|
|
Ashcroft Defends Constitution in Spying Clusterfrack. Happy Opposite Day!Barton Gellman at The Washington Post has a book about Vice President Dick Cheney called Angler coming out tomorrow. In anticipation of that release, the Post has printed back to back excerpts. I’m fired UP. If you haven’t had a chance to read them yet, honestly, what are you doing with your time? Go ahead. I’ll wait. Ok. So, Gellman and Jo Becker were responsible for the series on Cheney that won a Pulitzer Prize this year (first installment here). Go check that out, too. Yesterday and today’s Angler excerpts have been focused on the dissent within the Department of Justice regarding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Yes, that very one. If you’ve been following the drama all the way from the disclosure in the New York Times to the passage of the FISA Amendments Act and the bouts of depression and drinking that came after it (that was possibly just me), then you will likely love these articles. They highlight meetings between top-level administration staff, Justice department staff and National Security Agency staff. Some were clued into the program, others weren’t. Then there were those who were read in and kind of wished they weren’t. Specifically James Comey (remember him and his Tom Clancy-esque testimony about the infamous Ashcroft hospital visit?). You know this story. If you don’t, catch up by reading the Gellman articles. Srsly. There’s a lot to go over but, for those who’ve been following along, let’s just take quick stock of some of the vitals:
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 2 Responses to "Ashcroft Defends Constitution in Spying Clusterfrack. Happy Opposite Day!" |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Sep 16th, 2008 at 5:27pm
I agree, it doesn't seem reasonable to allow such a mass intrusion into e-mails and telephone calls. In light of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those media (esp. telephone conversations). We conduct all sorts of business over the phone, from ordering things to conversing with friends, family, and significant others.
With such a mass collection of telephone calls, there is essentially no determination of whether a particular intrusion into someone's privacy is based on probable cause. This just doesn't seem worthwhile, when we view of the government's interest in preventing terrorism (which, as opposed to preventing a specific terrorist threat, is pretty general) in light of our interest in keeping these communications (which could include everything from credit card numbers to intimate conversations) private.
All in all, I hope your suit works out well.
Sep 17th, 2008 at 6:13am
Opposite day? Aside from the fact that lefties didn't like Ashcroft's religious character, there wasn't really a lot to complain about him from a civil liberties standpoint. If anything, one of the reasons you didn't like him was that he was willing to defend the civil liberties you *don't* like.
Repeat after me: "Just because I don't like somebody doesn't mean they're bad on civil liberties."
To be followed by, "Just because I like somebody doesn't mean they're good on civil liberties."