This afternoon, President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, a piece of legislation that will needlessly expand the government's ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of Bush's unlawful wiretapping. There were many good Senators who showed courage in standing up to the White House and for the Constitution, but not enough.

A few hours after Bush's signing, The Nation joined with the ACLU in a lawsuit filed in the US District Court (Southern District) of New York challenging the constitutionality of the Act. The Nation is suing on behalf of itself, our staff and two of our contributing writers--Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein. The defendants are the Attorney General of the United States, Michael Mukasey; John M. "Mike" McConnell, Director of National Intelligence; and Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Security Service. We filed suit along with a coalition of other plaintiffs including Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN American Center, Washington Office on Latin America, Service Employees International Union and several private attorneys.

Why are we joining this lawsuit?

For 143 years, The Nation has believed that an essential element of patriotism is the unyielding defense of civil liberties. Immediately after 9/11, as a fog of national security enveloped official Washington and the mainstream media enlisted in the Administration's war, it was clear to us that the need for an independent and critical press seemed never more urgent. The speedy passage of the repressive Patriot Act, with scarcely a murmur of dissent in Congress, and the establishment of military tribunals were troubling signs that a wartime crackdown on civil liberties was under way and called for vigorous opposition. Criticizing government policy in wartime is a not a path to popularity. Our patriotism was questioned, we were called "anti-American." Yet, as it has at different times in our country's turbulent history, The Nation marched to a different drummer and stood firm in defense of our core constitutional values--believing then, as we do now, that it is possible to defend this country from terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation.

Today, we are proud to join with the ACLU and other plaintiffs in this lawsuit in the belief that the government 's surveillance activities should respect, not trample, the Constitution. Our history as America's oldest weekly journal of opinion has taught us that surveillance powers can easily become a threat to a free and open society.

In the brief filed today in the US District Court, we provide reasons for participating in this defense of our republic. Here are a few:

* Because of the nature of our work, The Nation's editors, columnists and contributors routinely engage in telephone and e-mail communications with individuals outside the US. These communications are vital to providing up-to-date, accurate information about emerging news stories and informing longer-range analytical articles on international topics. Some of the information exchanged by the Nation's editors, columnists and contributors through these communications constitutes "foreign intelligence information" as defined by the challenged law. For example, the Nation's staff members and contributing journalists routinely communicate by telephone or e-mail with political dissidents in other countries, foreign journalists in conflict zones, representatives of foreign government and individuals with connections to dissident political and social groups. Some of these communications relate to the involvement or alleged involvement of the US government or its allies abroad, or of the US military and its contractors, in repression and human rights abuses. Some of these communications relate to the subjects of terrorism, counterterrorism, or the foreign affairs of the US.

* We believe the challenged law undermines the ability of The Nation's editors, writers, contributors and staff to gather information that is critical to their work. The ability to communicate confidentially with sources is essential to journalists' work. Many of the people with whom the Nation's staff and contributors communicate will not share information if they believe that their identities cannot be kept confidential. Some of them fear retribution by their own governments; others fear retribution by the US government; still others fear persecution at the hands of terrorist groups. The risk that their identities will be revealed will lead some sources who otherwise would have shared information to decline to do so.

Specifically, we cite the work of our regular contributors Chris Hedges and Naomi Klein in our filing. Hedges, in his reporting on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the so-called war on terror regularly communicates with sources in countries like Palestine, Iran, Syria and Sudan. Klein, in her essential critique of the extension of radical free-market capitalism and the resurgence of imperial militarism, routinely communicates with journalists, political activists, human rights campaigners in the Middle East, South America, and around the world. Sadly, we believe that the communications critical to their reporting could and would be monitored under the FISA Amendments Act. Certainly scores of other journalists would shoulder the same risk.

We are proud, then, to join with other patriots who understand the government's legitimate interest in protecting the nation against terrorism can be fulfilled without sacrificing the constitutional liberties that make the US worth defending.

Comments (116)

1. Mrs. Vanden Heuvel, I am curious as to why you have permitted ALL of Mask's posts to be deleted, even those under his new nick Maskbeta. That seems extremely petty. Of course, I'm sure you have a reasonable explanation for all of us, right?

   Posted by Benchrest at 07/10/2008 @ 3:45pm

2. Thanks, Katrina, for the fine post on a very fine action being undertaken by The Nation.

   Kudos.

   I have been an avid Nation reader for many years now, and I much appreciate the best that The Nation has to offer. That being said, I also have been more disappointed of late than at any other time with some critical Nation positions.

   I believe that the severe nature of Barack Obama's recent panderings to the worst instincts of the Washington DC political culture demand a strong and principled response ASAP.

   More precisely, I believe that it is now incumbent upon The Nation --especially in light of Mr. Obama's disturbing cave-in on the FISA Ammendments Act among many such rapid and successive cave-ins over the last few weeks-- to make a well publicized retraction of the endorsement that was previously given to Barack Obama several months ago.

   As was so well described in the fantastic British documentary (viewable online) "The Century of the Self", we have entered an era of politics where leadership is at an extreme deficit, and our current crop of "leaders" now hire PR personal to run their shows more assiduously than they pursue the tough policy positions that are essential to the efficient running of a complex society.

   We are in deep trouble, and Obama appears to be part of the problem not part of the solution.

   It's time for The Nation to call his cards.

   Now.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:03pm

3. Good luck with the suit, KVH!

   Without any evidence that any of your reporter's conversations were monitored, it will be impossible to win on some "speculative" theory that your journalist talk to political dissidents on occasion.

   I am really conflicted on this.

   I HATE government spying on its citizens, but understand the political and security reality concerning the government's need to monitor those who are planning to harm Americans.

   Even these individuals have a right to their dissident views, and certainly have a right to communicate these views to journalists without snooping by our government. But when they communicate with others concerning terrorist schemes, we certainly should be monitoring THOSE conversations.

   Usually in wiretaps, you can monitor in intervals, and if the conversation during that interval appears harmless, the monitor is supposed to turn off until triggered by key words, like "bomb x building" or the next interval.

   I recall working for the Justice Department as a young law student and being on the losing end of a major drug smuggling and distribution case because of an illegal wiretap, where the FBI refused to turn off the monitor during the time between getting a new court order.

   I suspect the same issue exists with monitoring terrorists, in that trying to get court orders to cover all "ripe moments" is tough, especially with a backlog of requests before the court. This really is a resource issue, and I think if there were sufficient resources to handle routine wiretap requests of this sort, there wouldn't be a need to monitor without a warrant ever.

   The revised FISA bill seems to recognize this, and forces the government to seek court approval within one week in an "emergency" and "prior to" monitoring in a non-emergency. This is far better than what George Bush was doing previously, in which the Attorney General would determine on his own when there was a need for a warrant.

