digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at rawstory.com —

ACLU vows to challenge FISA update in court

rawstory.com — “This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law, ” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, in a statement provided to RAW STORY as the Senate was voting. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • magicmarker44, on 07/09/2008, -8/+204Kudos the the ACLU! They SHOULD fight this outrageous bill! Our nation is no longer one of laws, but one of corruption, paranoia and greed... We The People must get off our collective lazy asses and fight and take our country back from these out of control neo-con madmen!
    • BDOUG, on 07/09/2008, -8/+18"They can take all my rights away, but they'll have to pry the donut from my cold dead fingers."
    • Faubio, on 07/09/2008, -15/+4Get informed.

      1. MYTH: The Protect America Act of 2007 eliminates civil liberty protections under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

      FACT: The new law simply makes clear – consistent with the intent of the Congress that enacted FISA in 1978 – that our intelligence community should not have to get bogged down in a court approval process to gather foreign intelligence on targets located in foreign countries. It does not change the strong protections FISA provides to Americans in the United States – surveillance directed at people in the United States continues to require court approval as it did before.


      FACT: When FISA was enacted 30 years ago, the law did not generally require a court order to obtain foreign intelligence information from a target located outside the United States.


      The mechanism Congress used to identify which government activities required a court order under FISA was a careful and complex definition of the term "electronic surveillance," framed in reference to the specific communications technologies used when the law was enacted in 1978.


      Telecommunications technologies have changed radically since 1978, and those changes have upset the careful balance established by Congress. As a result, prior to the Protect America Act of 2007, the government was often required to obtain a court order before collecting foreign intelligence on targets in foreign countries.


      FACT: The Protect America Act restores FISA to its original focus of protecting the rights of Americans within the United States while clarifying the definition of "electronic surveillance" to make clear that – as was the intent when Congress drafted the law – a court order is not required to target persons located overseas.
      2. MYTH: The Protect America Act gives the Federal government new powers to target people in the United States for warrantless surveillance.

      FACT: The Protect America Act leaves untouched the strong protections FISA provides to Americans in the United States – electronic surveillance targeting a person in the U.S. required a court order before the Protect America Act, and that requirement remains in place today.


      FACT: The Protect America Act does not authorize "domestic wiretapping," and our intelligence professionals are not using the new law either to acquire domestic-to-domestic communications or to target the communications of persons in the United States.


      FACT: If a foreign target communicates with someone in the United States and the communication involves terrorism or foreign intelligence, the new law remains consistent with the intent of the old law – intelligence professionals can intercept that communication without a court order. As the President has said, "If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it."


      FACT: FISA has always been designed to allow the executive branch to monitor the communications of those in foreign countries planning to harm our Nation, and the Protect America Act merely restores the law to its original intent by accounting for changes in technology.
      3. MYTH: The Protect America Act allows the government to target Americans in the United States under the guise of surveilling a person located overseas – a practice known as "reverse targeting."

      FACT: "Reverse targeting" was, and remains, prohibited by law.


      FACT: The provisions of FISA that protect against this practice remain unchanged by the Protect America Act. The law excludes from the category of "electronic surveillance," and thus from the FISA warrant requirement, only surveillance directed at individuals reasonably believed to be in foreign countries.


      FACT: "Reverse targeting" constitutes electronic surveillance and thus generally requires a court order under FISA. Nothing in the Protect America Act changes this.


      FACT: "Reverse targeting" makes little sense as a matter of intelligence tradecraft. If the government believes a person in the United States is a terrorist, it is more useful to obtain a court order to collect all of the person's communications than to conduct surveillance on that person by listening only to a fragment of the person's calls to individuals overseas.
      4. MYTH: Requiring intelligence operatives to get a court order before collecting foreign intelligence on overseas targets will not hinder the government's ability to collect intelligence.

      FACT: According to Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, the delays caused by applying for warrants before collecting foreign intelligence from overseas targets meant our intelligence community was "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."


      FACT: Requiring intelligence professionals to apply for and wait on a court order before gathering vital intelligence from overseas targets can prevent the swift gathering of intelligence necessary to identify and provide warning of threats to our country.


      FACT: A mandatory court-approval process also requires the intelligence community to divert scarce intelligence experts to the time-consuming process of compiling court submissions.
      5. MYTH: The Protect America Act authorizes the executive branch to conduct physical searches of domestic mail, computers, or the homes of Americans without a warrant.

      FACT: The Protect America Act does not authorize physical searches of the homes, personal belongings, or computers of individuals in the United States, or the opening of domestic mail without a court order, and our intelligence professionals are not using the Act to conduct such searches.


      FACT: Critics are misreading provisions of the law that allow the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct communications service providers and similar private entities to assist in authorized foreign intelligence activities targeting individuals located outside the United States. The Act safeguards against abuse of this provision by allowing these private entities to challenge any such directive in the FISA Court.
      6. MYTH: The Protect America Act would allow the government to obtain, without a warrant or any court approval, the business records of Americans in the United States.

      FACT: The Protect America Act does not authorize the collection of most business records, such as medical or library records.


      FACT: The Executive Branch will not use the Act to acquire any business records of Americans in the United States.
      7. MYTH: The Protect America Act allows the intelligence community to intercept communications without any oversight.

      FACT: Under the Protect America Act, the Attorney General is required to submit for review to the FISA Court the procedures by which the Federal government determines that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance requiring court approval under FISA.


      FACT: Congress will be able to see for itself that the law is being implemented responsibly and as intended. The Administration has committed to informing the full membership of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of acquisitions authorized under the Protect America Act, and of the reviews the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will conduct to assess compliance by the implementing agencies.
      • enki25, on 07/09/2008, -1/+16FACT: When copying and pasting a wall of words, it's important to cite your source. Otherwise people may think you're a bot or a retard.
      • jaxcs, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11As a poster, you should share your ideas. If your ideas are exactly the same as another source, then summarize and then cite your source. (yeah, I don't think anyone thinks these are your own words.)
      • mrsteveman1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Yea, I don't believe any of the current crap is necessary, nor do i believe the long string of "facts" you just posted.

        If you really trust this government to not abuse their power you haven't been paying attention. If you believe they aren't gathering intelligence on Americans *AND KEEPING IT*, intentional or otherwise, you're an idiot.
      • Malacandra95, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5This comes directly from whitehouse.gov. They, of course, are a disinterested fair broker in this matter, which happens to grant them retroactive immunity.

        Its source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20 ...
      • qh4dotcom, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4FACT: the new FISA bill still violates the 4th amendment. The White House failed to talk about the Constitution on the FISA bill
      • cliffhanger407, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3I love that even whitehouse.gov doesn't bother to back up its arguments. You'd think that they would want to just provide ridiculous amounts of information to back up their position since no one trusts them.
    • richmomz, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7America: Born July 4, 1776 - Died July 9, 2008.

