NSA Overstepped the Law On Wiretaps 164
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that legal and operational problems surrounding the NSA's surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees, and a secret national security court, and that the NSA had been engaged in 'overcollection' of domestic communications of Americans. The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional. The Justice Department has acknowledged that there had been problems with the NSA surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the intelligence community, did not address specific aspects of the surveillance problems, but said in a statement that 'when inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them.' The intelligence officials said the problems had grown out of changes enacted by Congress last July to the law that regulates the government's wiretapping powers, as well as the challenges posed by enacting a new framework for collecting intelligence on terrorism and spying suspects. Joe Klein at Time Magazine says the bad news is that 'the NSA apparently has been overstepping the law,' but the good news is that 'one of the safeguards in the [FISA Reform] law is a review procedure that seems to have the ability to catch the NSA when it's overstepping — and that the illegal activities have been exposed, and quickly.'"
when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I totally didn't fuckin' expect that! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, wow. They violated the law the first time, and then after the law was changed to allow that, they did it again?
I mean, holy crap, who'da thunk?
Liberal Republicans (Score:2, Insightful)
Who bend the laws of freedom to fit their needs.
Bush was no conservative.
In sufficient incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
"When inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them."
If such systemic negligence resulted in loss of employment, fines, and/or quality time in a federal PMITA prison, then perhaps they would take it seriously and make sure it didn't fucking happen in the first place.
We've known this for a long time (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, so what? What's to stop the next Bush/Cheney right wing douche-o-rama from doing the same thing? If there are no consequences, the next time they get a chance they'll do the same thing. We know we can't count on the FBI and NSA to police themselves, the Supreme Court is loaded with people who don't care about the Constitution, so NSA gets a slap on the wrist and new guidance. Big hairy deal. They'd do the same thing again if some sock puppet Attorney General told them it was okay.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:3, Insightful)
I wind up in trouble. I hope the NSA does too
That's because you don't take it seriously. If you did, like the NSA does, you'd be fine.
Newspeak framing (Score:4, Insightful)
Just one example of newspeak framing:
"The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional."
"one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?
"said it was believed to be" -- implies that others agree and that this is the general belief. Governmentsprech for "some people say."
Just reading this frames the subject, even if you know the announcement is full of s***. And framing is 90% of the battle. (Google George Lakoff on that one)
Re:In sufficient incentives (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?
There should be punishments for messing up, and worse punishments for intentionally doing bad things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the threat of jail time would stop this from happening.
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the difference here is what you'd call a dragnet. The Obama position (as I understood it) is that wiretapping individuals without a warrant is acceptable under certain circumstances. Gathering communication indiscriminately is different and objectionable.
Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.
This is what AP was talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how much money NY Times paid for this story? $500k, $1m? So, remember, I will be modded down for this, but as you rail against the government for over-stomping our rights, this was the work of a paid Journalist or paid Team of Journalists who used their Journalism Major to bring home a paltry paycheck (well, paltry for those of us in the IT or engineering industry).
Stories like these make me hope that the newspaper industry finds a way to make money, because reporting like this takes money, but in a rare move by Big Content, that charged money benefits us all. (Unlike the latest Britney Spears release or Hollywood Movie).
Re:We've known this for a long time (Score:4, Insightful)
I think on this issue we can call it the current Bush/Cheney douche-o-rama. The administration announced yesterday recent that CIA personnel who relied on legal advice from the DOJ will not be investigated or prosecuted. This says that anything written by someone senior enough in DOJ will be carte blanch for torture. At least, that's the way I would read it if I had a mind to enable torture during my administration. The announcement did not mention what would happen to those giving the advice (Yoo, Addington, etc) or to the officials at the top (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.) However, the administration constantly says that they are not interested in looking backwards, only forwards.
Well, that's a relief. When will this kind of forgiveness come to the criminal justice system that the rest of us live in? I mean, crimes I committed in the past should stay in the past why dredge up all that evidence at taxpayer expense just to put me in prison? Or, in the words of Bob Loblaw, "why should you go to jail for a crime that someone else noticed?"
Re:This is what AP was talking about (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, no? There was no investigative journalism involved in this story. The Obama administration investigated the NSA. How do we know? From the press release. This is release regurgitation journalism, nothing more, and blogs are more than capable of that.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obama administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. A torture victim will tell his torturers anything!
For example, that 2+2=5.
Re:In sufficient incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?
The big difference is that most people commit crimes for their personal benefit.
These guys are commiting crimes under some bogus rubric of protecting the country.
At best their only personal benefit is a reduction of their own time spent on the project (for which they get paid for either way).
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
equally naive to think the president has any POWER over the 3letter orgs.
come on. you think a genie that powerful (the secret services, of which there are more than we can even know about) orgs will simply 'listen' to some guy who is here for what, 4 years?
they outlast presidents. our system is now ruled by a small group and those you see on TV are the figureheads.
this is not 18th century america. we have changed, radically, from what our actual roots were.
Re:Good thing the gov't is unaccountable (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like given recent reports, that Obama is giving Bush-era government employees a free pass, but ordering the current administration to play by the rules. See his reversal of Bush torture policies, but unwillingness to persecute those who used those tactics.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network."
''Do you have a warrant?''