   It certainly is not a perfect bill, and I am personally upset that telecoms got off the hook - especially since some telecoms refused to go along with the government's warrantless scheme. But this is the best bill that one could get politically, so I think it is time to move on and trust that President Obama will have the power to allocate sufficient resources so that ALL wiretaps have prior court authorization.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2008 @ 4:06pm

4. bravo katrina! you are a courageous american, and i applaud you, the nation, the aclu, the eff, and most of all, glenn greenwald, who has been exhaustively covering this story for a long, long time......

   i hope this effort succeeds, but darla has decided that is time to leave the country. even if this lawsuit succeeds, it is abundantly clear that there are many americans, many of them with money and power, who will stop at nothing to create a universe in which i refuse to exist.

   so, i am off to canada, where i have family and friends. not because i hate america, the constitution, or even republicans. i am off to canada because.....i can. and also, because canadians are not having these sorts of ridiculous ideas like......torture, wiretapping, secret prisons, intelligent design (!), etc, etc, etc.

   i am tired of this place.....

   but, again, BRAVO to you katrina!

   p.s.. am really digging your recent appearances on television, especially the one in which you and ariana took on hugh "i live in constant fear of sharia law" hewitt. both you are ariana? oh, my, can we all have tea someday? come on, we're all the same age....

   Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:07pm

5. Time Warp test; letter to The Nation --take two:

   Thanks, Katrina, for the fine post on a very fine action being undertaken by The Nation.

   Kudos.

   I have been an avid Nation reader for many years now, and I much appreciate the best that The Nation has to offer. That being said, I also have been more disappointed of late than at any other time with some critical Nation positions.

   I believe that the severe nature of Barack Obama's recent panderings to the worst instincts of the Washington DC political culture demand a strong and principled response ASAP.

   More precisely, I believe that it is now incumbent upon The Nation --especially in light of Mr. Obama's disturbing cave-in on the FISA Ammendments Act among many such rapid and successive cave-ins over the last few weeks-- to make a well publicized retraction of the endorsement that was previously given to Barack Obama several months ago.

   As was so well described in the fantastic British documentary (viewable online) "The Century of the Self", we have entered an era of politics where leadership is at an extreme deficit, and our current crop of "leaders" now hire PR personal to run their shows more assiduously than they pursue the tough policy positions that are essential to the efficient running of a complex society.

   We are in deep trouble, and Obama appears to be part of the problem not part of the solution.

   It's time for The Nation to call his cards.

   Now.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:10pm

6. "This really is a resource issue"

   you seem to forget that very serious federal laws were broken. in fact, by my count, bush has committed 30 felonies related to this case.

   "This is far better than what George Bush was doing previously, in which the Attorney General would determine on his own when there was a need for a warrant"

   in which the attorney general......on his own??

   on his own??

   Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:11pm

7. After this, I am declaring that I no longer regard George Bush as the President, because he has criminally violated the Constitution and therefore no longer qualifies for the position.

   And as for "The McClellan Congress",my new name for our vacillating, hesitant, indecisive legislative branch (after the Union General), they are cowards.

   When the hell is someone going to stand up to this dictator?

   Posted by william.harry13 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:13pm

8. "so I think it is time to move on and trust that President Obama will have the power to allocate sufficient resources so that ALL wiretaps have prior court authorization"

   this is classic authoritarianism. even an intelligent person like mettyya has vested all of his trust in obama!

   should we really put our trust in *any* leader, no matter how hip, cool, witty, intelligent, savvy, personable.....or (gasp!) black?

   Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:14pm

9. "When the hell is someone going to stand up to this dictator?"

   precisely! and mettyya just refused that one!

   Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:14pm

10. it is time that we not only pressured bush even more, but that we also pressure obama. yes, O-B-A-M-A.

    we need to flood his office with phone calls. we need to flood his computer with angry e-mails.

    and.....we (we older, sensuous, curvy, crazy hippies) need to get the hell outta here in the process!

    besides, california is burning in flames, and there won't be any water after it's all over.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:16pm

11. Wow, Metteya really seems to have fallen for the whole permanent-state-of-war PR scheme launched by Rove to keep us in a constant state of fear! What's it like to be afraid all the time, Metsie?

    The "terrorists" of 9/11 are NO different from the Criminals who did the first Trade Center bombing, who were caught by a Criminal investigation, prosecuted in a Criminal proceeding, and are serving out a Criminal sentence! And THOSE investigators didn't need any sweeping new eavesdropping schemes! It is only the intentional strategy of the Bush/Cheney Fear-mongerers to keep Osama alive that has prevented the competent career investigators of the FBI from bringing those Criminals to Justice. Osama would be in a Federal Prison right now were it not for Bush, Gonzalez, et al.

    Posted by sjduskin at 07/10/2008 @ 4:17pm

12. Mask has been Censored?

    Absurd

    I call on all REAL Americans to protest this abomination by imperialist Nation autocrats and demand his re-instatement immediately.

    Frankly, he's been the most objective voice on here.

    FREE MASK! FREE MASK! FREE MASK!

    Posted by william.harry13 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:21pm

13. Full speed ahead!

    This action is vital for our Democracy, and necessary for the health of the commonwealth. The public trust must not be violated, and the American people need more legal protection, full disclosure of extents, and transparent assessment. We are not sure that this information is being gathered only for reasons of national security... this administration has proven time and time again that it is very willing to use the 'State apparatus' with politically manipulative objectives... and intellectual property issues lie far under the surface of this dangerous and not very constitutional bill.

    Picture the ship of American civil liberties out on the north Atlantic sea... at night... you know, the ship that would never sink... fast approaching this FISA iceberg... which lies hidden under the cloak of 'National Security'.

    We must guarantee the civil liberties of Americans... and... provide 'state of the art' security measures. Doing both of these together... while insuring that we do not create an atmosphere of 'selective enforcement'... which inevitably benefits some vested interest or other...

    Obama's hands may be tied on this one... but ours aren't.

    Posted by ttr at 07/10/2008 @ 4:21pm

14. Posted by sjduskin at 07/10/2008 @ 4:17pm

    WRONG, SJ!

    I abhor fear-mongering, and look forward to a new chapter in hope-mongering with Obama.

    I actually agree with you that the criminal wiretap provisions could be used the vast majority of the time. But these laws only cover Americans and FISA was intended to cover non-Americans.

    In both instances (FISA and Criminal courts) there are serious resource allocation issues. If there were sufficient judges available 24/7, then there would NEVER be a need for warrantless wiretapping.

    So I say attack the root cause of this problem by allocating sufficient resources, but in the interim there must be some mechanism to ensure that the court, not the government is supervising these wiretaps.

    This revised FISA bill attempts to provide this interim relief by REQUIRING the government to get a court order after one week in an emergency, and prior to wiretapping in a non-emergency.

    Is this ideal? No! But it is the best we can do in an election year until we solve the resource allocation problem.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2008 @ 4:27pm

15. well spoken ttr.....

    it really comes down to this: should we automatically trust our Leaders to be honest?

    the fact that the nation, and katrina especially, have kickstarted this campaign proves we should trust them, and not Our Leaders.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:27pm

16. mettyaa, the president, and by extension the attorney general, retains the ability to ignore or bypass court orders.

    therefore, court orders are not a requirement.

    second, the bill also removes the possibility of criminals (the telecoms) from being sued.

    now, shall we get started?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:30pm

17. the bill permits whole vacuum sweeps of international communications....so no individual permits are required.

    the belief is that the vacuum sweeps will save resources, right?

    but in the process of doing so, they are violating innocent americans....by the very fact that, in the sweep, both potential criminals (with solid evidence to boot) and innocent people would have personal data obtained....not just the criminals.

    the question remains: do you trust Your Leader to do what's right with your personal data?

    apparently, mettya thinks one should?

    ergo, mettya is merely carrying the authoritarian gene.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:33pm

18. by b_kool_66 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:10pm...

