What Did Freepers Think Of FISA In 2000?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in History, The War On TerrorismThe Secret FISA Court: Rubber Stamping Our Rights
By Philip Colangelo
Covert Action Quarterly
11-27-00Seven judges on a secret court have authorized all but one of over 7,500 requests to spy in the name of National Security. They meet in secret, with no published orders, opinions, or public record. Those spied on May never know of the intrusion. Now, Clinton has expanded the powers to include not only electronic, but physical searches.
The aftershock of the Oklahoma City bombing sent Congress scurrying to trade off civil liberties for an illusion of public safety. A good ten weeks before that terrible attack, however with a barely noticed pen stroke President Bill Clinton virtually killed off the Fourth Amendment when he approved a law to expand the already extraordinary powers of the strangest creation in the history of the federal judiciary.
Since its founding in 1978, a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA rhymes with ice -a) has received 7,539 applications to authorize electronic surveillance within the U.S. In the name of national security, the court has approved all but one of these requests from the Justice Department on behalf of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. Each of these decisions was reached in secret, with no published orders, opinions, or public record. The people, organizations, or embassies spied on were not notified of either the hearing or the surveillance itself. The American Civil Liberties Union was not able to unearth a single instance in which the target of a FISA wiretap was allowed to review the initial application. Nor would the targets be offered any opportunity to see transcripts of the conversations taped by the government and explain their side of the story.
Without access to such materials, said Kate Martin of the ACLU, targets of FISA searches are denied any meaningful opportunity to contest the basis for the execution of the FISA search.
Yes, this is what some thought pre-9/11. So why do we think differently post-9/11?
Sure, that’s an obvious question, but it’s certainly an interesting look back at where we were.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 14th, 2006 and is filed under History, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 14th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Who are these “Freeper” things? Enlighten us? They are a plural noun, but they have but one opinion amongst them? One post speaks for all minds? They move in mental lockstep? How sad! And what do the wretches “think” now?
February 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
OK, I’ll go ahead and answer my own question.
Hmmm. I read the comments thread, and it goes on well past 9/11. And guess what; there doesn’t seem to be a large-scale shift in opinion by the end of the thread. They still thought it was a dangerous use of executive power. Say what you like about those Bob Barr types. They’re impressively consistent sometimes.
So, what’s the point? I thought we had Daily Kos for this sort of thing. Oh wait; we do. Same citation. Where’s the “centrist” credentials of Daily Kos?
Just for laughs I can spend all day going through pre-2002 posts on “progressive” sites about how dreadful the Iraq sanctions are and how they’re failing to do anything but kill innocent Iraqis and how they ought to be ended right now AND fast forward two years and read how the invasion was unnecessary because the sanctions were working.
That has to be the gob-smacker of the day.
Here’s one reason.
There are roughly 3,000 others.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Yes, all of them think this and never change their mind. Ever. In fact, the only way they can change their mind is if they meet and decide to do so collectively.
They are the borg, and you will be assimilated…
February 14th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Oh well, at least the Libertarians can still be trusted to be pretty consistent. Not that anyone seems to notice. :-P
February 14th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
It’s because they’re partisan and as a result - unable to be objective.
Both sides do it. We all know it.