Court Says President Bush Violated Wiretapping Laws With Warrantless Wiretap

from the wow dept

Wed, Mar 31st 2010 12:35pm — Mike Masnick

In a huge ruling, a court has said that the US government violated wiretapping laws in eavesdropping on phone calls without a warrant.

If you haven't been following the fight over the legality of warrantless wiretapping, this case, involving lawyers working with the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, is extremely important. When it was revealed that the Bush administration was wiretapping phonecalls without a warrant, lawsuits were filed -- but the "problem" was that the parties (such as the ACLU) that filed the lawsuits didn't have "standing" because they had no evidence that they, personally, were impacted by the warrantless wiretapping. This created a ridiculous Catch-22 situation. As long as the government hid its illegal activities and never said who it spied on, it could spy on anyone illegally. No one could bring a lawsuit, since there was no proof that they had been impacted by the illegal spying.

Then the feds screwed up. They accidentally sent the evidence of wiretapping some lawyers for the Al-Haramain group to those lawyers. Suddenly there was evidence. But, of course, the government tried to cover it up. For a while it claimed that even though it had revealed that it had illegally spied on these lawyers, and everyone knew it, since those documents were classified, everyone had to pretend that it was still a secret and no one knew about it. This resulted in a series of positively ridiculous hoops that lawyers had to jump through to bring the case, without actually using the document.

Thankfully, even as the Obama administration continued to support the Bush's administration's position that this lawsuit should not move forward, the courts disagreed and allowed the case to move forward although the document in question wasn't allowed to be used.

However, the judge, who was clearly annoyed by the administration's stalling tactics, said that even without the document, there was enough evidence that the federal government violated wiretapping laws:

"Plaintiffs must, and have, put forward enough evidence to establish a prima facie case that they were subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance," U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled, in a landmark decision. Even without the classified document, the judge said he believed the lawyers "were subjected to unlawful electronic surveillance" (.pdf) in violation of the Foreign Terror Surveillance Act, which requires warrants in terror investigations.

Beyond that, the judge called the administration's method of dealing with the case as "argumentative acrobatics," and even suggested that those suing could ask for monetary damages.

This is a huge victory against illegal government surveillance. There is simply no excuse for the government to violate its own laws, especially when it comes to infringing on the privacy rights of American citizens. There is a well-established process for obtaining legal wiretap warrants. There is no excuse for going around that process, other than that the government knows it's doing something wrong. Thankfully, the judge recognized that in this case.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: judgements, warrantless wiretapping

92 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Joe Zavcer, 31 Mar 2010 @ 12:48pm

Common Sense
At least some parts of our government work the way they were intended to by the founders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Chaucer, 31 Mar 2010 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re: Common Sense
  Yeah, George Washington was big on legit wiretapping.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Common Sense
    "Yeah, George Washington was big on legit wiretapping."
    
    Hey good job on failing to realize that the Founders intentionally wrote the Constitution with progress of technology in mind so that the document would still apply even to technology that wasn't even dreamt of in their time.
    Just thought you needed a little positive discouragement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 12:52pm

Will this really change anything?
Hurray for justice! I'm glad to see that their are still courts in this country that recognize the privacy, but what good can this ruling really do.

What I mean is, if the government admits that it is doing something illegal and nothing is done to stop it then what good is a ruling that says, "yes, what the government did was illegal."

Forgive give my lack of faith, but in my lifetime I haven't been given much to have faith in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kin, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:04pm

Watch it!
No, it did not say the president did this. Be factual, not libelous! It is a great ruling, but let us be truthful not vengeful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's love child, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re: Watch it!
  No, they said the president authorized it. And the new president still doesn't think that the old president did anything wrong in that regard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Watch it!
    "...the Obama administration continued to support the Bush's administration's position...."
    
    "And the new president still doesn't think that the old president did anything wrong...."
    
    Holy crap! are you suggesting that the two are different in chosen party affiliation only? No......... gee who'd've thought that?
    (I'd sign off my sarcasm, but I'm not really all that sarcastic here)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: Watch it!
  REVENGE!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: Watch it!
  No, it did not say the president did this. Be factual, not libelous! It is a great ruling, but let us be truthful not vengeful!
  