    Your 'one note' paranoia symphony' about Obama is seriously flawed, IMHO...

    Really... why do you go on and on with this fear based, negative speculatory... when the man is running for president in this world... among this status quo...

    Be careful not to hurt a good cause, K?

    Posted by ttr at 07/10/2008 @ 4:35pm

19. BEST LUCK!

    But let's not kind ourselves, Obama's hands have not been tied on this one. He had choices, and he chose to tack right.

    We have nothing but his rhetoric to indicate that he will do otherwise once elected. Substantively, he's now showing us that he's another Clinton, a triangulator, out to sell himself to The Owners, ultimately at our expense.

    Posted by sloper at 07/10/2008 @ 4:36pm

20. If the so-called "leaders" won't stand up for what's right then I am glad that The Nation and the ACLU will.

    Posted by Zero at 07/10/2008 @ 4:44pm

21. mettyaa, the president, and by extension the attorney general, retains the ability to ignore or bypass court orders.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 4:30pm

    Where did you read that in the revised FISA bill?

    The whole point of the revision was to eliminate that prospect!

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2008 @ 4:45pm

22. Metteyya - A word in favor, also in terms of Katrina supporting the need to get Obama elected. Mett's posts often mirror my views. So do Maskbeta's - I'm new here but please don't block his posts.

    I praise those who voted against the bill. But here is my take on Obama, for what it's worth. This government has been paralyzed by both the white house and the republics in the Senate and their inability to compromise. Obama is a concensus builder, and that requires compromise. He voted for amendments that took out immunity. I am disappointed in his cloture vote, but voting for the bill shows his ability to compromise when he doesn't get everything he wants. He promises us a government that works.

    Katrina - High praise for the lawsuit - the battle will be fought in the courts now. (Which is another reason to get Obama elected.)

    darladoon - I have not acknowledged the resident of the white house a president ever, and have driven carefully because I would flunk the part of the mental status exam that asks who the president is. And I wish I could go with you to Canada - good luck there.

    Posted by ramara at 07/10/2008 @ 4:58pm

23. Also; nobody can say that The Nation doesn't step right up to bat on big issues when there is no other route. Presumably media outlets like NYT face the same predicament (being spied on by the government) as a result of this terrible law just passed; where are they on the lawsuit? Nowhere to be found. It looks like The Nation is the only media outfit on the plaintiffs list in this lawsuit and that is a testimony to the character of the publication, and, yes, its staff and editorial and managerial leadership. So let's quit putting down this publication which is doing us the honor of fighting for our rights when our craven officeholders and deep-pockets private businesses all cave in.

    Posted by Zero at 07/10/2008 @ 5:08pm

24. Finally: someone needs to take a copy of the lawsuit paperwork, put it into a cardboard box, and drop it right on Obama's desk at his headquarters, with a title on the box cover Sharpie'd on: "Yes, *we* can! (Even if you won't!)"

    Posted by Zero at 07/10/2008 @ 5:11pm

25. Mask, you've been censored? Why? I've been reading your posts for an awfully long time, and I can't imagine a single reason to censor anything you've ever written. I mean, we all know trolls on these boards who are beyond offensive, but the best response to them is to confront them with the inanity of their own words. You don't fly in the same galaxy with the trolls. And besides, you write good stuff, easily understood by those with the ability to think and reason (obviously excluding the trolls here).

    Katrina, great job joining the ACLU on the lawsuit, and accept my thanks as, not just a US citizen, but more importantly, a human being. And please uncensor Mask.

    Posted by jmusolino at 07/10/2008 @ 5:35pm

26. 'Without any evidence that any of your reporter's conversations were monitored, it will be impossible to win on some "speculative" theory that your journalist talk to political dissidents on occasion.'

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/10/2008 @ 4:06pm | warn this person

    Don't think The Nation has to present evidence of actual monitoring, just demonstrate the potential for chilling effect on 4th Amendment, i.e, that they could be monitored and this will have negative effect on a journalist's sources of information, which in turn will have a chilling effect on free speech.

    Burden here is to overcome the government's so called interest (in protecting us against terrorism) by showing that the law, as drafted, causes more damage than good and a less restrictive means is available for the government to achieve its spying goals.

    I think the lawsuit(s)will be heard by Supreme Court and strict scrutiny standard should apply.

    "To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

    First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

    Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

    Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong."

    Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 07/10/2008 @ 5:36pm

27. Well so, that's the important thing here....that Mask has been censored? If that is so, its a waste of everybody's time...he has long been on my ignore list.

    And another thing...Barack Obama is not a social democrat, a Marxist-Leninist, an anarchist a socialist or any of that. He is a left leaning liberal...if that. I enthusiastically support him and his wonderful wife and children. I hope he gets elected...I can't wait to see how corporate media will respond...not to mention the die hard crackers, racists and extreme ethnocentrics will react. Probably have to double up on security.

    I believe that Barack Obama will do the best he can and will attempt to govern from a liberal...maybe even left liberal perspective. He will not be able to do so if progressives do not give him both a chance and give him critical support and work our asses off to move progressives and left folks in the movement to organize to both push and pull his administration in the right direction...that direction is left. When he graduated did he take a job as a prosecutor some where, did he join a corporate law school? No. He went to the South-side of Chicago! Ever hear of Saul Alinsky? I'm sure Barack has. He taught constitutional law as well. He at least understand what the conversation is about.

    I'm sticking with Barack Obama and I urge the Nation to do so as well...not uncritically but support never the less!

    Joseph

    Posted by outsideag at 07/10/2008 @ 6:19pm

28. Democrats and republicans are just a front, a smokscreen for the mechanisms of the real government which showed it's true hand in 9/11. So from this point on, there will be conflict with the govt. and the people while the government attempts to find various means of subjugating the meek.

    Posted by jimijazz at 07/10/2008 @ 6:44pm

29. outsideag-Censorship is quite important even if it's someone you ignore.That's a poor way to push Obama and hope that not all of his followers view censorship in the same way.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 7:07pm

30. Senator Obama is not the same guy I voted for in February. I started getting uncomfortable with a couple of his changes in the beginning but now I'm beginning to feel like I've been duped.

    The guy I voted for in February was:

    1. For getting out of Iraq within 16 months. Period! He said he was going to tell the Generals to come up with a plan to get us out of Iraq in 16 months. He was going to be Commander in Chief and not be told by his Generals what to do like George Bush.

    2. I watched the debate in Ohio, mostly about NAFTA. He was against it (It had to be re-negotiated to be fair to American workers) and chastised Hillary because Bill signed the bill. I don't live in Ohio but that was a big deal to the voters there and else where. Now that the primary is over he thinks NAFTA is good for America. I don't think so, and I'm getting ticked off with these changes.

    3. In the primaries Senator Obama pledged to take public financing in the general election. That sounded "refreshing"to me. He was going to "Change" the way politics was run in the past. Now it seems that pledge is gone out the window and he will spend what ever it takes. I want to win but I think he could have won by taking the public financing and still keeping his word.