      If only more of us had the strength to stand up to this like the ACLU, but it may already be too late. Our forefathers must be looking down upon us now, wondering why they fought so hard for the freedom of their future generations when we let it slip away so easily.

      Rest in peace America :'( The Fouth Reich is almost upon us.
    • chukd, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Can they challenge the Patriot Act while they are at it?
    • Enendar, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4The EFF is also taking a stand against it.

      http://www.eff.org/
    • titanx413, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1SIGN ME UP
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/09/2008, -13/+106Join the ACLU
    http://www.aclu.org
    • BigManOnCampus, on 07/09/2008, -19/+14I would, except they pick and choose which parts of the bill of rights that they will defend.
      • an0nymous, on 07/09/2008, -3/+20I donate to the ACLU , the EFF, and the NRA.
        ANY defense of your rights is a good thing.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/09/2008, -4/+10Oh, I'll donate to the EFF and the NRA. They at least have specific causes that they do not forsake. the ACLU has a stated cause of defending the bill of rights, yet they completely ignore the 2nd amendment. They really seem hypocritical on that issue.
      • Wargalas, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7I'll digg you up simply because you mentioned the NRA. Too many times liberals on here defend with rabid foaming at the mouth, their First Amendment rights, while trying to take away everyone else's Second Amendment rights.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4I'm not a liberal. I'm libertarian if anything.
      • diggrnumber1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2the defend the parts that they believe are most important to defend. they don't have unlimited resources, you know.
    • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4Whenever I convince myself that the world has fallen into the hands of the corrupt I remember that there are, in fact, many companies such as the ACLU that doesn't simply sit on the end of their couches watching the rich and powerful screw us out of our Constitutional rights.
    • genovais, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Done and done.
    • bwdd, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Lemme just get my credit car and - oh *****.

      Seriously, though, I would pay otherwise.
    • wdr1, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Why?

      The ACLU only supports 9/10th of the Bill of Rights.

      I'd much rather support a group that respects the ENTIRE Constitution.
      • Senj, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2You might as well bitch and moan that the NRA doesn't do enough to protect the first amendment. These groups are meant to be complementary, not be all end all monoliths.

        Join the ACLU /and/ the NRA. It's not a either/or proposition.
      • diggrnumber1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3the aclu is not against the second amendment. they are officially neutral on the gun control. here is their explanation of their position:

        http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res200203 ...
      • wdr1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2@Senj, the difference being the NRA doesn't proclaim to defend "the Bill of Rights" whereas the ACLU does.
    • rinpoche, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1How much do you want to be the new wiretapping powers will be used to spy on those who support the ACLU?

      1984 anyone?
  • SwordOfShannara, on 07/09/2008, -5/+62You can take action against this here: http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com Strangebedfellows is a right-left coalition that aims to hold these politicians accountable by removing them from office.
    • rationalbeats, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1I am not giving anymore money to PACS, or to any politicians.

      • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2To politicians? Well - that is just not rational...Somebody has to be president, don't you want a say in who it is going to be?
      • Rafikichi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Let it be a statesman, it takes less money.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Though I am afraid they will put me on a terrorist watch list if I do.
      /sarcasm?
  • tehbishop, on 07/09/2008, -4/+67What has happened to America?
    • Rocketman1882, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Controlled media, long ago.
    • diggduggDOOM, on 07/09/2008, -0/+11Apathy.
    • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8Money got into politics.
      • diggduggDOOM, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Money has always been involved in politics. Unless you mean the time before the invention of currency...
    • pgoetz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13I think we got caught in the middle of a paradigm shift, which created a window of opportunity for the neocons, who are essentially modern day fascists. Science and history are giving monotheism a beating, crushing long cherished beliefs in the big tooth fairy in the sky, while gay rights etc. are further upsetting the societal apple cart. As observed by both Schopenhauer and Gandhi, violent opposition is always the final stage before acceptance as self-evident, and the violent opposition in this case is a largish minority of Americans willing to put these neocons into power based on promises of a restoration of the good old days, family values, etc.. All lies, of course, but the evangelicals and conservative values-minded have realized too late that they were duped by the warmongers and profiteers. A sad story, really, and not terribly dissimilar from what happened in Germany in the 1930s.
    • BeefBaron, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3D) All of the above.
    • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3It's called Hope, my friend. And it's the ONLY presidential slogan that voted FOR telecom immunity.
      • allisonaxe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2the other candidate didn't vote against it, either: he abstained, probably hoping to steal some votes by saying "i didn't vote for that, but look who did!" odds are, if this weren't an election year, mccain would've voted for it for sure.
      • geddon, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2If McCain brings this up it will probably be the first time we've thought about it since now.
    • SugarCoatedSalt, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2nothing happened the UNITED STATES (NOT AMERICA) went to a ***** a long ***** long time ago.

      and its not going to get ***** well.
  • HiCaP, on 07/09/2008, -58/+7***** the aclu
    • pintomp3, on 07/09/2008, -2/+31they defend your right to say that.
    • morgino, on 07/09/2008, -20/+4They defend there right to promote a left wing agenda. If a conservative steps over the line with free speech they can't wait to slap him down
    • pgoetz, on 07/09/2008, -5/+9The ACLU are the last true patriots in the room, ass wipe.
      • HiCaP, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2"The ACLU are the last true patriots in the room, ass wipe"

        Yeah right, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) is Good
        Boy Scouts of America is Bad.

        The ACLU = Anti-God, Anti-Soldier & Anti-American bunch of *****.
        Yeah, they do care for Illegal Immigration, Open Borders and Criminals.

        ***** The ACLU

      • Zarokima, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1HiCaP: evidence or STFU and GTFO.
    • enki25, on 07/09/2008, -6/+5That's about as educated a statement as "***** the police". You've been brainwashed to dislike the ACLU, that's why you can't understand how they are our last hope in terms of undoing the legalization of this form of government surveillance.
  • nomadhacker, on 07/09/2008, -4/+28At least someone's listening
  • Rapheal99, on 07/09/2008, -2/+17they should challenge this in everyway possible. because even if they lose, it wil still show the rest of the world that not all of aerica has its head shoved its ass being scared of "the terrorists". also in the event that they win, it wil be a major blow to the right wing neo conservatives (and it appears the current "democrats") by showing them that they cannot bully everybody into doing what they want anymore.
  • venables, on 07/09/2008, -4/+71Today marks yet another victory for Bin Laden and his merry gang of terrorists. They continue to damage our economy, our constitution and our way of life.
    • nblsavage, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14Well said. Bush and company have been their greatest accomplices.
      • redxninja, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1actually its the other way around.
    • Ansible, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13Bull. Osama is just the excuse du jour. There are forces within this country that want to turn it into a corporate police state.
    • redxninja, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Eh...bin laden and his terrorists were only the catalysis.
    • JonnyBlazexx, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0How does Bin Laden have anything to do with this? Completely irrelevant in my opinion. This has little to do with "terrorists" at least in regards to the stereotype of "terrorists" that you are referring to. This has a lot to do with the powers that be and the steady encroachment upon our rights.