  The President is a defendant in the lawsuit and lost. While the current President has been substituted, the actions were done under the previous president.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re: Watch it!
    And continued under this one...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: Watch it!
  They have the tools. No one is stopping from using wiretaps, and no one is asking to take that tool away. They are already allowed to place the wiretap up to three days BEFORE filing for a warrant, so there are absolutely no obstacles to monitoring for terrorism.
  
  All we ask is for is oversight and a paper trail that can be used to track down abuses. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we cannot provide the tools without also providing oversight. The ONLY reason that an administration would seek to eliminate oversight is because they plan to do something unethical or illegal. The oversight of a special, secret, rubber-stamp court does absolutely NOTHING to hinder actual monitoring of potential terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hegemon13, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Watch it!
    Crap, this was supposed to go one post down, as a reply to the AC below.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John, 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:29pm
  
  Re: Watch it!
  But if the media just reported the facts...they wouldn't have as many readers. Without sensationalism where would they be?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:14pm

What a namby pamby.

You either need to give our gov't the tools to fight terrorism or you need to capitulate to terrorists. You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:22pm
  
  Re: Namby Pamby
  I'd rather give everybody guns and training in how to use them. This whole nanny-state business is for the birds.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Namby Pamby
    too true.
    (see Patrick Henry quote below)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Namby Pamby
    This whole nanny-state business is for the birds.
    
    same here! the nanny state is for sissies. POLICE STATE FOR THE WIN!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robphelan (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re:
  This is probably the most ridiculous statement i've seen in a long time - right there with Bush saying "either you're with us or against us".
  
  It is NOT black & white.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Esahc (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "You're either for voting for this bill, or you are satisfied with the status quo"
    
    Same stuff...different day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:27pm
  
  Re:
  We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re:
  !!!!!NO!!!!!!
  
  Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve NEITHER liberty NOR safety.
  -- Benjamin Franklin
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Or how about this one:
    
    Give me liberty or give me death!
    --Patrick Henry
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - slander (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The King is a fink!"
      --Sir Rodney the Chicken-Hearted
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re:
  "You either need to give our gov't the tools to fight terrorism or you need to capitulate to terrorists. You can't have it both ways."
  
  Interstingly, you can. All you have to do is give the government the power to break the law to fight terrorists. Then you capitulate to the new terrorists, the government you gave all those illegal powers to.
  
  Yay! Finally we get it both ways!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sirlivealot (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm amazed you were not even more sarcastic and spiteful in your reply.
    
    Kudos.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Friday, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re:
  They have the tools to fight terrorism. Plenty of them. The problem is that the previous Administration knew that they didn't have enough to get a sustained wiretap on these groups, so they just did it on the sly. The Obama Administration doesn't want to press forward not because he supports illegal wiretapping, but because when this investigation points directly at the office of the President, then it makes the entire office look bad. It's definitely a black mark against our country. But if we don't follow our own rules when we are going after the bad guys, then what does that say about our rules and our country? EVERYONE deserves the right to a fair trial. EVERYONE deserves the rights that our Constitution gives us. EVERYONE deserves to be treated fairly by our Justice System. And NOBODY, not even the President, is above following those rules.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Absolutely!
    "EVERYONE deserves to be treated fairly by our Justice System. And NOBODY, not even the President, is above following those rules."
    
    "a nation of laws and not of men" -- John Adams (couldn't find the whole quote, sorry)
    
    Be careful to whom you assign the term "everyone", though. While the Declaration of Independence does state "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", the United States Constitution applies to legal citizens of these united States only (I'm going back to the plural, since the singular is corrupted). And no I don't want to start debating immigration. That ball of wax is f'd up too, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  They have the tools. No one is stopping from using wiretaps, and no one is asking to take that tool away. They are already allowed to place the wiretap up to three days BEFORE filing for a warrant, so there are absolutely no obstacles to monitoring for terrorism.
  
