Lord Camden on NSA Surveillance

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2012/09/05/lord-camden-on-nsa-surveillance/

by timf • 14 years ago

148 26 14 years ago

tomrod• 14 years ago

Wow. How accurate is this evaluation of the challenge? I'm not a lawyer, but this would appear brazen if accurate.

mtgx• 14 years ago

I think pretty accurate. Isn't this how it works with the National Security letters as well? You can't even tell a lawyer if the Government is coming after you. One by one the law enforcement agencies are lobbying for laws that strip down the Constitution of all its worth.

It might be time for Americans to pass a system where every new law has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, like it happens in other countries.

daeken2• 14 years ago

> It might be time for Americans to pass a system where every new law has to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, like it happens in other countries.

I've always wondered why it is that we don't do that here. It's very much in line with the 'checks and balances' concept of the government's structure.

jackpirate• 14 years ago

I think the SC already has a tough enough workload as it is. If we made them review every single law, then they would just do a half-assed job in both their traditional role and their new role.

dangrossman• 14 years ago

> Isn't this how it works with the National Security letters as well? You can't even tell a lawyer if the Government is coming after you.

In 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act rewrote the disclosure rules for NSLs. You can both consult an attorney and challenge the NSL in court.

Consequently, the number of NSLs issued declined and the number of FISA surveillance requests increased after that change.

tomjen32• 14 years ago

Just require 80% support to make a new law and 20% support to remove any law currently on the books.

Then we would prevent most new useless laws.

ktizo• 14 years ago

Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing. - Joseph Heller

twoodfin• 14 years ago

I don't get this complaint. NSA "warrantless wiretapping" intercepts fall into two categories:

- Intercepts where at least one participant is a foreign party and thus are 100% constitutional without a warrant, under well-established national security powers.

- Intercepts where both participants are U.S. nationals.

Obviously, the latter would be unconstitutional to collect deliberately. But the whole point of these systems is to avoid collecting these communications, and to delete them as soon as they're discovered. It is, I think, fair to say that it's nearly impossible to devise a system that will collect what you want out of the first category while being absolutely certain not to intrude on the second. The revised FISA law was designed to ensure that there's judicial review of the process by which communications of the second category are identified and their intercepts destroyed. That judicial review has gone forward, as far as I know, and the program, with the current administration's blessing, continues to this day.

What's the injury to citizens and their rights? You don't trust the executive, under the supervision of both Congress and the judiciary, to follow the law and delete any intercepts with your name on them? Well, then you have bigger problems.

Lord Camden on NSA Surveillance

Related Stories