      I am annoyed by your suggestion that "terrorists" are responsible for the direction of our economy and for the degradation of our constitution. Do these "terrorists" rejoice at our turmoil? Surely. Are they responsible? Laughable at best.
  • nontoxyc, on 07/09/2008, -10/+157OBAMA=FAIL
    • JoshuaLowe, on 07/09/2008, -4/+55Fauxbama
      • cmp1988, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5That's a much better use of Faux, rather than the "Faux News" crap, since it's pronounced "foe".
    • rationalbeats, on 07/09/2008, -2/+53OBAMA=BACKSTABBER
      • InorganicMatter, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6This would have been funnier:

        Obama, Barackstabber
      • bwdd, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2He was never that good in the first place, he just had you all high on "change" like the homeless guy beside the seven eleven.
    • an0nymous, on 07/09/2008, -2/+44What a disappointment.
      Wish he had lived up to his rhetoric.
    • ProjectGSX, on 07/09/2008, -2/+48Obama has been UNFRIENDED. TAKE THAT!
      • ProjectGSX, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8You gotta hit them where it hurts man.
      • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1It's the ol' MySpace tactic that gets 'em every time.
        You know Obama's gonna be on his blog slamming you 2nite! lolcatz11!1
    • VicHislop, on 07/09/2008, -2/+24I like how McCain doesn't even show up to the vote (not that he ever does lately). Now all of the focus is on Obama's missing spine!
    • urothane, on 07/09/2008, -3/+36Just to be clear for those who don't realize it, Obama did not filibuster this as promised, but instead voted to cloture. That means he voted TO STOP DISCUSSING IT.

      I was an Obama supporter, I have now withdrawn my support, but don't know what direction I will go. He is the same as McBush in that he says what he needs to get into office. At least with Billary we knew they were liars.
      • ScottoGato, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6I have not anything from Obama or McCain to make me change my opinion on writing in for Ron Paul. I'm on the fence with Bob Barr still.
      • UnrealMiniMe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1urothane, the best thing you can do this election is to vote, but not for McCain or Obama. This is a marathon, though...Obama will almost certainly win the general election in a landslide, and we're not going to make everything right in a single year. The government and those in control of it have been chipping away at the Constitution for much longer than just the Bush years (although he's made a buttload of "progress" in just 8 years). The Bill of Rights is under sustained attack, along with the separation of powers and checks and balances...and we surrendered the rest of the Constitution (idea of truly limited government and enumerated powers) a LONG time ago. From now on, starting with this year, we need to send an increasingly loud message to the political establishment of this country that we are done playing their game, and we are not going to take it anymore. Voting for one of the two major "media-approved" candidates is a surefire way to send the message, "I may or may not be happy, but I promise you that I'll continue to put up with what you're giving us."

        As more and more people start to vote against the two mainstream candidates in each election, more and more people will realize that they can, upsetting the two-party game. In the meantime, we can try to force change within the two major parties by supporting pro-Constitution primary candidates (for all offices).
    • supersirj, on 07/10/2008, -2/+15http://my.barackobama.com/page/unsubscribe/
    • digitallysick, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7I am so disappointed in Obama , he should of voted no, and not shown up, but to vote yes, wtf! you just lost my vote
    • CurtisLow101, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1SaY No tO OBaMaRom
  • KnightMareInc, on 07/09/2008, -7/+41the 700 club told me that the ACLU are nothing but commies
    • rationalbeats, on 07/09/2008, -1/+21Then they asked you for a donation to help you get into heaven...
    • mrgermy, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5The 700Club told me that God was real and loved me but then Jesus told me he wasn't. Not sure if it was the real Jesus or not though because he wore a sombrero and had a huge bag of tortillas.... either way
    • braeden0613, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4the 700 club is far closer to commies then the aclu....and i'm a christian
    • Mothh, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1True story, I used to work at a cell center a few years back and we started getting a lot of calls from 700 Club members wishing to donate money. Apparently, their new toll free number was the same as ours, except ours was (800) and theirs was (888). Our manager told us to give the people the correct number. Except I never did, I pretended to take down their information and thanked them for their donation. I even got one guy to paypal me $50!
    • CurtisLow101, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1The 700 club.. That's a good one! lmao!...
  • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -32/+9The ACLU must be stopped. They have damaged America enough.
    • Seventus, on 07/09/2008, -6/+1Which organizations haven't damaged America at this point?
    • cephelo, on 07/09/2008, -4/+7[citation needed]
    • Arcueid01, on 07/09/2008, -6/+8Dibou you are a damn fool. I love how you people make conclusory statements about that which you can't understand. If it weren't for the ACLU your civil liberties would have been gone ages ago. When is the last time you called your congress person? I'm sure like most Americans you haven't in ages if ever. The ACLU on the other hand is constantly fighting for all of our rights.
      • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5Incorrect.
        The ACLU fights a liberal agenda. Tell me oh, wise-one, how does fighting the Boy Scouts of America help me in any way. Actually, fighting the Boy Scouts is pretty disgusting, and yet you support them.
        The ACLU fighting to remove a tiny cross from the LA seal representing the missions that first came to southern California helps me in what way? Throwing history down the memory hole helps me how?
        The ACLU trying to keep voters from having to show an ID is the EXACT opposite of what this country needs.

        While the ACLU may have done many things in the past that are good, the current ACLU organization is reprehensible for the most part. They will still take a small, unimportant case that is worthy to use as cover for their 95% liberal agenda.

    • nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -6/+3Bill O, is that you?
    • vinod1978, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4@Dibou - the ACLU is one of the only organizations that still has my respect. Damaged America? Maybe you prefer an America without a Constitution. If so, maybe you would prefer living in another country like Iran.
    • pgoetz, on 07/09/2008, -8/+5You are an ignorant *****. The ACLU fights for everyone's constitutional rights: period.
    • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7It is entertaining to see how good the ACLU propaganda unit is. You see many people here think the ACLU fights for the Constitution. I only wish they did fight for the Constitution, but they only support our civil rights when it is convenient for them.
      Most arguments I've seen so far say the ACLU fights for the Constitution, and illogical comments follow like "Maybe you prefer an America without a Constitution." Liberals don't care for logic.
      Again, if the ACLU fought for my Constitutional rights I would support them. However, all these ignorant fools that are doing their illogical attacks still haven't answered any of my questions:

      How does attacking the Boy Scouts help my civil liberties?
      How does forcing a pharmacist fill an abortion pill prescription help my civil rights, when in fact it violates my freedom of religion and right of consciousness?
      How does the ACLU fighting to remove an amendment initiative from the California ballot protect my civil rights when they are subverting my right to vote on laws I deem worthy?
      How does the ACLU fighting against voter ID laws protect my rights when their actions enable illegals voting?

