Link to the ACLU video on their FISA lawsuit.

[JDPriestly]

With biographiees of the plaintiffs: Namoi Klein, Chris Hedges, Scott Mckay, David Nevin, Joy Olson and Dale Needles

The Constitution is the bedrock of our democracy; it ensures Americans the right to privacy and free speech. Electronic surveillance is highly invasive. By reading our emails and listening to our phone calls the government gets direct access to our thoughts, our feelings, our associates and our political views. Unrestrained and unchecked government surveillance not only intrudes upon Americans' right to privacy, it also has the dangerous effect of chilling speech and political dissent. The power to spy is one that is easily abused and history is full of examples of what leaders are willing to do when tempted with unchecked power.

Electronic surveillance is a necessary tool in protecting our nation's security, but it must be conducted constitutionally. That is why the ACLU is in court fighting on behalf of non-profits, attorneys and prominent journalists to strike down the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The ACLU has also asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the FAA be open to the public to the extent possible and that the ACLU be allowed to make arguments about the constitutionality of the new law. The FISC oversees intelligence surveillance, typically operates in secret, and hears arguments only from the government.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/faachallenge.html

Please keep this kicked. This information is vital for every American.

We complain about the MSM, but if reporters cannot collect the news without surveillance, they cannot report accurately.

[sui generis]

1. kumbaya

Here's the test for me:

If you can't answer the simplest question like, "who'd ya surveille", "is anyone previously surveilled exempt from future surveillance and are the phone companies therefore exempt from related lawsuits", and "did you name your entire subscriber base as subject to surveillance" and therefore you can still conduct it against those individuals without fear of being sued under grandfathering provisions"? Simple questions any goddamn lawyer should have asked or known the answer to.

Now, I can only imagine that if they aren't required to tell you if they observed you in the past then probably they aren't required to in the future. This goes way beyond looking for vocal concordances of "bomb" (the mediterranean word for bomb is falafel) since everybody KNOWS all terrorists do their planning in English and speak clearly for the microphone.

Jeepers. And we trust the DHS to be smart enough to catch a pooperscooper violator? They're fucking idiots.

And ya know, Obama can't answer those questions. Oh yes, time will tell and we'll review it a year from now, yadda yadda. Obama made a bonehead stupid fucking choice on this, and before any idiot swings in from the rafters throwing monkey poop - my flamethrower is full and lit. Move along.

[JDPriestly]

3. You raise an obvious issue that every 10-year old would raise

if told the his parents are reading his notes to his friends at school: what about the use of codes? If they are targeting the use of certain words, codes would confuse everything. I am really good at puzzles like cryptograms, but when I talk to family and friends, there are moments when no one would know what we are talking about. All we have to do is reference some almost forgotten event in the past and everyone gets the reference. I don't understand how all this surveillance is really useful if it sweeps in vast amounts of information. I believe that its main purpose is to chill the speech of people like us who think for ourselves.

[slipslidingaway]

2. K&R thanks n/t