  All we ask is for is oversight and a paper trail that can be used to track down abuses. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we cannot provide the tools without also providing oversight. The ONLY reason that an administration would seek to eliminate oversight is because they plan to do something unethical or illegal. The oversight of a special, secret, rubber-stamp court does absolutely NOTHING to hinder actual monitoring of potential terrorists.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jimmy, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re:
  So you think allowing the constituion and privacy rights to be shredded is ok as long as the problem to be solved is big enough ? Where does it end ? Why not rip up the constitution and allow the government to do whatever they want to maintain control. Everytime u turn around a new law is inacted which treads on our rights. You have to wear a seatbelt so insurance companies can protect their profits. You should reserch the number of wiretaps the FBI conducted againts everyday americans using the patriot act. They used it to investigate everyone and anyone for any reason. Don't take my word for it. Go check for yourself. You honestlt think the government cares about your well being. They care about money and power and how to get it and protect it at any cost.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:59pm
  
  Re: by Anonymous Coward
  Really?
  
  That was the entire point of the this arbitration. The government already has the tools to fight terrorism. They don't need more. Federal law clearly states that in order to obtain a warrant for a wire tap a judge must sign an order, which can even be done in secret. They can even apply for a warrent up 72 hours AFTER the tap takes place. Thus allowing for illegal taps, so long as they can prove the neccessity after the fact.
  
  Hell, you could tap someone, arrest them based on that evidence (at this point obtained illegally), begin the prosecution (not that the system works that fast), and then get the warrant.
  
  You make the same argument as those that favor more gun laws. We don't need more laws we need to enforce those in place, which are perfectly able to accomplish what needs to be done.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JD (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re:
  What a ridiculous statement. If the DOJ really felt they had a valid reason for the write-tap, they could have gotten a judge to agree to it in a matter hours (if not minutes). Not doing so was a gross violation of existing law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:22pm
  
  Re:
  If you look at what happen the terrorist gave the government as much warning as they could. They made a video saying they were going to attack. They had already attacked the same building multiple times in the past. Flight school instructors told the FBI about their fears of these guys. Maybe next time the terrorist could just send them an outlook appointment
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mark, 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:28pm
  
  Re:
  Posting as 'anonymous' makes you look like a tool, teabagger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joshua, 31 Mar 2010 @ 6:52pm
  
  You either need to give our gov't the tools to fight terrorism or you need to capitulate to terrorists. You can't have it both ways.
  
  False Dichotomy. Liberty is not the opposite of safety.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 6:24am
  
  Re:
  I could not agree more
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RIRedinPA, 1 Apr 2010 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: Um, there are tools...
  go to a judge and get a warrant to wire tap to your hearts content...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Segodnya (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  Nonsense. You proclaiming that there are two mutually exclusive options does not make it so. There are other choices in addition to those two, and one of them is that the government should follow its own laws. In this case, the FISA law provides a court for national security wiretaps, and that law even allows the government to start the wiretapping today in emergencies and then apply for the warrant tomorrow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:17pm

Illegal Surveillance
I find it hard to believe people do not think what was done is wrong? At what point do we as American citizens stop handing over our freedom's out of fear?
I will say I don't think it was the 'government' that did something wrong, but specific people; and that anyone with knowledge and the ability to stop it should be brought up on criminal charges. Same with the torture that went on. The people responsible should be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 8:57pm
  
  Re: Illegal Surveillance
  It's funny to compare the anger at:
  
  i) the healthcare bill, legislation that may level the playing field, make more people healthy, keep poor kids healthier, stop people from financial ruin because of bad luck...and yes, have costs. It's a socialist solution to a social problem. Now us sensible people can understand how terrible an idea the above is, but it was democratically derived: The people gave the dems a majority in three branches, and those three branches subsequently voted. The democratic process was followed, and it was done according to rule of law. (But you don't have to like it.)
  
  and
  
  ii) our government spying on us sans warrant. It's illegal. There was a legal way to do it, which wasn't used. There has been a cover-up. It's clearly spelled out as a no-no in the constitution.
  
  What I don't get is the backwards reactions to these two issues.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Illegal Surveillance
    What I don't get is the backwards reactions to these two issues.
    
    That's because you aren't looking at things from their perspective. Try sticking you head up your ass and you'll see why things look backwards to them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
yozoo, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:20pm

the Bush Administration
ahh the days of lies, corruption, incredible spending and blindly ideological leadership . . . good memories, but this hangover is a killer!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re: the Bush Administration
  not going to get better anytime soon. we just traded one sin for another.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: the Bush Administration
  Love the metaphor. Unfortunately the hangover doesn't start until the drinking stops.......
  We're still drinking, we just switched the liquor for beer (or vice-versa, not sure which).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:48pm
    
    Re: Re: the Bush Administration
    We're still drinking, we just switched the liquor for beer (or vice-versa, not sure which).
    