      The ACLU pretends to fight for my rights and many people fall for their propaganda. The ACLU only fight for their liberal agenda (which is not the Constitution).
    • UnrealMiniMe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1The ACLU is a mixed bag - for instance, they're too blinded by a statist position on gun rights (the BS "collective right" argument) to defend the Bill of Rights in all cases, let alone the entire Constitution. However, they do have a great record on fighting for privacy rights and defending the Fourth Amendment, as well as a few others. They're definitely not perfect, they're a strong ally on this issue, and I appreciate their help.
  • wonderworm, on 07/09/2008, -19/+6Whether Obama failed or not on this, it does go to show just HOW IMPORTANT ensuring he wins against McCain really is!! Bush already has transformed the supreme court into a right wing court with his 2 strongly conservative lifetime appointments. And atleast another appointment will be coming in 2009 so if McCain and the Karl Rove party is allowed to appoint another far right wing judge to the supreme court, then YES, America is done and let the fascism flourish for a good 20 years! We are in very real danger of losing most of the human rights that our forefathers fought and died for.
    • ender7074, on 07/09/2008, -5/+10So we should instead fill up the Supreme Court with hyperliberal justices that get to serve for life? Yah thats better. Oops, theres already 5 there. Take that ***** somewhere else.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10psst... The best chance the ACLU has to get this bill declared unconstitutional is to argue a strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

      Newsflash: The "right wing" court you are referring to is actually more likely to agree with that than a liberal one would.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5If you really want to change things, then start making a push to limit the term of supreme court justices to something like say 10 years. That way they're not on there for life and most every president would have a chance to appoint a few to the court.

      Given a limited term, they're not going to sit up there until they're senile and it would bring fresh blood to the court every so often - something they've needed for a long time.

      Roberts is about 53 so given the current track record of justices he's going to be there for the next 30+ years, and that's not a good thing. That's way too long to be serving in a position like that.
      • keymanjim2, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I agree. And do the same to all of congress.
      • slearwig, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Except that SCOTUS is supposed to provide a check and balance against the whims of a faulty president. That's why they are appointed for life.
        If SCOTUS were limited to a ten year term we might end up with, for instance, an all-Bush SCOTUS whose decisions are final.

        What we could use is an expansion of the powers of recusion so that we can exclude a biased judge from making permanent decisions for us, even if the judge belongs to SCOTUS.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1That would make things worse, not better.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@slearwig

        I realize it's a check and balance system and that's why I suggested 10 years. Even if Bush had been able to appoint all 10 justices in 2000, they'd all be gone by 2010. And you'd have to work it so that when a justice retires, there's a limit placed on the term of the new justice. Besides, it, in theory, gives every president a chance to put at least one justice on the court - assuming they get re-elected.

        I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but lifetime appointments make no sense anymore. People are living longer due to advancements in medical technology so a justice appointed by Obama or McCain might well serve until 2050 or beyond. That's frightening given the speed that technology moves and the lack of understanding of the new technology as people get older.

        @vexingmodstwo

        If you disagree with me I'd love to hear your arguments rather than just it would be worse. I'd like to know why.
  • 919kwjc, on 07/09/2008, -25/+9Yea! Let's get more rights for terrorists and criminals... yea!!!!

    Idiots.
    • EvansHall, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10Yeah, and the stupid Supreme Court even gave them a right to a trial. Can you imagine that?!

      We need warrantless wiretaps. It might have prevented 9/11. Our intelligence agencies had NO EVIDENCE of a terrorist plot to hijack planes and fly them into buildings before 9/11.

      /sarcasm
    • Arcueid01, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9I suppose Benjamin Franklin was an idiot too because he said, "Those would would sacrific essential liberty for security deserve neither." It isn't hard to get a warrant under FISA you bonehead. There is no need to strip judicial oversight and grant immunity to telecos that knowingly broke the law. Your claims are groundless and against the great weight of evidence on the topic.
      • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -5/+1To the asshats and the trolls, yes Franklin was an idiot.
    • JekJob, on 07/09/2008, -3/+10You're exactly right. They just gave more rights to the criminals who run this country.
    • pgoetz, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3I think you're a terrorist. So, now you shouldn't have any rights, correct?
      Sometimes the stupidity of you right wing dolts truly amazes me.
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/09/2008, -6/+67Suprisingly, Hillary voted against it.
    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-0 ...
    • nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -3/+29Well, she's not running for president anymore.
    • brainscab, on 07/09/2008, -4/+32She does'nt have to worry about "Candidate X is weak on Terror" any more, which is good for her, because she is finally speaking for herself, not living by the Mark Penn polls... Obama on the other hand has got alot of "Candidate X is weak on Terror" ***** to worry about
    • anactofdan, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Dont be mislead i watched it on c-span She is very clever yes she voted against the actually bill, but she voted to invoke cloture effectively passing it, but allowing her to claim she voted against it
  • Pyehole, on 07/09/2008, -8/+39This is exactly why I donate to the ACLU.
    • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -24/+5A fool and his money are soon parted.
    • VBDon, on 07/10/2008, -15/+3Why not just send your money directly to Al Quaida and forget the ACLU middleman?
      • xtal3, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3I'm sorry did I read that wrong? All I gathered was HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
      • Pyehole, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Are you really that stupid and paranoid is it just an act?
  • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/09/2008, -35/+4Buried for FISA/Ron Paul spam! You conspiracy theory nuts and stormfront bigots are ruining Digg. Go back to reddit and Prison Planet!
    • BattleChimp, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14Ron Paul isn't mentioned at all in this article, you ***** douche bag.
      • fadeout, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Stop giving him attention, he is a troll trying to impersonate a real digger.
      • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/09/2008, -7/+0Just because you don't agree with me I become a troll. Am I not a real digger? I think the truth of the matter is that you are a troofer troll.
  • cephelo, on 07/09/2008, -7/+89Donations to Obama should be now donated to the ACLU. Our only hope to retain our inalienable rights is through the courts -- we obviously cannot do it through our so-called leaders. Thank you, ACLU.
    • shitforbrains, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Absolutely. I had intended to give another hundred bucks to the Obama campaign. I'm already a card carrying member of the ACLU, so they'll get that hundred dollars today.
  • Skooma714, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Yeah, you want the same government who wants yet more power to curtail their power.
  • paraforce, on 07/09/2008, -11/+36I was very close to becoming an ACLU member at one time.
    Then I realized they only choose to defend the constitutional rights that are convenient to their political position.
    The ACLU recognizes all amendments as individual rights, not collective rights... except one. When the organization gets past its irrational fear of the second amendment, I'll become a card carrying member.

    But good on them for challenging this FISA garbage.
    • VicHislop, on 07/09/2008, -2/+27Actually the ACLU holds a meeting every couple of years in D.C. where they discuss and decide their stances on issues. In regard to the Second Amendment, they are completely divided with many feeling that it is an individual right while others countering that it is collective. It's not something done for "convenience" but it is essentially the result of a democratic discussion on the issue.

