Court Said Wiretap Violated Constitution’s 4th Amendment

[maddezmom]

Source: Bloomberg

On “at least one occasion” the government violated the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches in using its power to wiretap people in the U.S. without a warrant, a federal court has found.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s finding was disclosed without any details in a letter yesterday to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon from a top aide to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The letter also said that the court, which operates in secret, concluded that the spying violated “the spirit of the law.”

The letter, which also was sent to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California, and its ranking minority member, Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss, says Clapper concluded “that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure.”

¬snip¬

Wyden is threatening to block a proposed five-year extension of the wiretap authority until he and other lawmakers can get more information about whether the government is intercepting and reviewing communications of “law-abiding Americans.” The post-Sept. 11 law is intended to catch spies and terrorists operating on behalf of foreign powers.


Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-20/court-said-wiretap-violated-constitution-s-4th-amendment

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[JDPriestly]

2. Also K&R. The article is not very concrete, doesn't present facts of the situation regarding which

this decision was handed down, but we all need to read the article. Very intriguing, but not very informative.

[12ZTR]

3. No!

Wyden needs to block the extension & Democrats need to become the party of NO. Give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine.
How many on DU are still spending money in Republican businesses?

[boppers]

4. 'intercepting and reviewing communications of “law-abiding Americans.”' Is legal. Without warrant.

Under the US Constitution.

Been so for 200+ years.

People and their effects are protected from search, their *communications* much less so. Even less if it crosses borders.

The conversation that needs to be had isn't the "OMG, I might be wiretapped" conversation, it's the "Okay, so what are the actual rules, and how do they apply to modern communication?"

It's the difference between "they're reading my emails, and I'm a citizen!" and "they're reading my emails to another US citizen in a foreign country!".

Going further down the rabbit hole:
Say you post, to a blog, a recipe for a meal while in the US, as a US citizen.
That's potentially an international communication.
If your mom shares it with someone in France, who shares it with someone in Turkey, who shares it with someone in Jordan, that "meal" is now a potential terrorist communication system.

The thing that shocks me is how long the US populace has remained ignorant, and indifferent, to their own rules.

Here's a short rule: If it's on the internet, or an international call, or package being sent, you have no legal right to privacy, unless you have taken steps to make it so.

[lostnote12]

5. "just on this ocassion".....great minds at work huh?

.....they did a great job of blocking the computer access request to the FBI agent in Minn. seeking to investigate the hijacker PRE-911......if I recall the denial was one of 4 out of close to 2,000 requests....LIHOP!!!......I guess legal precedent was established in their minds by the SC Bush/Gore "just this one time" legal precept......Naw it was just playing ball as usual!!!....Best wishes Nation!

[sofa king]

6. I bet I can define "at least one occasion."

I'm guessing that means "at least 300 million times a day, every day, for seven years, including monitoring all communications from the John Kerry for President campaign and diverting that information to Karl Rove."

The beauty of it is that since my government doesn't wish to provide details, my guess is just as legitimate as anyone else's.

[Festivito]

7. It's not as though we should be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..

or something, unless a judge agrees first.