    Neither. It's laced Kool-Aid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: the Bush Administration
      That too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re: the Bush Administration
  Yeah, because none of that is happening right now :rollseyes:
  
  People really need to quit with this team mentality. Your guys aren't saints.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:26pm

yozoo
Do you miss me yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDL, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:29pm

incredible spending
@ yozoo - incredible spending? You obviously aren't paying attention to the current administration. Obama spent in the first year what it took Bush 4 years to do (according to the Treasury Department reports on the budget). If you thought the Bush administration spent a lot of money, you ain't seen nothing yet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: incredible spending
  I think that was yozoo's point...that we aren't any better off now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: incredible spending
  "incredible spending? You obviously aren't paying attention to the current administration. Obama spent in the first year what it took Bush 4 years to do (according to the Treasury Department reports on the budget). If you thought the Bush administration spent a lot of money, you ain't seen nothing yet!"
  
  And you know, it'd be different if all that increased spending was for all these domestic initiatives that they're theorizing are going to end up coming back to us monetarily at some point.
  
  But his MILITARY BUDGET increased over Bushes. And he said we were getting OUT. WTF? What the hell is the point of being a Republican or a Democrat anymore?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - drkkgt (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:05pm
    
    Re: Re: incredible spending
    I keep telling people, we aren't a two party system anymore, we are a multi-denominational party. In other words, what denominations are you willing to pay me to go your way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Pratt, 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:44pm
  
  Re: incredible spending
  Are you on crack? Bush took us from a $5 trillion surplus to a $12 trillion deficit. He broke the debt clock in Time Square, even. And, you're trying to claim that Obama has spent more money??? Your assertion is more ridiculous than something out of Glenn Beck's mouth, and that's saying something.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Segodnya (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re: incredible spending
    We never had a $5 trillion surplus. In fact, we have not had a surplus in this country in decades. President Clinton claimed to have established one, but his administration in fact counted the money in the so-called "Social Security Trust Fund" against the debt. It's sort of like telling the bank on your loan application that you have X in the bank, but failing to tell them that X is already pledged as collateral on some other loan.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: incredible spending
      We never had a $5 trillion surplus...blah blah blah...Clinton... blah blah blah...debt...blah blah blah...
      
      Somebody else already tried to point out the difference between "deficit", "surplus" and "debt" to you, but I guess it was over your head.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
L.R. Jones, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:29pm

Bush article & wiretapping
I have been waiting for someone, anyone to go after Bush and his two henchmen. With all the U.S. laws and international laws broken by Bush, the man should have been in jail years ago. He invaded a sovereign country for the sole purpose of overthrowing it's recognized legal government. He should have been brought to trial for that. Then there's the matter of crimes against humanity, the thousands of Iraqis civilians that died in his "war". The murder of over 5,000 of our finest young troops in his "war". War has not been legally declared since Pearl Harbor. That takes the President and the Congress to declare war.
lrj
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aurum79, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:31pm

tirewapping ?
Whats all this crazy talk about tirewapping? We tea partiers know the only way to learn whether your tires are secure is to wap them. Problem is, if you use your riffle butt for tirewapping, you just don't know if your riffle sights are intact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:43pm

You either need to give our gov't the tools to fight terrorism or you need to capitulate to terrorists. You can't have it both ways.

Nice trolling. If you're not a bridge dweller, a little FYI, your argument is considered a LOGICAL FALLACY, specifically, it is called a FALSE DILEMMA OR FLASE DICHOTOMY. This means you present the world as if there were only two options, when in fact, there are more. You can provide the tools to fight terrorism without breaking the law, and still not "capitulate" (fancy vocabulary there!) to terrorism. Go try to get a highschool education at a real school, and try again. Try taking some basic courses in Logic. You're pathetic. GO JUSTICE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:46pm

Be factual, not libelous!