      It really isn't as simple as you make it out to be and it is certainly not a reason to choose not to support the organization. That said, if you want to make a change, why not join them and make your voice heard within the ACLU? Check out their site sometime. It has every position that they currently hold. If you prefer, go to a local office in your area. The have a binder full of hundreds of pages which outlines every position.
      • skyshock1, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Well that is a complete moot point now that the Supreme Court has definitively clarified two weeks ago that the 2nd amendment extends to the private ownership of guns, and is not just an outdated law for the armament of (now deprecated) private militia groups.

        http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91HS2EO0& ...

        Suck it gun haters.
    • thescimitar, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8I too have serious trouble with their lack of consistency on the Second Amendment... but it hasn't kept me from being a member. Freedom of speech is so incredibly important. I don't care if they defend socialists one day and fascists the next; all I care is that they defend our right to free speech. The NRA handles the Second Amendment for me, the ACLU, the rest.

      Either way, they're organizations that must exist because if it was up to the politicians, you'd be parted quickly from your right to bear arms AND your right to talk about it.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5Um, the NRA has won -- so why does the ACLU have to concentrate on Gun rights when one of the most powerful advocacy groups is on that topic?

      Whether or not you think this is a Militia issue -- or if you actually think a gun is going to protect you from the government better than political action -- well, that doesn't matter. The Supreme Court just voted that everyone has a right to guns (those without felonies of course).

      So go ahead and join up with the ACLU if that is all that was stopping you.

      Sheesh. Gun advocates made this thing a religion.
      • UnrealMiniMe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, the NRA is a pretty poor defender of gun rights...they're always harping on about hunting and other BS reasons, but they never defend gun rights on principle and because of their primary reason (to scare the government away from the temptation of tyranny). You could even argue that they're controlled opposition.

        The most recent Supreme Court decision is a mixed bag. It *barely* affirmed gun rights as an individual right, 5-4 (when it should have been 9-0 based on the language of the Second Amendment, not to mention the Ninth and Tenth). After that, it all went downhill...the specifics of the decision legitimize gun control legislation, registration, etc. Also, it legitimized restrictions on people who are not "mentally fit," but such a subjective description could be intentionally construed to keep practically anyone from owning guns. As far as convicted felons go, remember that they're not just talking about violent criminals. Did you know that there are constant pushes to make filesharing of copyrighted material an a felony? The idea of a felony can be twisted and twisted until practically everyone in America is a felon. If the government really wants to, it can and will abuse such "reasonable-sounding" powers to the limit. Never before has a Supreme Court decision given such approval, and I believe that the moral victory will be offset by more and more regulation until, essentially, the federal government knows exactly who owns guns (and which guns) and the most people are "allowed" to have is a pistol or a slow-firing rifle locked up in a case in their home.

        Personally, I have an irrational fear of guns and I've never owned one, but that doesn't give me (or especially the government) the right to restrict someone else. According to Thomas Jefferson, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

        According to Mahatma Gandhi, "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

        The bottom line though, is that the fight is NOT over with the new Supreme Court decision. It's just beginning...and it's unfortunate that the ACLU is not helping.

        Still, this article isn't about gun rights - it's about privacy rights. On this issue, the ACLU is definitely helping, and I'll give them credit for that.
    • Niten, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Okay, so instead of just donating to the ACLU, split your donation between the ACLU and the NRA. I really don't see the moral dilemma here...
  • sovietninja, on 07/09/2008, -6/+13Cancer Man is behind this.
    • pagno, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Do you mean Smoking Man?
      • sovietninja, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3You meant CSM aka the Cigarette Smoking Man. I still dugg you up for knowing what I was referring to, even though it was 15-12 years ago. Mulder refers to him as Cancer Man in Seasons 1-3.
      • Hangly, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3C.G.B. Spender. Didn't any of you get past the 5th season?
      • sovietninja, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2C.G.B. Spender is an alien shapeshifter!
  • brainscab, on 07/09/2008, -8/+35its time start funding the ACLU
    • keymanjim2, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3Your tax dollars already do. Win or lose, they'll get paid. Why do you think they're doing this?
  • Andy1369, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Damn.
  • WatchDoit, on 07/09/2008, -5/+21I was getting discouraged with all this talk about our civil liberties being infringed upon, but now I know that this wonderful country still has amazing people who will fight for our rights. Thank you ACLU!
    • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -4/+1Yep, because America can't get it's collective ass off the couch and drop the remote. Sad.
  • nedzeve, on 07/09/2008, -18/+8This is why all the FUD on the front page ("The Constitution is DEAD") reflects the average DIGGers lack of knowledge of the US Constitution. They don't realize that checks were established to prevent Congress from passing laws (FISA) that run contrary to the Constitution. If it's alleged that FISA is a gutting of the Constitution, the courts will have a change to either affirm or repeal the legislation.
    • simplyintricate, on 07/28/2008, -1/+11ONLY if the checks weren't corrupted, you know. If the judicial branch doesn't say the law is unconstitutional, we're screwed.
    • ordig, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11Like the Supreme Court for example? I wouldn't hold my breath.
      • crackrockutah, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1wait, what was it recently that the supreme court voted to uphold.....oh ***** thats right, our ability as citizens to own guns, notably handguns in urban environments, good ***** eh? please start holding your breath, and don't stop you fool
    • locojones, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Nedzeve -

      Exactly how do you expect this to be challenged in court? To have standing to sue in a federal court, you have to have an aggrieved party, an injury that can be remedied, and a defendant that can be sued. None of that exists anymore.

      You can't have an aggrieved party or demonstrate that you've been illicitly wiretapped because you can't get evidence anymore because the government will step in and assert national security interests and the state secrets doctrine to prevent you from getting the material you need to gain standing. Moreover, the only entities you can sue are the phone companies, and that doesn't even work anymore because now with the stroke of a White House pen, they get an automatic "Get out of jail free" card and the trial has to be dismissed.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Yeah, Justice Scalia and Thomas are on the ball!

      Our Fascist supreme court (at least 4 members) is not very functional for protecting the Constitution.

      But they do intervene in elections and making sure Exxon's fine goes from a weeks profits to a days profits with regards to the Valdeez oil spill.
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2The constitution is nothing if nobody stands up to defend and enforce it.
  • morgino, on 07/09/2008, -17/+8The ACLU is an absolute joke. They claim to follow the letter of the law until it goes against there left wing mindset such as keeping illegal immigrants out of the country. Where in the constitution does it say that illegal immigrants have the right to come and go as they please and have the right to free health care? It doesn't but that doesn't stop them from promoting there crackedy agenda.
    • Diggnabbit, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Where has the ACLU challenged a law against illegal immigration? They haven't.

      (They've challenged laws that target illegal immigrants who are already in the country, but that's because those laws are often unconstitutional, since it violates the 14th Amendment for states to discriminate based on national origin.)
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3The only agenda they have is to preserve the rights of the people in this country.