    4. How can Senator Obama change his mind about the illegal act of surveillance on Americans, this so called "warrant less wiretapping"? This goes against the 4th Ament to our Constitution. Now he sign's the bill that he told us he was against. Senator Feingold, (D) who's on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees is totally against this legislation. I trust his opinion. This is still America and it's still Un-Constitutional!

    5. I don't understand why he signed the "Telecom Bill" to let the telephone companies off the hook for their part in this illegal wiretapping. Who convinced him to go against the "party majority" who wanted them held accountable for what they did. What's going on? Aren't we the majority in both the House and the Senate? Why should we be backing down and supporting this lawlessness?

    Senator Obama or those of you on his staff... I want you to know this is no way to run a campaign for CHANGE! I keep asking myself if the primaries had to be done over for some reason would you change your positions back again? We need this election. Don't jeopardize your credibility . We trusted you, and voted for you, but our trust in you is getting real thin lately and may not last forever. You need to be truth full with us about your opinions and policies.

    Posted by flvoter at 07/10/2008 @ 7:16pm

31. Some very valid, and obvious points are raised here. What really stuns and saddens me is that Obama seems like he did not seriously consider any of them before he gave his blessing and vote to the Bush Immunity Act of 2008 (I know they call it something else, but my title fits better). Anyway, I thought he was a different kind of politician, and it turns out he is just like any other pol willing to do or say anything to get into the Whitehouse. Which is something so many dems said applied to Hillary. Now after we've selected him, he morphs into someone willing to sell out the constitution just to prove his bi-partisan credentials.

    Good luck with the lawsuit because we all know now that the dems will/did give bush anything he wants.

    The constitution is sooooo pre 911.

    Posted by thromulese at 07/10/2008 @ 7:22pm

32. If the Nation is not practicing censorship then their participation in this is commendable.If they are practicing censorship then their participation would be pure hypocrisy since censorship proves that one finds freedom distasteful and won't care about wiretaps.Huffpo has proven their hypocrisy as "progressives" or "liberals" and are neither.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 7:24pm

33. I don't often take personal pleasure in seeing SCOTUS slap down a petitioner, but I must say it will be pleasurable to see this suit knocked down flatter than a pancake.

    So KVH and the Nation writers want the ability to engage in conversations with terrorists who might be plotting the death of US citizens and thus to deny the govt the right to track that activity.

    Sorry Katrina, I have no sympathy for your position.

    I prefer to allow my govt to defend the citizens of the US from harm. It's more important than your stories.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:25pm

34. My posts here are not appearing. I hope this one will. Maskdelta - gamma comes bifore delta.

    I stand with metteyya that we still have to get Obama elected. He has not changed position on getting out of Iraq. On the FISA bill, I am bothered by his cloture vote, but he voted for a compromise. I don't like it but if he is going to make the government work, he has to be able to compromise, which the current administration cannot fathom.

    darladoon - I haven't ever considered Bush to be president. Luckily I have not had to take a mental status exam, or I would flunk the question about who is president. Good luck in Canada - wish I could join you.

    Katrina - Bravo, and good luck in the lawsuit. This issue may have to be fought in the courts.

    Posted by ramara at 07/10/2008 @ 7:35pm

35. lvliberty-no one is trying to stop the govt from listening to calls made by terrorists nor is anyone trying to hinder that ability.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 7:37pm

36. I cannot understand the censoring of Mask by the Nation. Unless there is something that we bloggers have not been able to see, this makes the protestations of the Nation ring hollow when they take an action like this.

    I may disagree in most cases with Mask; and I certainly find him obnoxious at times, but free speech seems too important for petty actions like this by the Nation.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:43pm

37. lvliberty-no one is trying to stop the govt from listening to calls made by terrorists nor is anyone trying to hinder that ability.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 7:37pm

    Actually they are and that is stated in Katrina's posting about the lawsuit. You just have to read it

    "* Because of the nature of our work, The Nation's editors, columnists and contributors routinely engage in telephone and e-mail communications with individuals outside the US. These communications are vital to providing up-to-date, accurate information about emerging news stories and informing longer-range analytical articles on international topics. Some of the information exchanged by the Nation's editors, columnists and contributors through these communications constitutes "foreign intelligence information" as defined by the challenged law. For example, the Nation's staff members and contributing journalists routinely communicate by telephone or e-mail with political dissidents in other countries, foreign journalists in conflict zones, representatives of foreign government and individuals with connections to dissident political and social groups. Some of these communications relate to the involvement or alleged involvement of the US government or its allies abroad, or of the US military and its contractors, in repression and human rights abuses. Some of these communications relate to the subjects of terrorism, counterterrorism, or the foreign affairs of the US."

    They talk to people who hate this country.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

38. If aunt Suzi is talking about her apple pie, I don't think it will attract much intrest. BUT if Mr Yusef is talking to someone in a cave in Afganistan I want every sound recorded without restriction. I do not understand what is so complicated about this. The Nation and the ACLU are either myopic or on the side of people who want to cut our throats if given half a chance. How many of you have seen the Berg murder? Take a look sometime and then say those people who did it didn't really mean it.

    Posted by pyeatte at 07/10/2008 @ 7:56pm

39. They talk to people who hate this country.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

    Given the blindness you live your life in...

    would there be ANY point in asking why you think those who care about our Constitutional rights "hate our country"?

    Or are you just so far gone in your authoritarian mind-set that it's too late?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 8:31pm

40. Yeah, let's fight the government's ability to listen on the phone calls of people who want to kill Americans.

    Hey, I have an idea. Let's stop checking bags at the airport as well....because that's an invasion of my privacy!

    Posted by jimmylove at 07/10/2008 @ 8:34pm

41. Posted by jimmylove at 07/10/2008 @ 8:34pm

    So jimmy ...you're that rare conservative who fully and totally trusts the Government?

    I mean if you accept that "they'll ONLY listen to terrorists".....you're quite trusting.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 9:04pm

42. They talk to people who hate this country.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

    Given the blindness you live your life in...

    would there be ANY point in asking why you think those who care about our Constitutional rights "hate our country"?

    Or are you just so far gone in your authoritarian mind-set that it's too late?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/10/2008 @ 8:31pm

    Welcome back. I missed you.

    I have a different take than you. I don't think this is about the Nation's concern over Constitutional rights as much as they want to ensure access to people who hate us.

    THUS, I DID NOT SAY THE NATION MAGAZINE HATES OUR COUNTRY...PLEASE READ BEFORE TYPING.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 9:09pm

43. So jimmy ...you're that rare conservative who fully and totally trusts the Government?

    I mean if you accept that "they'll ONLY listen to terrorists".....you're quite trusting.

    Posted by Maskdelta

    Frankly, I could care less if they listen to my phone calls, because I'm not doing anything wrong and I don't communicate with suspected terrorists overseas. Just like I don't mind if they search my bags, wand me, or pat me down at the airport. It's for my own protection.

    Sorry to bruise your ego Maskdelta, but the government probably doesn't care about your phone calls. They're not trying to indulge in the sultry phone sex you might be having with your partner or trying to catch you buying a little grass from your neighbor...they are trying to foil terrorist plots.

    Do I "trust" the government to always do the right thing? Of course not...that's why I'm a limited government conservative. That government which governs best governs least. But I also understand the ultimate intention of both searching bags at the airport and listening in on international phone calls with people of interest: TO PROTECT US!

