Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This is a detailed analysis. The Administration's Position is also available.

Legal Analysis of the NSA surveillance program

Letter from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Vice President Cheney regarding NSA domestic wiretapping, July 17th 2003.

Bush's Congressional oversight concerning whatever the hell the NSA has been up to included breifing Rockefeller, who just leaked this memo (which was obviously kept around as an insurance policy in the event this went public). Unlike other observers, I'm not at all suprised that this stuff was both technically and legally over his head. I could build some really bad ass snooping tools if I had an unlimited budget, and all this stuff about Article II and the AUFM is about as clear as mud.

The Talking Points Memo DOCUMENT COLLECTION

This is clearly intended to be a scare story. I'm sure, lots of information was left out - especially about his 'time abroad' and other associations. I assure you that DHS does not have 'agents' that investigate people who check out library books.

I thought this was obvious but I didn't say it because I thought it detracted from the humor of the story. Apparently it isn't obvious.

[IP] DHS response to story of UMass senior who requested book

A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

UMass Dartmouth senior visited by federal agents for checking out Mao's 'Little Red Book'

MemeStreams user Neoteric made Wonkette, or at least his Senate Webcam pointed at the Christmas tree did.

Happy Holidays from Washington DC.

One Tree Hill - Wonkette

flynn23 wrote:
Actually you don't have a right to privacy. There's nothing in the constitution or the bill or rights that grants anything in the way of privacy. So privacy is not a good reason to rub this out.

With respect to the matter of government surveillance there absolutely is a specifically enumerated Constitutional "right to privacy." Its the 4th amendment. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that an intent to protect a general "right to privacy" is obvious in a reading of the Constitution and the 9th Amendment gives it teeth. I'm quoting here from Griswold vs. Connecticut:

Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." We recently referred in Mapp v. Ohio, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people."

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

RE: Pentagon Expands Domestic Surveillance

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats. "This is an in-your-face type of strategy. It's letting the terrorists know we are out there," Fernandez said.

Random ID checks... Odd that they have the ACLU guy giving that a positive quote.

BREITBART.COM - Miami Police Take New Tack Against Terror

Transport Canada is road-testing cutting-edge devices that use global positioning satellite technology and a digital speed-limit map to know when a driver is speeding, and to try to make them stop.

When a driver hits a certain percentage above the posted speed limit, the device kicks in and makes it difficult to press the accelerator.

Why write tickets when you can just have your computer take over their car?!

The Globe and Mail: New spyware gives drivers a brake

The Convention on Cybercrime will endanger Americans' privacy and civil liberties--and place the FBI's massive surveillance apparatus at the disposal of nations with much less respect for individual liberties.

For instance, if the U.S. and Russia ratify it, President Vladimir Putin would be able to invoke the treaty's powers to unmask anonymous critics on U.S.-based Web sites and perhaps even snoop on their e-mail correspondence.

There's an easy fix. The U.S. Senate could attach an amendment to the treaty saying the FBI may aid other nations only if the alleged "crime" in their country also is a crime here. The concept is called dual criminality, and the treaty lets nations choose that option.

Unfortunately, neither the Bush administration nor the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been willing to make that change, calling it too "rigid."

Fuzzy logic behind Bush's cybercrime treaty | Perspectives | CNET News.com

"They're avoiding what the Supreme Court would say about American citizens. That's an issue the administration did not want to face," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor who specializes in national security. "There's no way that the Supreme Court would have ducked this issue."

They charged him. Fine. Thats what I wanted.

However, by raising the specter of "I don't have to charge him" for so long, and then being unwilling to haul that claim before the court for analysis, the door is open. I'm not particularly worried about detentions today. I would have liked a precident that clarified that this was not legal today, so that it can be referenced when the day comes that I am concerned about the detentions. I won't have that. Those future inappropriate detentions will reference this episode, and they may do so in front of a court which is more sympathetic to executive power.

The administration has presented a platform for tyrants to stand on. I pray it doesn't have legs, but it will be a very long time before anyone knows the answer to that question.

Administration blinks on Padilla