"Yes."
''May I see the warrant?''
"No, it's privileged."
''Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?''
"No, it's privileged."
You don't see a problem with this? How about taken with the fact that law enforcement is legally allowed to lie in the course of their duties?
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:2, Insightful)
"Excuse me Mr. ISP, we need to get a tap on your network." ''Do you have a warrant?'' "Yes." ''May I see the warrant?'' "No, it's privileged." ''Ok, can you point me to a judge that authorized this?'' "No, it's privileged."
You don't see a problem with this? How about taken with the fact that law enforcement is legally allowed to lie in the course of their duties?
Did you ignore the part where I said not to assume things that I didn't say? :(
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid. The government asked them to do something. Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them. It would be silly for the boss to then punish the kid for doing as told.
Tell that to the German officers who were executed for crimes against humanity, despite pleading their innocence on exactly these grounds.
This plea has since become known as the Nuremberg Defence [wikipedia.org]. To my mind, it's no more compelling today than it was over 60 years ago, when we rejected it out of hand.
In order for a democracy to remain healthy, it requires the participation of its citizens. This means more than just occasionally visiting a polling station. It means that, from time to time, we will be asked to challenge, in very practical terms, the validity of the assumptions to which we all adhere.
I do not for a second believe that the NSA management and staff involved in this operation were not acutely aware that they were circumventing the law. If they knowingly broke the law, then they should be prepared to face the consequences.
Opposing the System usually comes with a price. I don't doubt that refusing to carry out orders would be a, uh, career-limiting decision. But those who willingly participate in an immoral, unethical and illegal system should face the consequences of their choice as well.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who asked them. Illegal is illegal. SOMEONE broke the law. Someone made the moral/ethical decision to break the law. That person was not a kid, and should be held accountable. Also, asking someone to break the law for you is conspiracy. The boss of the country should also be held accountable. It's about time we started throwing Presidents and Prime Ministers in jail.
Oh, and routers, cars, and tube carrying trucks do not have moral/ethical decision making capabilities. They cannot be held accountable for the actions of their users or abusers.
Re:Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
You accept that? These things should strike terror in your bones and chill your very soul, yet you accept them?
Re:Good thing the gov't is unaccountable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In sufficient incentives (Score:3, Insightful)
And what we should be more interested in is this.... will we actually stop this, or put on a dog+pony show for the public and restart the same ops with new names, faces, and clearances.... Or just write new laws that you know the SCOTUS puppets won't deem unconstitutional because they are worthless and need to be publicly hung and eviscerated for corruption.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:1, Insightful)
Only because of the homos on CNN and MSNBC.
No surprise Olberman would be the first out of the gate making references. I guess he's had quite a few of them from his Sportscaster days.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:3, Insightful)
We keep hearing of scenarios like you've captured a terrorist who's planted a nuke in Manhattan, but you can't torture him because of some stupid rules.
I think if something like that ever *did* happen, someone who really wanted to go ahead and torture the guy would take the risk of a few years in prison. And if he *wasn't* prepared to take that risk, then maybe he wasn't really so sure the victim had really planted a nuke, either.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't ignore it; He pulled you up on your assertion that a "secret court" is a good idea by pointing out that if the court is secret then people influenced by it's decisions can't have justice. That's different from an open court (e.g. everybody knows about the court, how it works, how to question it and how to check if the court is responsible for a specific warrant) for secret decisions. Perhaps you meant something different when you said "secret court" but the only way for us to find out is to discuss the things we think you said, even if they aren't the things you meant to say.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:4, Insightful)
What is treason? Do you even know what treason is in the US? Treason in the US consist of only in levying war against the US, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, and nothing more. It's always a bad sign when someone starts off getting that basic principle wrong.
Please explain this for me. How is that possible? Or do you have some misconceived notion that wouldn't hold water with if it was at the bottom of the ocean.
Really? What decent thing is being destroyed? HMMM??? Cause I don't think you know your ass from a hole in a ground on this. Your out here trolling and making statements about others when it is clear your completely clueless. I'm betting your going to claim something like the constitution says X or the 4th amendment. Here is what you are missing. Probable cause and a warrant does not mean you need to be shown them. It means that a judge needs to be shown the probable cause and it's within reason. The warrant can be sealed and hidden from you, all you need to know is that the criteria has been met and that you are obligated to comply. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have to be shown the actual documents nor is there anything that states you have to be shown a warrant. A simple piece of paper in accordance with the law is sufficient as long as the cops/officers/agents/whoever stay within the limitations of the original warrant. And if you are the subject of the warrant as in the person they are searching, you don't even need to know of it until you are physically detained or being prosecuted. Nothing in the constitution says otherwise.
Please get a damn education on what your pretending to know about. It's idiots like you that make us dumasses look stupid. Anyways, be specific in what you think I got wrong, and I mean point to where you have whatever right you think I'm attempting to take from you or what exactly you think is so damn despicable. From your post so far, it seems that it's little more then your own ignorance.
Re:when I overstep the law (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahh, the Nuremberg Defence (only following orders). The only less successful defence in history has been the Charles I Defence (I do not recognise this court). Now lets see if we get the Reverse Nuremberg (I did nothing myself, I only gave the orders) from the Bush-era officials.