    Elitist liberals and pampered & privileged KVH can armchair quarterback this thing all they want from the friendly confines of theoretical fantasyland, but what I care most about is the scoreboard: we have not been attacked since 911. Do you think that is because there has been no effort on the part of terrorists? Do you think it's coincidence? Luck? I sure don't. This is a situation where the ends justify the means.

    Posted by jimmylove at 07/10/2008 @ 9:23pm

44. Posted by jimmylove at 07/10/2008 @ 9:23pm

    Well said and welcome to the small group of libertarian conservatives that battle the left here.

    Your comments are absolutely right and are thus anathema to Mask and the other liberals here.

    Mask in particular has this very strange political philosophy; he is a liberal who dislikes everyone including liberals. But he will still be the loyal Democrat because he understands that politics isn't perfect-

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 9:30pm

45. The alleged "war on terror" is a complete fraud, a cover for illegal political motives and foreign policy schemes . 9-11 would not have happened if not for the complicity of the neocon lunatics in our government, and specifically the religiously deranged imbeciles in the administration. The FISA Amendments are the politically motivated spawn of this illegitimacy that has become "en vogue" in the u.s. government. Americans, exercise your legal right to destroy the irrational, destructive three-headed monster of imperialism, militarism and religionism in its tracks now.

    Posted by NukularProficy at 07/10/2008 @ 9:38pm

46. If I understand FISA, according to my law friend, it makes criminal behavior legal. Why does congress insist on legalizing criminal behavior and are we guilty since we elected these guys?

    Posted by julien38 at 07/10/2008 @ 9:43pm

47. "Yeah, let's fight the government's ability to listen on the phone calls of people who want to kill Americans. Hey, I have an idea. Let's stop checking bags at the airport as well....because that's an invasion of my privacy!"

    is it any wonder why we're having this debate in the first place?

    the above statement perfectly encapsulates the mentality of supporters of this bill. that, "hey, i haven't done anything wrong, who cares if they listen to terrorists."

    yeah, right. if this were true, then that would imply that all americans should simply *trust* the government to only listen to the "bad guys" and not the "good guys" (like MLK).....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 9:45pm

48. Let's also remove all surveillance cameras from airports, train stations, gas stations, convenience stores, malls, supermarkets, parking lots, and office buildings...because they are watching the good guys as well as the bad guys. That's not fair. Wahhh! Wahhh! I feel so violated!

    Posted by jimmylove at 07/10/2008 @ 9:56pm

49. Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 9:45pm

    Why do you care? You're moving to Canada. Way to bale.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/10/2008 @ 9:56pm

50. Fascinating.......

    Libs want Big Gov't to take care of everything but have no comprehension what that means.

    If my adult kid wants me to take care of everything, I want to know everything........tell me I'm just old-fashioned....heheheh!

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/10/2008 @ 10:16pm

51. I'm confused. We had plenty of intelligence before 9/11 - we knew about foreigners taking flying lessons not caring about taking off or landing. We had an informant living with 2 of the hijackers. And besides the "buzz" don't forget the memo that bin Laden wanted to attack us here. We stopped one of them with a box cutter and let him on the airplane. We had names on the no-fly list.

    We had that kind of intelligence, just not the brain kind.

    So I don't understand why we need to listen to more conversations and get more info to pay no attention to. And we still don't inspect cargo coming into our ports. It's more important to spy on phone calls. And who were they spying on before 9/11?

    Posted by ramara at 07/10/2008 @ 11:00pm

52. "Let's also remove all surveillance cameras from airports, train stations, gas stations, convenience stores, malls, supermarkets, parking lots, and office buildings...because they are watching the good guys as well as the bad guys. That's not fair. Wahhh! Wahhh! I feel so violated!"

    Good point, sort of. Less than a century ago we did not have such intrusive surveillance devices, and amazingly "terrorism" was not an issue. Do you have the intelligence to understand why? Maybe we should remove the surveillance devices and change/legitimize our foreign policy? Is that so hard to comprehend?

    Posted by NukularProficy at 07/10/2008 @ 11:15pm

53. mask was nuked? hard to imagine, in a crowd that easily verges on the obnoxious, mask is certainly one of the least offensive in terms of general crappy attitude, a super-surplus of which can be found here (and yes sometimes I am guilty.)

    Posted by Zero at 07/10/2008 @ 11:20pm

54. if mask has been nuked, then i guess i am on the "free mask" bandwagon. i didn't get along with the guy, but he hardly took the cake in terms of either stupidity (he isn't stupid at all) or rudeness (jesus there are much ruder here). so i'll have to buy the t-shirt and write my representative: free mask now!

    Posted by Zero at 07/10/2008 @ 11:27pm

55. benchrest, i can still fight fascism from abroad....

    does it really matter where i live?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2008 @ 12:04am

56. mettyaa,

    from greenwald:

    "....the surveillance program implemented by Congress yesterday does not merely authorize most of the President's so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" that gave rise to this scandal in the first place, but is actually much broader in scope even than that lawless program, because there is not even any requirement in the new FISA law that the "target" of the surveillance have any connection whatsoever to Terrorism, nor is there any requirement that the Government believe the "target" is an agent of a foreign power or terrorist organization, or even guilty of any wrongdoing at all"

    there is NO requirement that the government believe the target is suspicious.....

    and georgetown law professor lederman adds:

    "The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location, without making any showing to a court and without judicial oversight, whether or not the communication has anything to do with al Qaeda -- indeed, even if there is no evidence that the communication has anything to do with terrorism, or any threat to national security"

    the president has already attempted, many times over, to immunize himself from accountability vis a vis a theory of presidential power outlined by john yoo, which states that the president, in any circumstances he deems appropriate, can bypass congressional oversight (i.e. the law of the land) and do whatever he pleases.

    what makes you think that bush would never abuse his new powers?

    Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2008 @ 12:12am

57. Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2008 @ 12:04am

    A little, but family and friends trump all this other stuff. Punch Frosty in the arm for me.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/11/2008 @ 12:16am

58. Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2008 @ 12:04am

    Make him play you a song by Nickelback. He loves that stuff.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/11/2008 @ 12:17am

59. "So I don't understand why we need to listen to more conversations and get more info to pay no attention to. And we still don't inspect cargo coming into our ports. It's more important to spy on phone calls. And who were they spying on before 9/11?"

    Very good grasshopper! Why? Because information is power. Information allows the information gate-keepers to craft subversive plans, identify the so-called "enemies", formulate false-flag operations, and manipulate the masses in order to achieve their self-serving, illegal political schemes. It's nothing more than a game of deception.

    Posted by NukularProficy at 07/11/2008 @ 02:13am

60. Senator Obama's vote on FISA is inexplicable to me. I have written to his campaign asking for an explanation of his rationale; so far ... silence. I would urge The Nation to pursue an answer to this question.

    Posted by lewweinstein at 07/11/2008 @ 03:59am

61. After listening to Glen Greenwald last night I have modified my position on the FISA bill slightly.

    Barak Obama is a liar, plain and simple. He said in campaign speeches that he would not only never vote for tel-com immunity for illegal spying but that he would filibuster any legislation that granted immunity. He LIED, period!

