spyware.

'Only Ericsson's staff could have set up such a device,' he said. Ericsson furiously countered that Vodafone not only knew about the illegal software but had activated it at the request of British intelligence agents.

More on Ericsson's official response:

Ericsson, the company that produces the software used by Vodafone, issued an announcement clarifying that two types of software were employed for tapping the phone conversations.

The first one employed legally had been developed by Ericsson and had been installed in Vodafone, yet it was not activated. The second software, which was of unknown origins, namely it had not been developed by Ericsson, had been illegally installed in Vodafones system to activate the legal software and erase the traces of the phone-tapping.

This is, by any measure, a troubling admission especially since Ericsson manufactures many mobile phones used in the United States. Vodaphone insists they were never informed of this "feature" in Ericsson phones, although Ericsson executive Bill Zikou has testified that the company disclosed the truth via its sales force and instruction manuals.

American security expert John Brady Kiesling reveals further details about the bugging devices in Ericsson cell phones:

Built into the Ericsson (Sweden) software that runs the Vodafone (UK-owned) mobile telephony network switching system in Greece, and similar GSM service providers around the world, is a little-known "Legal Interception" software package designed to be used by law enforcement authorities. This software allows incoming and outgoing conversations from allegedly up to 5000-6000 mobile phone numbers to be recorded, on presentation of a valid judicial warrant. [A friend in telecoms claims governments require that telephone companies give law enforcement authorities the capability to monitor up to 5% of active calls as one precondition for an operating license]. However, to unlock and use the eavesdropping package, the company must pay Ericsson a hefty fee (allegedly four million euros). The Greek government allegedly refused to pay this fee, despite its desire for wiretapping capability during the 2004 Athens Summer Olympics. One reason was that a clear legal basis for such eavesdropping was not yet in place.

Apparently someone persuaded a Vodafone or Ericsson employee with access to the switching network to install a software parasite in at least four and possibly more of the 22 call management centers that Vodafone operates in Greece.

The family of Costas Tsalikidis, the whistleblower who was found hanged in his apartment, does not accept the verdict of suicide. Neither does his fianc?e. The Greek press has hinted at further skullduggery:

The prosecutor also visited the lawyer of Taslikidis family, Themistoklis Sofos, who announced that his clients will be filing a lawsuit against unknown parties for embezzlement and falsification of documents pertaining to the deceaseds emails. In addition, they will subpoena all those who participated in the much-publicised meeting just before the revelation of the wiretappings; a meeting Vodafone denies ever having taken place.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, Vodaphone had eliminated the spyware from its system before Greek intelligence could conduct an examination. Greek spy chief Loannis Korantis testified that this move amounted to destruction of evidence.

Are Ericsson cell phones the only ones with the built-in spy technology? We can't be sure. But one thing is certain: When the fellow on TV asks "Can you hear me now?", the person he's addressing may not be the only one who can say yes.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: http://www.bradblog.com/?p305

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ53s_Zyr04

Second half is the best part. Pretty much sums it up for me.

How surprising that the unbiased CNN presents this viewpoint as if there is no question that the President's actions were illegal.? I actually believe that there is an argument on both sides.? Althought I am not certain you understand the complexity of the argumnets, here is a post from one prominent constitutional scholar that lays out some of the arguments for the constitutionality of the President's actions.? It is certainly not as clear cut as you want to make it:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_08_13-2006_08_19.shtml#1155836899

The NSA Eavesdropping Opinion and the Fourth Amendment: The district court, in a three-page analysis ? mostly consisting of block quotes from opinions in the Supreme Court's United States v. United States District Court (Keith) case ? concludes that the program is "obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment." The opinion, however, doesn't even mention the arguments that

the Court has expressly held that the government has broad authority to engage in warrantless, probable-cause-less searches of goods and people crossing the border, and that the same authority should apply to information crossing the border (as some lower courts have indeed held as to information crossing the border on computer disks), and

Keith itself expressly left open the question whether the Fourth Amendment rules applicable to purely domestic intelligence surveillance even applies to surveillance aimed at ferreting out the activities of "foreign power" (a term that could encompass foreign nongovernmental organizations as well as foreign governments), as oppose to activities of domestic organizations (the matter that the Keith Court stressed was at issue in that case).

For more on these two arguments, see Orin's post from last December, which I also excerpt below (but click on the link to the original post to get links to earlier cases):

On the whole, I think there are some pretty decent arguments that this program did not violate the Fourth Amendment under existing precedent. There are a bunch of different arguments here, but let me focus on two: the border search exception and a national security exception. Neither is a slam dunk, by any means, but each are plausible arguments left open by the cases.

The border search exception permits searches at the border of the United States "or its functional equivalent." United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985). The idea here is that the United States as a sovereign has a right to inspect stuff entering or exiting the country as a way of protecting its sovereign interests, and that the Fourth Amendment permits such searches. Courts have applied the border search exception in cases of PCs and computer hard drives; if you bring a computer into or out of the United States, the government can search your computer for contraband or other prohibited items at the airport or wherever you are entering or leaving the country. See, e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2005) (Wilkinson, J.).

As I understand it, all of the monitoring involved in the NSA program involved international calls (and international e-mails). That is, the NSA was intercepting communications in the U.S., but only communications going outside the U.S. or coming from abroad. I'm not aware of any cases applying the border search exception to raw data, as compared to the search of a physical device that stores data, so this is untested ground. At the same time, I don't know of a rationale in the caselaw for treating data differently than physical storage devices. The case law on the border search exception is phrased in pretty broad language, so it seems at least plausible that a border search exception could apply to monitoring at an ISP or telephone provider as the "functional equivalent of the border," much like airports are the functional equivalent of the border in the case of international airline travel. [UPDATE: A number of people have contacted me or left comments expressing skepticism about this argument. In response, let me point out the most persuasive case on point: United States v. Ramsey, holding that the border search exception applies to all international postal mail, permitting all international postal mail to be searched. Again, this isn't a slam dunk, but I think a plausible argument ? and with dicta that seems to say that mode of transportation is not relevant.]

The government would have a second argument in case a court doesn't accept the border search exception: the open question of whether there is a national security exception to the Fourth Amendment that permits the government to conduct searches and surveillance for foreign intelligence surveillance. Footnote 23 of Katz v. United States left this open, and Justice White's conccurrence in Katz expanded on this point:

"Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present Administration would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable."

The Supreme Court also left this question open in the so-called "Keith" case, United States v. United States District Court, in 1972. Justice Powell's opinion in the Keith case concluded that there was no national security exception to the Fourth Amendment for evidence collection involving domestic organizations, but expressly held open the possibility that such an exception existed for foreign intelligence collection:

"Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country. The Attorney General's affidavit in this case states that the surveillances were "deemed necessary to protect the nation from attempts of domestic organizations to attack and subvert the existing structure of Government." There is no evidence of any involvement, directly or indirectly, of a foreign power."

The administration presumably takes the position that the President does have such power in cases involving foreign evidence collection, and that the NSA surveillance is such a case. The Supreme Court has never resolved the question, so it's an open constitutional issue. Nonetheless, between the border search exception and the open possibility of a national security exception, there are pretty decent arguments that the monitoring did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Maybe persuasive, maybe not, but certainly open and fair arguments under the case law.