      Don't let your hate for illegal immigrants cloud your vision of what the ACLU does.
  • FredFredrickson, on 07/09/2008, -7/+20And that, folks, is why the ACLU is, and has always been, on our side. They protect our civil liberties.
    • Hangly, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Yes well... It's good that they have chosen to take on serious problems now. They were borderline ambulance chasers for a couple decaes there.
  • pkarpenko, on 07/09/2008, -9/+44I can see it now.

    1. ACLU files lawsuit.
    2. Obama gets elected.
    3. Lawsuit snakes its way through the courts.
    4. Scalia and Thomas are bitch-slapped to death by the ghost of John Adams.
    5. Obama appoints some Justices.
    6. Lawsuit goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
    7. FISA declared unconstitutional.
    8. Obama declares that was his plan all along.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -22/+91. You're an idiot.
      2. See #1
    • pkarpenko, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10Jeez. Guess we're not gettin' the lighthearted comments right now. Ok.
    • highlymodified, on 07/09/2008, -2/+21Dugg for the famous "Ghost of John Adams Bitch Slap O' Death"
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14Our only hope is Obama is a closet Liberal, and has been rolling in mud trying to get elected to the Hog House.

      Some lawsuit by the ACLU will not stop this -- sorry to say.

      Only by getting each and every politician fired who signed that bill can we make headway. A long process. I'm going to make a poster out of the Yeahs and Nays so that I don't forget.
    • jaxcs, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I don't think the ACLU has much of a case. A conservative judicial majority, the idea of judicial restraint, a congressional vote that was not rigged really dooms this court challenge.
    • cnot3, on 07/09/2008, -1/+14If the ghost of John Adams came back, he would have to do a whole mess of bitch slapping before working his way down to Scalia and Thomas.
    • lougoose, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Whatever gets it declared unconstitutional. I don't care how. Just do it.
    • Hangly, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I think the owners need this to pass. Obama probably has no say in the matter.
  • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -15/+7Like Scientology the ACLU is just in it to further their own agenda. Both Scientology and the ACLU occasionally will do some good deeds, but those good deeds are only used as cover so their supporters can say, "See we are the good guys fighting for you."
    In truth both organizations only want to push their agenda. Scientology going for your money and the ACLU pushing a liberal agenda.
    • thescimitar, on 07/09/2008, -3/+9There is a lot of misinformation out there about the ACLU, and why, I'm not totally certain. I'm a constitutionalist, economic conservative, gun owner. And I'm a member of the ACLU. Why? Because freedom of speech is incredibly, incredibly important. I'm not sure you're using the word "liberal" correctly, here. If you're a conservative, a TRUE conservative, for whom the most important aspect of our republic is the Constitution upon which it stands, you should recognize the importance of an organization devoted to protecting free speech... even if you don't agree with that speech.

      Criminalize actions, not the discussion and dissemination of those actions.
      • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3I'm all for free speech, much more in fact than the left in the world which seek to criminalize "hate speech" or control protests with "speech codes".
        However, protecting free speech is not even one of the top priorities of the ACLU. Sure, I've read about them defending the KKK and their free speech years ago, and who really won't defend anyone over free speech (except perhaps the Democrats with their 'Fairness Doctrine').
        Read up on the majority of what the ACLU *actually does* and then you'll stop supporting them. The ACLU can talk pretty, but their actions are objectionable.
      • FredFredrickson, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Thescimitar - Well said!

        Diboue - Stop trying to clasify the actions of the ACLU as left or right. They are merely enforcing the law as the constitution sees it. There is no left, right, liberal, or conservative in that.

        You can't blame them for protecting free speech if you don't agree with the message they are protecting.
    • malex, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3... A liberal agenda like freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy.

      I think these are good things. You probably would too if you ever thought about the alternative.
      • Dibou, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2If the ACLU only fought for such rights as "reedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy" then great (even if "right to privacy" isn't even in the constitution). However that is not what they do. Perhaps you should stop listening to their propaganda and look at their actual court cases!

        How does attacking the Boy Scouts help with "freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy"?
        How does fighting against voter ID laws help with "freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy"? Actually the ACLU is actively trying to subvert elections by enabling illegals to vote.
        The ACLU, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal, have challenged in court the rights of voters to vote on a marriage amendment this November. This DOES infringe on my rights to vote for the laws I want.
        The ACLU challenged (successfully) a ban on partial birth abortion in Michigan. They’re planning to challenge a Human Life initiative in Colorado if approved at the ballot box this fall. Their actions prove their liberal agenda. The ACLU is following the liberal agenda by trying to subvert the will of the voters by using legal tricks to remove the laws from ballots.
      • malex, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1"How does attacking the Boy Scouts help with "freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy"?"

        By ensuring that non-Fundamentalist Christian kids get the opportunity to participate. Or failing that, if the BSA wants to exclude people on the basis of being a private organization, they ensure that state facilities treat them like a private organization. That's how.

        "How does fighting against voter ID laws help with "freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy"?"

        From their website:
        The IRP files constitutional and class action lawsuits protecting the historic guarantee to judicial review, enforcing fair employment practices and maintaining constitutional safeguards against detention practices and biased asylum adjudication.

        "How does fighting against voter ID laws help with "freedom of speech, religious liberty, and the right to privacy"?"

        Because there are tens of thousands of eligible voters who lack a government-issued identification.

        "The ACLU, along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal, have challenged in court the rights of voters to vote on a marriage amendment this November. This DOES infringe on my rights to vote for the laws I want."

        That's because we live in a Republic. You cannot vote someone else's equal rights away.

        "The ACLU challenged (successfully) a ban on partial birth abortion in Michigan."

        Good. Doctors are better at making those kinds of decisions than politicians are.
    • velouriumtree, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2the ACLU defend America's freedom.

      Scientology is a brainwashing cult.
      I will never think that Scientology are the good guys, but yes, I will think that about the ACLU. They are defending freedom.
  • Ratteler, on 07/09/2008, -2/+20It's time to reform the Minute Men.
    • marksism, on 07/09/2008, -16/+1The rednecks who hate Mexicans?
      • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2No, the Orange Juice delivery squad.

        Public School or no /s tag?
    • Hangly, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Every male 17 to 45 is already a member of the unorganized militia. You can call your local group the Minutemen if you want to though.
  • OgonGuitarist, on 07/09/2008, -4/+25FTA:

    "...the Senate was expected to President Bush a FISA update Wednesday."

    And a new verb is born!

    President Bush: (verb)

    1. To circumvent constitutional law.
    2. To ***** a person or nation in the ass.

    Merriam: Were you going to give me a reach around after President Bushing me, Webster?