    George bush violated his oath of office, and now so has Obama. We will once again be given the choice of the lessor of 2 weevils in November. It will be difficult for me to vote for Obama after this cowardly capitulation to the fear mongers and those he expects to receive donations from. I want a president that knows what obeying the law means.

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2008 @ 08:25am

62. As some one who has campaigned for and contributed to his candidacy (almost every month since the formation of his exploratory committee), I have been feeling betrayed, deeply insulted and physically sick since Sen. Obama announced his support for the clear and obvious denigration of the our constitutional rights that the FISA bill represents. I can not fathom how someone who can take a principled position on gas-tax completely capitulates to the demand for fascist-like power from one of the most unpopular president! Sen. Obama may have "taught" constitutional law, but his understanding of the importance of the rights to citizens asserted in the constitution are nothing but dismal. It must raise concern among his supporters: on what other issues will he betray the people next?

    When the Nation endorsed Sen. Obama, I congratulated the decision. I did hope that this time I will vote for someone willingly, and not because I am dragged to it. So I, like many others, yet again have to choose between lesser of two evils: McCain WILL start another war, and Obama MAY do so if he finds it politically convenient (i.e., "needs" to look tough)! I am glad to see that Sen. Clinton has opposed this bill, but I can not be sure if it is also not an opportunist move on her part: she did say that she would annihilate Iran! Except for a few, I have no reason to assume that the Democratic Party leaders would be anything but a bunch of spineless cowards. The need for a progressive coalition has never been so painfully obvious, but I am not holding my breath for it.

    I am very glad that the Nation has joined ACLU and others to contest FISA in the courts. And yes, we will have to take this fight to the streets!

    Posted by M. siddique at 07/11/2008 @ 09:27am

63. A lot of conservatives here seem to have embraced the Soviet version of personal liberty: make sure you're too unimportant for the government to care about and you won't have to worry about your liberty. We have these rights encoded in our constitution for a reason.

    By the way, the article has an unclear modifier in its title. I'm guessing that you're saying it's the wiretapping that is warrantless.

    Posted by magh at 07/11/2008 @ 09:46am

64. This program is unconstitutional. Federal Judges have already ruled it as such in several recent cases and now that they lost in court, the president and his telcom buddies want to change the law, after the fact!

    Posted by digit at 07/11/2008 @ 10:00am

65. "Finally, D.L.S. claims that he has standing under the more lenient standing requirements applicable to cases raising facial challenges on First Amendment overbreadth grounds. See, e.g., Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 129 (1992). Although plaintiffs bringing overbreadth challenges are not always required to show that their own First Amendment rights have been violated (as opposed to the rights of third parties), they still must show that they themselves have suffered some cognizable injury from the statute. See Ward, 321 F.3d at 1267 ("A plaintiff bringing a facial challenge to a statute on First Amendment grounds, however, must nonetheless establish an injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement."); Am. Library Ass'n. v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (even facial overbreadth challenges require some showing of concrete injury). D.L.S. has not established such an injury. In addition, we have required that plaintiffs asserting standing on an overbreadth theory must show that the statute censors or chills third parties whose speech is more likely to be protected by the First Amendment than the plaintiff's own speech. Faustin, 268 F.3d at 948-49, citing Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 801 (1984). In Faustin, we held that a plaintiff lacks standing under the "overbreadth doctrine" where the plaintiff offers no explanation of how the statute inhibits the speech of third parties, but instead focuses solely on the argument that the statute unconstitutionally inhibits his own speech. Id. ("The overbreadth doctrine does not apply where there is no significant difference between the claim that the ordinance is invalid because of overbreadth and the claim that it is unconstitutional when applied to the plaintiff's own activities."). D.L.S. has similarly focused on the unconstitutionality of the statute as applied to his own conduct and has not demonstrated that the ordinance applies to any third party's conduct that would be more likely to be protected by the First Amendment. D.L.S. therefore has failed to establish standing under First Amendment overbreadth standing requirements."

    See DLS v. State of Utah (D.C. No. 2:02-CV-565 DAK)

    ACLU maintains that the current suit will will be easier to prosecute because now there is a "law" on the books to challenge.

    The disturbing decision of the Supreme Court in past litigation and the Catch 22 nature of a classified program is really, really disturbing.

    "Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit Supreme Court decision doesn't explain reason for turning down appeal The Associated Press updated 11:40 a.m. PT, Tues., Feb. 19, 2008 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

    The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

    The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.

    "It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."

    The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.

    The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.

    ACLU says it's caught in 'Catch-22' situation A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.

    The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.

    ACLU officials described the situation as a "Catch-22" because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.

    A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.

    In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.

    A separate lawsuit against telecommunications companies that have cooperated with the government is pending in the San Francisco-based appeals court. A U.S. district court also is examining whether the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States violates the law that regulates the wiretapping of suspected terrorists and requires the approval of a secret court.

    The administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

    The ACLU, in urging the justices to consider its case, said that because the administration voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping, it could easily restart it.

    The administration acknowledged the existence of the program in late 2005, after the New York Times published an article about it.

    The White House said the monitoring was necessary because the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act left dangerous gaps in the government's eavesdropping authority.

    Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.

    Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue.

    Existing wiretaps can continue and any new surveillance the government wants to institute has to follow the FISA rules, which could require court warrants.

    The case is ACLU v. NSA, 07-468.

    Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

    Posted by OneVote at 07/11/2008 @ 10:15am

66. >>But I also understand the ultimate intention of both searching bags at the airport and listening in on international phone calls with people of interest: TO PROTECT US!<<

    ROTFLMAO!

    Do you really think that am untrained, $10.00hr, private sec. guard who doesn't know how to pick the US on a map can protect anything? LOL!

    Once again, for the comprehension challenged here: the FISA program, as it stood pre-Bush dictatorship, gave powers to monitor any and all communication with a Fed. Judge approval and proper disclosure and supervision. If you have nothing to hide, why was that no good enough? There hasn't been ONE case in which a Judge refused or delayed monitoring, where evidence was real and not fabricated that such action was warranted.

    We don't need MORE intelligence to sort out. WE had plenty before 9/11 - including a detailed report on how terrorist may be planning to attack using hijacked planes flown into target. What we do need is competent people who place the oath of office and the oath to protect OUR Country and OUR Constitution BEFORE corporate profits.

    The so called 'conservatives' here say they are for little government, what a joke! Yes, little government spying on its citizens without warrant, little government breaking down your house door without warrants, etc...

    The war on terrorism is a scam, much like the war on drugs.

    Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power,

    People who are scared of either terrorist or drugs should take a course in lighting, so as to learn not to be afraid of their own shadow...

    The boogie man is NOT coming to get ya!

    Posted by digit at 07/11/2008 @ 10:31am

67. jimmylove-History teaches that people who say things like-"I don't mind if they listen in on my calls because I'm not doing anything wrong" and who say things like -"I don't mind having cameras everywhere" are the worlds most naive and dangerous people because you are types who allow people like Hitler and Islamists to come into power.History,also,teaches that one does not have to feel that they are doing something wrong in order to be arrested,tortured,imprisoned,or executed.It just matters that someone else thinks that you are doing something wrong.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2008 @ 10:35am

68. jimmylove-I made a response to you that is on here,but out of place.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 07/11/2008 @ 10:38am

69. I want a president that knows what obeying the law means. Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2008 @ 08:25am

    A fair, reasonable & worthy demand in a democratic republic.