Go look up libel laws on public figures and eat a little crow while you're at it. Also, he (Mike) is being factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Davis, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:47pm

wiretapping
"You either need to give our gov't the tools to fight terrorism or you need to capitulate to terrorists. You can't have it both ways."
-Anonymous Coward
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous Coward: Educate yourself and learn what a false dichotomy is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward II, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:48pm

I'd comment, but I'm afraid I'd get on the watch list and be wiretapped and have my emails intercepted. Gotta run, a black Suburban just pulled up with a man holding a handheld antenna and has it pointed at my house. OMG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Searle, 31 Mar 2010 @ 1:52pm

HA If only the American People New...
This makes me laugh as people are surprised that the Government did something like this. The Government has done stuff like this since the beginning of time and will still continue to do it through out the rest of our lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: HA If only the American People New...
  "Government has done stuff like this since the beginning of time"
  
  There was a brief 100-150 year stint, here in America, when this sort of thing didn't happen. That's the first time in history when a government was, at least mostly, free from corruption. This country became more powerful than ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN HISTORY -- possible exception of Roman Empire, but that was wrought with corruption -- and we did it in, relatively speaking, the blink of an eye.
  So let's see:
  First system of government to reach power WITHOUT suprressing it's people
  or
  S.O.S
  Which would you rather have?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:17pm
    
    Re: Re: HA If only the American People New...
    "There was a brief 100-150 year stint, here in America, when this sort of thing didn't happen."
    
    I'm sorry, but that isn't a fact. Some think so, some read into history hints that certain multinational banking interests, the same ones that control things today (including both parties), also controlled them then too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgruntled Bureaucrat, 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:04pm

I miss the good o'l days. Had Al Gore not invented the Internet, we could have continued to get away with these kind of things -- doh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:12pm

It doesn't amount to anything
So someone finally won a case in court. Whoop-tee-do!

It won't matter in the slightest. Current government is not going to abide by any punishment or change the law so it no longer happens. Obama and the current congress are in it as deep as Bush was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pt, 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:21pm

Spending habits...
In case some of y'all missed it; the budget for 2009 was G.W. Bush's budget and was estimated at 2.7 trillion dollars...ergo the spending was his, not the current President's. The 2010 budget is the current admin's budget and is estimated at 2.381 trillion dollars. U.S. debt, however, was increased from 12.87 to 14.08 trillion dollars. There is no current plan on how to decrease the debt, factor in the deficit trade and the bank bailouts and...???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re: Spending habits...
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe your numbers are including defense and discretionary budgets, which together account for somewhere around 33% of spending....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:35pm

from the wow dept?
Wow? Were you really surprised? Were ppl living under a rock? I tried to tell ppl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy3eOCkLVaw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9WStvRc0rQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re: from the wow dept?
  Wow? Were you really surprised? Were ppl living under a rock? I tried to tell ppl.
  
  The wow was directed at the ruling, not the actions. Surprised the judge was willing to make that ruling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re: from the wow dept?
    "The wow was directed at the ruling, not the actions. Surprised the judge was willing to make that ruling."
    
    Even the passing idiot could have realized what was being done was illegal. I am not surprised at all. I was surprised no one did anything when the extent of what was being collected was exposed. Thanks EFF. Americans are asleep at the wheel.
    
    Thanks for clearing up my mistake mike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
KB, 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:36pm

re: Democracy
"Land of the Free"... I've always loved that one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Mad Hatter (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 2:54pm

Wow
I have to admit I wasn't expecting the Judge to be so forthright. The Administration will of course try to appeal, however I think that they won't get anywhere this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The far side, 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:06pm

They do not need to wiretap anyone
This Judgement only makes public how dumb the previous administration acted, the real truth here is that they did not need to wiretap anyone legally or illegally, the truth here is that they have international resources that can legally do the wiretapping for them then share the information. This is done all the time and what ever info that obtained from the illegal wiretap was nothing compared to what they received from their international resources. With the tech they have today physical wiretapping is not necessary and it can be done from outside our country. So all of you youngsters grow-up and get the story truthfully, every time you use a wireless phone, or cell phone or voice over IP telephone or just local telephone service. That call passes through a switch (computerized and connected to the internet) which can be hacked by international resources then automatically translated and passed to our government past administration or current administration. The only way to protect your self is to practice personal security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 9:06pm
  