    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4I think that is already; "www.wikipedia.com/to_cheney"

      to "Bush" someone, is to promote the incompetent, or to use the village idiot as an authority figure and quickly blame them, while stuffing a large severance check in their back pocket and giving them a consulting Job at a large lobbyist firm.
    • JonnyBlazexx, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0Whether it was original or not, I thoroughly enjoyed a good laugh from your post. Thank you! I hope to see this verb used more often in the future.
  • skribble, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3Just wondering if people here truly understand the new FISA bill or are just caught up in the hype. The new bill actually strengthens civil liberties vs what existed before. The big issue is the telecom immunity, and even this isn't as bad as it sounds... while it protects them from civil suits, it does not protect them from criminal suits... so if they broke the law they can still be charged and punished.
    • OgonGuitarist, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I think it's you who doesn't truly understand the new bill.

      "Crucially, there appears to be no limit to the breadth of "authorizations" the government might issue. So, for example, a single "authorization" might cover the interception of all international traffic passing through AT&T's San Francisco facility, with complex software algorithms deciding which communications are retained for the examination of human analysts. Without a list of specific targets, and without a background in computer programming, a judge is unlikely to be able to evaluate whether such software is properly "targeted" at foreigners."

      http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compr ...
      • skribble, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2Wow! Seriously... If you want to make an informed decision quote the bill not an article that spins it in the way that will appease their readers. That article BTW talks specifically about the bill that passed the house. Did you see the changes the Senate made to the bill, or are you just assuming that it's the same (which it isn't).

        Also, and this is important...

        "The Bush administration has chafed at these restrictions, insisting that the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists without court oversight?"

        The new FISA bill specifically points out that the President does not have this authority. It also crystalizes the requirement that all domestic surveillance needs a warrant. The only thing here that is totally wrong is retroactive telecom immunity (something that most likely will not survive a court challenge anyway). Also the immunity is only of a civil nature not criminal.
      • azaraa09, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1"It also crystalizes the requirement that all domestic surveillance needs a warrant."

        You mean a warrant that is not needed to be obtained in times of "emergency", from a court that meets in secret, closed to the public, with all documentation withheld from the public indefinately and is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, that has never refused the administration a warrant thus far, is completely appointed by President Bush and contains such winners as the Independant Councils from Clinton's Impeachment and the Iran-Contra scandal, with no oversight, no accountability, no reason, NO SENSE?

        Oh, that warrant? Yeah. I guess our liberties are still in tact. Back to bed!
    • missusbee, on 07/09/2008, -2/+0I just watched a Tivo of "Verdict" from last night when Dan had a Congressman Smith on who explained totally how this NEW Fisa bill has very important amendments in it where the Fisa court will be totally involved and there will be NO MORE warrantless wiretapping...they will all have to have warrants granted by the court...also the immunity law was always in there from the beginning...that is not new...it was granted to the telecoms as long as the Attorner General ok'd the wiretapping...
  • crazyatlantaguy, on 07/09/2008, -5/+31The ACLU challenging this bill is enough to get a donation from me.
  • fadeout, on 07/09/2008, -9/+895% of the public has no idea what FISA even is. And that's why it passed. Lawmakers follow public opinion, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people whining in this thread wouldn't even bother to write a letter to the editorial page in their newspaper.

    Ghee, self righteously whining on the internet and not trying to educate the public doesn't work?

    • PopcornDave, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Lawmakers follow the money. Public Opinion != Money.
    • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Still doesn't get Obama off the hook.
  • highlymodified, on 07/09/2008, -4/+8Here's the total list of the Senators who voted on the amendment to remove Telcomm Immunity from FISA:
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li ...

    I suggest that you NEVER AGAIN vote for anyone that said "Nay," preserving the immunity provision.

    For the record, Obama voted Yea, though he did vote to pass FISA when the amendment failed. He tried.
    Also, only 2 people didn't vote on Title II or on FISA: Kennedy (brain tumor) and McCain (spineless "conservative" *****)
    • SammahCarter, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0That's funny...McCain didn't vote.

      Soft on terror?
      • Morchades, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1He also skipped the vote on the GI Bill and Medicare. He fought the GI Bill, skipped the vote and then took credit for it and he was quoted as saying he'd vote against stopping those Medicare cuts. But actually voting to keep those cuts would bury him in the eyes of the elderly, and actually voting against the GI Bill would bury him in the eyes of the pro-military. So he skipped out.
    • eggsovereasy, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Man my state sucks, they both voted Nay :(
  • MercedRocks, on 07/09/2008, -7/+2Lame, the Constitution doesn't cover e-mails and phone calls that LEAVE OUR COUNTRY. People must be real paranoid if they think the govt even cares what you're talking about with Pablo in Brazil. If you have nothing to hide then quit trippin'.

    How about the the fact that the War on Drugs has led to the creation of armed swift response teams that knock down your door, handcuff all the occupants, and go through all your stuff based on the words of an INFORMANT and not actual proof? Where's the outrage there ACLU?

    How about over the fact that more than 10% of black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are currently behind bars? Most of whom for drug-related offenses?

    F the FISA BS ACLU, how about more meaningful progress and action?
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6This "if you're not doing anything wrong, then don't worry about it" attitude is completely and utterly stupid. It's what's wrong with our country today.

      Should the police be allowed to search your home without a warrant just because they think you're doing something wrong?

      Would you turn away and ignore your freedoms being whisked out from under your feet just because you're "not doing anything wrong?" What happens when things that you feel are perfectly okay turn out to be "wrong" in the eyes of those who make these corrupt laws?

      Will you finally understand then that, just because you don't exercise some of your rights all of the time, they are not unimportant?
    • Hangly, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1You are a despicable human being and a traitor.
  • InorganicMatter, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11Time to switch to TOR and VoIP...
    • indiancompanion, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1skype should be good, right?
    • ysaberi, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I hope your encrypting everything, otherwise AT&T is already delivering all your data to the NSA.
  • velouriumtree, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5it's great that ACLU is challenging this. All this law is doing is taking away freedom.
  • JustinHopewell, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4Can we just... make the ACLU our next president? Would that work?
    • UnrealMiniMe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Be careful what you wish for, or we're going to end up with Monsanto Corporation as our President pretty soon...
      • JustinHopewell, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1I'm not familiar with Monsanto... can someone enlighten me? I'll consult with Dr. Google in the meantime.
  • govsucks, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2Governement....pwease take care of my health, my retirement and take my money for anything you want....BUT DON"T LISTEN TO MY PHONE CALLS!!!!!! >:(

    ***** collectivist idiot pwns
  • chinaman1212, on 07/09/2008, -5/+0Is this the same UCLA that stood up for the North American Man Boy Love Association? as far as I'm concerned anyone who is part of that is below worm *****. Even if they stood up for something right for once, i will never give them my time or money. I do not support people who support molesters. PERIOD.
    • Wolfie351, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6The ACLU supports the constitution, that's all. Oh, and you may want to have yourself tested for dyslexia
    • charm803, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Go....Bruins?
  • Wolfie351, on 07/10/2008, -1/+7How about we start a grass-roots campaign? Everyone who supports the constitution should add the following words at the end of every phone call and email.