    But not in an empire.

    Posted by sloper at 07/11/2008 @ 10:53am

70. I want a president that knows what obeying the law means. Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2008 @ 08:25am

    A fair, reasonable & worthy demand in a democratic republic.

    But not in an empire.

    Posted by sloper at 07/11/2008 @ 10:56am

71. Jimmylove, Lvl, Happy, if you want to give up your own 4th Amendment rights, or any other rights, then by all means, do so. The catch is this - you don't get to give up mine, or anyone else's in the process. Your government, the administration for which each of you likely voted, and more than once, is a far greater threat to this country, to that which is supposed to be "America", than is some bunch of glorified Middle Eastern gangsters. Giving up your rights will not gain you an additional nanosecond over and above your allotment in this life. All it will do is to insure that, when you die, your knees will be a lot sorer from living on them.

    Posted by jmusolino at 07/11/2008 @ 12:07pm

72. Thank you KVH and The Nation, for fighting the good fight.

    Posted by jro555 at 07/11/2008 @ 12:25pm

73. Hypothetical situation/question for the liberal males here: Suppose the police knock on your door one day and tell you that they had just conclusively determined by listening to a phone call that someone in your neighborhood was plotting to rape and kill your wife. The neighbor was a man who you were suspicious of, with sketchy friends and connections to dangerous criminals, but who hadn't broken the law yet. The police got a tip and felt there was so imminent that there was no time for a warrant. It was a difficult decision but they preferred to err on the side of caution.

    Would you thank God that the plot was uncovered, hope that he was in custody, and hope that the charges stick?

    Or would you cry that your neighbor's constitutional rights were violated, sue the police, publicly call the police chief a criminal, and call the ACLU on behalf of the man who intended to do your family harm?

    Posted by jimmylove at 07/11/2008 @ 1:06pm

74. This action alone makes my subscription to the Nation worth every cent. (Priceless?)

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/11/2008 @ 1:42pm

75. This action alone makes my subscription to the nation worthwhile. ( maybe even priceless!) You might ask for contributions to support the Lawsuit?

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/11/2008 @ 1:58pm

76. Posted by darladoon at 07/11/2008 @ 12:12am

    You are now raising a different issue, but even on that issue, Greenwald and Lederman are not being totally honest.

    You really should read the text of the Act for yourself rather than rely on lawyers or law professors who have their own agenda.

    You can find the text to the revised FISA Act here:

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080619_fisapromise.htm

    The revised FISA Act REQUIRES the government to apply for a warrant and make a SHOWING OF PROBABLE CAUSE that the target IS a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an employee of a foreign power.

    There is not a requirement that the target be part of Al Qaeda or terrorism because this is a GENERAL statute that authorizes a wide range of spying on foreign activities, and Professor Lederman KNOWS that this sort of general spying has been authorized by the United States since its inception.

    The revised ACT also PROTECTS American journalists and specifically forbids the use of any information against a journalist conversing with a target, unless it is to protect the life of another or serious bodily harm against another. First Amendment activities are specifically protected in the Act.

    Here are some of the relevant sections from the Act that refute Greenwald and Lederman, but don't take my word for it, READ IT YOURSELF!

    ‘‘(c) ORDER. ‘‘(1) FINDINGS.--Upon an application made pursuant to subsection (b), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified by the Court approving the acquisition if the Court finds that-- ‘‘(A) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General; ‘‘(B) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant, for the United States person who is the target of the acquisition, there is prob able cause to believe that the target is ‘‘(i) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and ‘‘(ii) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;

    ‘‘(2) PROBABLE CAUSE.--In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) may consider past activities of the target and facts and circumstances relating to cur rent or future activities of the target. No United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    ‘‘(4) USE OF INFORMATION.--If an application for approval submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) is denied, or in any other case where the acquisition is terminated and no order is issued approving the acquisition, no information obtained or evidence derived from such acquisition, except under circumstances in which the target of the acquisition is determined not to be a United States person, shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such acquisition shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

    STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. ‘‘(a) JURISDICTION AND SCOPE. ‘‘(1) JURISDICTION.--The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order pursuant to subsection (c). ‘‘(2) SCOPE.--No element of the intelligence community may intentionally target, for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information, a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States under circumstances in which the targeted United States person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required if the acquisition were conducted inside the United States for law enforcement purposes, unless a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has entered an order with respect to such targeted United States person or the Attorney General has authorized an emergency acquisition pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), respectively, or any other provision of this Act.

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/11/2008 @ 2:25pm

77. Posted by OneVote at 07/10/2008 @ 5:36pm

    The target of the monitoring is a foreign power, agent, or employee of a foreign power, and therefore does not have any free speech rights under the US constitution.

    The American journalist's free speech rights are specifically protected in the Act, and the information from monitoring the targeted communication cannot be used against Americans unless it is necessary to protect the life of another person or serious bodily harm from being done to another person.

    READ THE ACT!

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM104_080619_fisapromise.htm

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/11/2008 @ 2:33pm

78. Who knows what nation, ethnic grouping or religious creed will be on this governments list of "undesirables" now or in future? I'm with the Nation & Katrina 100%. We don't want "freedom fried" here in the USA.

    Posted by Sorelish at 07/11/2008 @ 2:40pm

79. Way to go. I applaude your efforts. I recently returned from studying abroad in England for two years. Since I talked to family members back in the US on a regualr basis, and exchanged emails, I can't help but wonder if the government listened in on conversations between me and my loved ones. As an American citizen, I can't help but feel violated.

    Posted by swarming21 at 07/11/2008 @ 3:09pm

80. Thank you, Katrina! Some of you people really terrify me--I wish I could afford to go to Canada--cant sell my house! (Or better-Scandanavia)To digit(Joseph)-I am SO tired of people who think that anyone who doesnt totally "support Obama and his wonderful wife and children" (you support his kids??)is a "die hard cracker, racist and extreme ethnocentrist"--you would be wrong! I am a proud Socialist who does not like having my rights violated and am also a social worker, so i am totally unimpressed by "perfect nuclear family" whites, blacks, reds?? I WANT HEALTH CARE!! I want , at least , REGULATUION of CAPITALISM ( which is evil and killing the planet). My working-class neighbors want regulation, no moreFTA, health care, child care, good public schools, free public college, and SOMEONE to stick it to these cheating-arse "mortgage-lenddrs". If people continue om this "they';re all stupid crackers" stuff--you might lose--then, we all lose. But, you'll be OK as an attorney, right? You almost sound like you just want to vote for an Af.Am. for the sake of voting for an Af. Am. That's OK , I guess, but that makes you "not a racist" how?? After 8 yrs. of Dubya, I expected better--call me crazy?! No. Just pissed off. Also, to metteyya--the key words in your post are "supposed to". Suppposed to. Oh, I'm sure they will, Oh, naive one

    Posted by kdelphi95 at 07/11/2008 @ 8:15pm

81. "jimmylove" The "situation" you name is NOT totally hypothetical--its a copy of the one asked of Dukakis!! And it's stil stupid. If they said that, I would know better, because I make it a point to know my neighbors, keep tabs on my partner and dont trust the cops. I realize that living in a free society poses some risks. I accept that risk. Personally, I speak as one who knows--and the cops didnt do CRAP! They could have--they just didnt. He's in prison now. If they'd listened to me, maybe one young mentally disabled girl would have not had a horrible life. WHY would you trust the police so much?

