Article I, Section 1, US Constitution:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

First Amendment to the US Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution:
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

WARRANTLESS NSA WIRETAPS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL COURT SAYS NO LEGAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR ADMIN.'S CLAIM TO POWER TO DISREGARD JUDICIAL PROCESS 18 August 2006 A federal judge in Detroit ruled early yesterday that Pres. Bush's NSA surveillance program, which uses wiretaps implemented with no judicial oversight, is unconstitutional. The ruling strongly enforced the point that there are "no powers not created by the Constitution" rejecting the AG's claim that the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (in Afghanistan) as a legal platform for sweeping new domestic powers. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor specified that because there are "no powers not created by the Constitution" available to the president, "all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution", meaning the president cannot derive expansive new prosecutorial powers from laws designed to permit overseas military action. [Full Story] EXTERNAL LINKS US District Court: "Ruling, ACLU et al. v. NSA et al." [PDF] Washington Post: "Federal Judge Orders Halt to NSA Wiretapping" BBC: "US judge rules wiretaps illegal" Wired News: "Judge Halts NSA Snooping" SF Chronicle: "Warrantless wiretaps ruled unconstitutional"

The Democrat-controlled US Senate yesterday passed a bill that would authorize the president to not only continue, but to expand his use of extrajudicial wiretapping, a practice ruled unconstitutional last year by the Supreme Court. Analysts suggest that Democrats caved to White House rhetoric, for fear of being considered 'soft on terror'. Civil libertarians say the vote is a dark day for US Constitutional law.

Specifically, Caroline Frederickson, of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the press "The Democrats caved in to the politics of fear we're seeing from this administration. They didn't want to be depicted as soft on terrorism. But this measure removes any court oversight from surveillance on Americans in a large number of cases."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) said the bill "goes far, far beyond" what the White House had initiated when Pres. Bush secretly approved the NSA surveillance program struck down by the Supreme Court. And while the White House and its allies in Congress want legislation to "permit" such surveillance, it is unclear whether any extrajudicial spying can be conducted on American soil without an amendment that waters down the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

The AP reports "The White House offered a compromise to the Democrats on Friday, saying it would agree to a court review of its foreign intelligence activities instead of leaving certification up to the attorney general and director of national intelligence. But it attached conditions: that the review be after the fact and involve only the administration's general process of collecting the intelligence, not individual cases".

The question is what, precisely, the problem would be for any court to review the validity of surveillance conducted, before or after the fact, in "individual cases", as the Constitution mandates. The provision would leave open the very real possibility of a grave rift between the functioning of a law-enforcement process and the justice system established by the Constitution itself, meaning that it may be impossible to use evidence at trial.

In sum, the measure appears to be a temporary fix to existing legal problems inherent in the blanket surveillance program. More than likely, the new powers laid out will have to be rolled back in keeping with Constitutional law, and the same debate will re-emerge in 6 months' time, if the bill does become law. [s]

• IHT: "Broader wiretapping authority advances in U.S. Congress"

BACKGROUND:
FBI DIRECTOR TESTIMONY SUGGESTS GONZALES MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT OPPOSITION TO WIRETAPS
GONZALES TOLD SENATE NO DISPUTE OVER WIRETAPPING, MUELLER TELLS OF MASS RESIGNATION THREATENED IN 2004 PROTEST AT JUSTICE
2 August 2007

FBI director Robert Mueller, the top law-enforcement agent within the Justice Department, testified before that House Judiciary Committee that there was in fact a heated confrontation between senior Justice Department officials and White House aides in 2004, regarding President Bush's warrantless NSA wiretapping program. [Full Story]

FMR ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS BUSH INTERVENED TO HALT MASS RESIGNATIONS OVER NSA PROGRAM
JAMES COMEY, FMR DEPUTY TO AG ASHCROFT, TESTIFIED BUSH ACTED TO CONTINUE PROGRAM, PREVENT PROTEST RESIGNATIONS FROM TOP JUSTICE OFFICIALS
17 May 2007

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Comey, former deputy attorney general, who acted as AG during Ashcroft illness in early 2004, said Pres. Bush intervened to halt a raft of resignations in protest over the policy clash. Comey reportedly had to rush to AG Ashcroft's hospital bedside to prevent White House officials from gaining authorization, despite official opposition from Justice Dept. lawyers and then acting AG Comey. [Full Story]

ACLU ACQUIRES GOV'T DOCUMENTS SHOWING SURVEILLANCE OF PEACEFUL, LAW-ABIDING GROUPS
FBI ALLEGEDLY INFILTRATING, MONITORING NON-VIOLENT HUMAN RIGHTS, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, LABELING THEM 'POTENTIAL TERRORIST THREATS'
9 May 2006

New information acquired by the ACLU by way of the Freedom of Information Act, shows the FBI and the Joint Terrorist Task Force have been monitoring, infiltrating and spying on innocent, law-abiding individuals and both non-religious and faith-based activist groups whose activities are entirely peaceful and are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. [Full Story]

AT&T SUED FOR VIOLATING LAW IN NSA DOMESTIC SPY PROGRAM
SUIT ALLEGES AT&T ILLEGALLY TAPPED US CITIZENS' PHONES IN COLLABORATION WITH NSA WARRANTLESS EAVESDROPPING
31 March 2006

AT&T was once the nation's telecommunications monopoly, and abuses there led to the break-up of the Bell monopoly and the regulation of telecoms, with the intent of encouraging competition and achieving the goal of forcing providers to serve the customers first. Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit alleging that the telecommunications giant has violated federal law by assisting the government in spying on innocent Americans without any court authorization. [Full Story]

DATA SHADOWS & IMPROBABLE CONSENT
NEW TRENDS IN 'COMPULSORY VOLUNTARISM' RAISE THE SPECTRE OF 'CONSENTING' TO INFRINGED LIBERTIES AGAINST ONE'S WILL
2 January 2006

Neither contracts nor "terms and conditions" including indemnities disclaimers, can be classified as legislation. They do not make or construct legal limits by themselves. Obvious as this may seem, it is a necessary introduction to the problem of the trade in personal information and "soft surveillance", whereby one is routinely subjected to interrogation, inspection and even physical search, not for having broken any laws or even aroused any reasonable suspicion, but simply because "that's policy". [Full Story]