  Re: They do not need to wiretap anyone
  How do I know if my tinfoil hat will stop the "International Resources" (i.e. the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Col Sanders)?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Segodnya (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re: They do not need to wiretap anyone
    Your tinfoil hat will not stop the international resources. The resources are known as the UK-USA agreement and has to do with the establishment of a surveillance pact. Since 1952 the National Security Agency, its British counterpart (GCHQ) and the analogous services of New Zealand, Australia, Canada and various others have surreptitiously spied on ALL electronic communications. The legality of the program has been suspect all along; various US Attorneys General have refused to sanction what the NSA does because they know full well that the vacuum cleaner approach to electronic surveillance is ILLEGAL. Look up Project Minaret, Project Shamrock, and some of the other crap the NSA has been involved with over the years. The main reason it remains so highly classified is because they know it's ILLEGAL.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 12:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They do not need to wiretap anyone
      Let's not forget the Echelon SIG/INT system....
      
      And going back into history for some fun references on how this all stems from Nazi science, Project Paperclip....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 11:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They do not need to wiretap anyone
        ...nor the secret ingredients they put in the chicken that makes me crave it fortnightly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:24pm

This Judgement only makes public how dumb the previous administration acted..and how THIS administration continues to act in the same manner. Please remove partisan blinders. It looks like you're about to steer off the road...intellectually speaking.President Obama and his administration either truely believe that the past policy was/is correct in order to defend national security, or they are defending it for political cover. You decide which is worse...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jun, 31 Mar 2010 @ 3:32pm

Wiretapping
If you don't want another 9/11 to happen then it's OK to wiretap suspected terrorist for national security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jason (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: Wiretapping
  Sure. go ahead and wiretap them.
  
  Just follow the law in doing so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:09pm

by Mark
Posting as 'anonymous' makes you look like a tool, teabagger.

by jun
If you don't want another 9/11 to happen then it's OK to wiretap suspected terrorist for national security.

Troll, troll, troll, troll....troll. Off to your left on your tour of techdirt, you'll notice a band of trolls. Please do not feed the trolls, and enjoy your stay at techdirt park.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony1, 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:09pm

by Mark
Posting as 'anonymous' makes you look like a tool, teabagger.

by jun
If you don't want another 9/11 to happen then it's OK to wiretap suspected terrorist for national security.

Troll, troll, troll, troll....troll. Off to your left on your tour of techdirt, you'll notice a band of trolls. Please do not feed the trolls, and enjoy your stay at techdirt park.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 4:48pm

I love Walker. He does not tolerate bullshit very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 5:04pm

We had a $5 trillion surplus? Only 10 years ago? Really? Hmmm, I remember walking past the National Debt sign in NYC and I never remember it being a surplus.

Accounting is a pretty funny thing, you can make it look really nice if you don't worry about it reflecting the true standing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2010 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re:
  We had a $5 trillion surplus? Only 10 years ago? Really? Hmmm, I remember walking past the National Debt sign in NYC and I never remember it being a surplus.
  
  The one in the Fox News lobby, eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 31 Mar 2010 @ 9:12pm
  
  Re:
  Remedial help 4 u:
  
  Deficit - an annual negative gap between treasury revenues and expenses
  Surplus - an annual excess of revenues above expenses
  Debt - a cumulative sum of annual deficits or surpluses
  
  Knowledge is a pretty funny thing, you can make yourself look pretty dumb when you don't have it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Walter, 31 Mar 2010 @ 5:27pm

9/11 - a government killing and defrauding its people so it can do what it wants.

Cheney should rot, as should Bush and the rest of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dohn Joe, 31 Mar 2010 @ 8:08pm

He Still Won't Go To Jail
Betcha that the war criminal responsible will still avoid jail time...we're so selective about which dictators we punish. Maybe if he grew a silly-looking mustache...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Liquid (profile), 1 Apr 2010 @ 5:04am
  
  Re: He Still Won't Go To Jail
  yeah but the question you have to ask your self. Do you really want Binladin to be made a martyr to a group of religious fanatics? Once he's dead it will only rally their cause even further.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kathy Jones-Kristof, 2 Apr 2010 @ 12:26pm

Illegal Survelliance
Bush and his co-horts should be indicted for their illegal practices, and hopefully convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mel, 2 Apr 2010 @ 2:18pm

Thank goodness the courts are getting it right
As the subject says.... It's about darn time. I love that this was won on a legal argument about the filings, not on whether wiretapping is right or wrong. http://bit.ly/b6pi4E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]