    "bin laden tsa terrorist 9/11 bomb iran nuclear smuggle afghanistan airport"

    Feel free to add any words you feel are appropriate. But, I strongly advise avoiding any direct threats.
    • mconder, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2It would totally ***** over their systems if everyone sent emails and made phone calls like this. This is a workable solution with enough support.
  • aTTicus78, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Neither candidate nominated by the two parties are worth a damn. If I even bother to show up to vote, I'll be casting it against them.
    • eastmanweb, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I don't care who you vote for, but please exercise one of the last remaining rights you have left and go out and vote before we lose that too.
  • principle, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Now that Bush was granted immunity for committing war crimes, and for violations of FISA, which carried sentences ranging from capital punishment to life in prison. May be now, just may be, he will quietly retire. Then again, there still plenty of other lesser crimes he could be charged with still. So, I would not bet on Bush leaving yet. Not even after Obama’s “YES” vote for FISA amnesty. However, we will know soon if Bush is leaving or not based on his stance on Iran. Because the economic disaster it would precipitate, was a part of Bush’s threat to Congress.
  • HiCaP, on 07/10/2008, -9/+4The ACLU = Anti-God, Anti-Soldier & Anti-American bunch of *****.
    • DarkReign16, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1You = Blocked.

      (not that I won't read your comments. When I block someone, I do it as a reminder to me that they are stupid)
      • HiCaP, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Damn, you just don't know how much that breaks my heart.
    • slearwig, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2I can't help but be impressed by the number of times the self-appointed messengers of Christianity resort to labeling their opponents as "*****".
      I suppose that makes your assault on other people's Rights an act of "celibate politics".
  • forgottenhope, on 07/10/2008, -2/+12***** barak obama and ***** john mccain, when will people see these criminals for who they are? Wake up for ***** sake.
    • xtal3, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I usually hate the "***** SHEEPLE, MAN" crowd, but I dugg this :c00lbert:
  • VBDon, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2It never ceases to amaze me how many people complain about the government monitoring international calls to terrorists from the U.S. without bothering to read the Constitution or study the legal issues. Two federal appellate courts have already ruled that international communications do not have constitutional protection to privacy. Any time you send a communication outside the U.S. it becomes subject to being read, or heard by any intelligence agency of any country. The Constitution protects privacy inside the U.S. but not overseas. When is the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the behavior of other countries....NEVER. FISA makes sense and it only codifies the behavior of the government that it has practiced since WWII. We overheard conversations with Japanese and German spies, decoded secret messages, and still do so today. The ACLU doesn't work for the American people; it never has. It only works for anyone who wants to make war on U.S. citizens. They are the most public front for every terrorist group in the world and will always be so.
    • JohnFromChicago, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Dugg down for being dedd wrong. Don't let this fool deceive anyone. FISA is about the USFG monitoring everything everyone does online - emails, text messages, and web site visits. This is a flagrant violation of not only our right to privacy, but freedom from searches and being secure in ones papers. Foolishness such as this would say it's okay for the police to stop and search every car because they're only looking for bad guys. Pure madness. Samuel Adams had a saying for people like this -

      "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
      • HanFastolfe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2"monitoring everything everyone does online - emails, text messages, and web site visits."

        If it crosses the international border. Granted, the suspect traffic could be could be routed to cross a boarder. Crossing the international boarder is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. No pony for you. It's theirs, all them. They issue passports, and regulate trade, and the flow of whatever it is between this nation and others. It's their job.

        If one is going to send stuff wirelessly I have even less sympathy for them. My home network is all cabled, no wireless nothing, and I got rid of my cell phone in `98. Having a background in civilian two-way radio I learned quickly, before Echelon was exposed, how unsecured wireless is, just to the general public, let alone a government (even on the Sate level).

        So many are shocked, I say shocked, that their precious little meaningless emails could be read by somebody else. Get over yourselves. I knew with a 150baud modem on my c-64 in 1982 as I logged onto my first BBS that the TOS was that all communications were subject to purview by the Sysop (and any other system it went though e.g. FidoNet later on). What is so shocking about this? Cuz it's the Feds? Get some context, and see what they were up to, before, FISA. We were not a police state then, when their power to intercept international communications was essentially unregulated.

        " This is a flagrant violation of not only our right to privacy, but freedom from searches and being secure in ones papers."

        None, and I mean none of your, or my rights are absolute. There will be no yelling of fire in the theater, no cannibalism as religion, nor toting guns into a bank. Privacy is also not absolute.
  • BigT2000, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6A sad day, but not something I wasnt expecting. Bye bye freedoms. Hello hopeful revolution. One can dream.
  • bdrocker, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9one of the only times where i agree with the ACLU
  • WhiteRaven, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I would like the ACLU to challenge the constitutionality of the Federal Wiretap Act of 1968 and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. It is in violation of both the property rights and the free-speech rights of Telecoms and their ownership, management and representatives. It is absolutely criminal to limit how any person may use their private property or whom they may speak to about what. The Telecoms are free to *voluntarily* offer privacy protection to their customers... or not.

    And anyone that thinks any of this has anything to do with the fourth amendment fails basic logic. The fourth amendment does not obligate other people to help you maintain your privacy. ANY person may repeat ANYTHING they are told for any reason they like. Any laws, such as those I just mentioned, that curtails that right is manifestly unconstitutional and should be struck down. They are nothing more the blanket gag orders on a segment of the population.

    The real problem with the amnesty deal is that it is a cop out. Those laws should be struck down out of hand for the abomination's they are. Of course, this way, neither the courts nor congress have to actually acknowledge how seriously they screwed up while doing at least a little something to rectify the situation.
    • UnrealMiniMe, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, the FISA update itself and NSA wiretapping do in fact directly violate the Fourth Amendment.

      Telecom immunity is indeed a different issue, but it involves two crimes:
      - On the part of the Telecom industry, it represents a gross and en masse violation of contracts...so much that each and every one of those companies deserves to be sued entirely out of business. (Keep in mind that a lot of these telecoms also have exclusive monopoly contracts with various levels of government - I agree with you that the regulations on them are ridiculous, too. Instead of setting up specific companies as monopolies and then regulating them, governments need to just let free market competition sort it all out.) As such, you are correct - Amnesty represents a copout, since it clears these companies from the responsibility of their broken contracts. For that matter, the corporation itself is also a copout, since it's a government construct that unfairly limits the liabilities of shareholders at the expense of the rest of the population, thereby destroying the concept of equal rights under the law.
      - On the part of the federal government, collecting information on private citizens from corporations like this represents at the very least a violation of the Tenth Amendment, since this kind of surveillance is completely outside the scope of enumerated Constitutional powers. No massive big brother database of citizens is authorized by the Constitution.
  • jlhoben, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Its good for your government to listen to you. lol


  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.