
A.C.L.U. Files Suit Over Phone Surveillance Program - ParkerK
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/aclu-files-suit-over-phone-surveillance-program.html?pagewanted=all
======
rayiner
For people who think that lawsuits can't do anything:

In the 1970's and 1980's, the courts were extremely active in policing the
government. It was by all measures a much scarier time. Obama has a few drone
strikes--Reagan was funding revolutions in other countries. It was the height
of the cold war and the threat of nuclear holocaust, and the palpable fear
about communism paled anything we see today over terrorism. Even in the early
2000's, in the throes of the aftermath of 9/11, the Supreme Court forced the
Bush administration to dramatically adjust its policy on giving legal
representation to inmates at Guantanamo.

Since then what has happened is a process of delegitimization of the
judiciary. And both sides of the aisle have been to blame for this: from the
right's talk of activist judges to Obama's physically menacing over the
Justices during his state of the union. The judiciary has been at fault too:
having overextended itself in the culture wars of the 1960's and 1970's, it
very self-conciously adopted a mantra of extreme judicial restraint.

What you have left today is a judiciary that might no longer be able to
effectively police the government. I've made it clear elsewhere that I don't
think the current surveillance program is illegal, but it might not matter one
way or the other. The judiciary's role in our system of checks and balances is
ultimately rooted in faith in the legitimacy of the institution, and that
faith has been dramatically eroded over the last two decades.

~~~
adventured
A scarier time? The executive branch has been given the power to murder
Americans without any proper civilian judicial oversight. The executive branch
has been given the power to indefinitely detain Americans, without any
civilian judicial oversight. All the while the Feds are tracking and recording
everything they can get their hands on.

A few drone strikes? We've built drone bases around the globe and are
murdering thousands of innocent civilians with those strikes.

Fund revolutions in other countries? We're doing that in Syria right now. We
actively participated in the revolution in Libya.

~~~
rayiner
Massive hyperbole. I guarantee you its not the first time in history Americans
have been killed on the battlefield while fighting for the other side. The
executive branch has been given no power to indefinitely detain Americans. See
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The people who have been detained are not Americans.

The scale of proxy wars engaged in then versus today can scarcely be compared
its so different.

~~~
waffle_ss
> The executive branch has been given no power to indefinitely detain
> Americans

Wrong.

1) Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of
immigrants; see Jose Padilla, an American citizen:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)#Habeas...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_\(prisoner\)#Habeas_corpus)

2) Sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA FY2012 (which Obama is defending right now
in Obama v. Hedges):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012#Controversy_over_ind...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention)

~~~
rayiner
Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court. Obama v
hedges has nothing to do with indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama's
signing statement explicitly said the act should not be interpreted to
encompass US citizens. Given that and the precedent in Hamdi v. Rumsfield, iys
clear those NDAA provisions do not apply to citizens.

~~~
dpatru
In Hedges v Obama [1], the trial court blocked the government's power to
indefinitely detain. The ruling was immediately appealed and the trial court's
decision was stayed. I take it from the government's rush to appeal that there
are people are being detained right now that would have had to be released had
the ban been upheld.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama)

~~~
rayiner
The injunction in Hedges blocked the detainment power in its entirety (on the
basis of being unconstitutionally vague), not only detainment with respect to
American citizens. Obama is fighting to preserve the detainment power, not for
the power to detain American citizens, which would be contrary to his signing
statement and the expressed intent of Congress.

------
ChrisAntaki
ACLU & EFF, moving our society forward.

~~~
h0w412d
They both work tirelessly, mostly for people who don't even know they exist.
Money donated to them is money well spent.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
Or in the ACLU's case, people with irrational hatred toward them.

------
gesman
Scenario 1: NSA loses, People wins, Lawyers wins

Scenario 2: NSA wins, People lose, Lawyers wins

Now, who's the smartest?

~~~
nostromo
I love to make anti-lawyer jokes as much as the next guy, but it's just not
true for the ACLU, EFF, and other public interest organizations.

ACLU lawyers make a fraction of what they could working for private law firms.

According to this article from 2007, a job at the ACLU will get you $59k
starting wage vs. $160k working for private law firms. Note that these folks
have the same college loans to payback. I think we owe them our respect and
gratitude.

[http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015](http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20070311/SUB/70311015)

~~~
nullc
> Note that these folks have the same college loans to payback

This isn't always the case:
[http://www.studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/public-
serv...](http://www.studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/public-service-loan-
forgiveness.pdf)

(At least employees of the ACLU foundation are eligible for loan forgiveness,
and $59k is low enough that it would actually matter)

~~~
flyinRyan
I don't really care what motivates them, so long as they fight for freedom and
get the job done.