    Posted by kdelphi95 at 07/11/2008 @ 8:31pm

82. This is great, but will it really work? Or will it just be another notch in the Bush Administration's belt? Sorry for the pessimism.

    Posted by kilgoretrout9835 at 07/11/2008 @ 9:32pm

83. Ban Mask?

    You're not really gonna make me say nice things about him are you?

    I HATE when that happens!

    OK...holding nose...

    Free MASK! Free MASK!

    (pretty sure I've made more offensive posts than Mask ever has. Not as annoying maybe...but still...odd...and un-Nation-like).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 07/11/2008 @ 10:06pm

84. Thank you Katrina Vanden Heuvel and The Nation writers for your unyielding dedication to quality journalism at time in history when Americans desperately need honest information.

    I want to send a special thank you to Naomi Klein whose work has had a significant impact on how I view and understand the world.

    Posted by SandyFeet at 07/11/2008 @ 10:24pm

85. That the FISA amendments aren't about improved security is certain. Information can be included in many different types of files, not just email. In order to intercept a "terrorist" communication, one would need to analyse every file at every web location at every moment. Eliminating the need for judicial approval only serves to make "after the fact" "witch hunts" possible, while enabling the gathering of "other" information. The inclusion of immunity only reaffirms suspicions of guilt. It is grossly hypocritical for those that expect others to be law abiding can't be so themselves.

    Posted by Mittineague at 07/11/2008 @ 11:39pm

86. National security needs must always be balanced with civil liberties and ours is not the first (somewhat) democratic society that's grappled with this dilemma. However, irrespective of the nature and risk of a potential threat to a country, no such country would be wise to grant its government unrestrained, or mostly unrestrained authority to ignore fundamental constitutional civil rights. Unfortunately, the ambiguities contained in the FISA bill make it rife for abuse, and as we already know, it would be dangerous and foolhardy to permanently grant such powers to the Executive and related Judicial branches, especially considering the "quasi fascist" tendencies we've seen from the Bush administration. A truly democratic society must resist any and all attempts by a public or private entity to "spy" on its population in secret and with immunity.

    Posted by blustigson at 07/11/2008 @ 11:43pm

87. I gladly signed the petition at the ACLU in support of this suit. Thanks to all those at The Nation for their efforts to protect our rights.

    Posted by ThePansyBastard™ at 07/12/2008 @ 12:02am

88. Every night at bedtime, I say goodnight to my family... and then to George... and Dick... and Keith... and the Michaels... and finally, one big goodnight to anybody else who may be listening in. Then I pray for more organizations like The Nation and ACLU. You're the last best hope for this country. And you will have my undying gratitude and support.

    Posted by wbramh at 07/12/2008 @ 12:46am

89. So, KvH (and everyone else at the Nation),

    Do you still support Obama? Hate to say told ya so, but this is what Democrats do. Posture as progressive then keep moving right.

    Why not stop trying to patch what hasn't worked for generations (the Democratic Party and a 2 party only system) and vote for Nader, the only truly honest candidate who supports a progressive agenda? Let's support it "from the ground up" as Obama once said inspiring so much enthusiasm, now only ringing hollow?

    Get Nader on the ballot in New York State. Stop the silencing of citizen voices and rights. We are collecting signatures this weekend. Show up at Union Square this weekend to sign our ballot access petition and go to

    www.votenader.org

    Posted by tshirttt at 07/12/2008 @ 01:45am

90. About time, Vanden Heuvel. To put your money where your mouth is.

    Posted by chinpoko at 07/12/2008 @ 03:53am

91. First of all, congratulations to The Nation on joining the ACLU suit. I've signed the petition and upped my monthly contribution to the ACLU to help support the court fight. Even though I live in Canada, I am an American citizen who is dismayed, distraught and disheartened at what has happened to the country I love under Bush, Cheney and Co.

    I signed your petition and increased my monthly donation to the ACLU to help fund the court fight.

    As both an independent investigative journalist and progressive blogger, I've also experienced first hand the lengths the Bush administration will go to in misusing the power of government to stifle dissent. As a result of an article I published in 2005, my phones have been tapped, my home entered when I was not there and files were rifled, my neighbors approached by vaguely identified "officials" asking about me and, from time to time, my life made made terrifying by Washington.

    And I'm not even close to being a "high value" target.

    Just yesterday, an about to be published book quotes the International Committee of the Red Cross as having warned the CIA that the US is committing war crimes at Guantanamo Bay and that the nation's leadership is liable to prosecution in the International Criminal Court if the US does not bring charges against a list including George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales and others.

    The new FISA bill is just another step the current administration has taken on its long-planned road to facism. On behalf of every American, regardless of where we live, may you prevail in blocking this horrid piece of legislation.

    Posted by TheCurmudgeon at 07/12/2008 @ 07:10am

92. They talk to people who hate this country. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

    How often do they call you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/12/2008 @ 07:52am

93. They talk to people who hate this country. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

    How often do they call you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/12/2008 @ 07:53am

94. They talk to people who hate this country. Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

    How often do they call you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/12/2008 @ 07:54am

95. (third attempt to get this in the right place, according to time stamps)

    "They talk to people who hate this country. "-Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/10/2008 @ 7:50pm

    How often do they call you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/12/2008 @ 07:59am

96. I heartily applaud The Nation's efforts. Do I understand that Senator Obama voted for this legislation? If so, I am mightly disappointed. And one further point:

    > Hedges ... regularly communicates with sources in countries like Palestine, Iran, Syria and Sudan.

    I am not aware of a soverign nation called "Palestine." I prefer not to use that antiquated term, a Roman artifact. How about "Eretz Yisrael"?

    Posted by theremin at 07/12/2008 @ 08:19am

97. Thank you, Nation! At last, someone standing up to the attack on our constitution.

    Unfortunately, Congress seems to have forgotten its purpose and has lost its way. Let's remind them:

    Section 3, Article 1, US Constitution: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

    Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

    Most people think that the first power given to Congress is to law taxes. Nope. It is the power of impeachment. The illegal, warrant-less spying that even PRECEDED 9/11 is just the sort of action that begs for impeachment. When our democrats in office have spines that could be used in Jello advertising, it is left to patriotic groups like the Nation and ACLU to protect and preserve our constitution.

    Thanks and good luck. If anyone wishes to support this litigation, google ACLU and donate!

    and donate!

    Posted by AGNOSTIC at 07/12/2008 @ 11:02am

98. It seems to me that we are in this state because too many of us were asleep at the wheel or allowing ourselves to be distracted by the daily grind, the lure of thing upon thing, and the false sense of separation all of which do a good job of leveraging our weakest attributes, ignorance, greed and fear. So what are we going to do about it? Yes we should monitor the legislation that comes out of Washington and work to permeate all of our systems with the ways of justice and peace. This election is about conscious citizens realizing and acting on their responsibilities to create a sustainable world. This and many other things happening now are the struggle to hold on to a collapsing structure. It is time to work together for shared betterment. Obama and Reid have stated that they are not happy with and will also work to strike immunity from this bill; compromise is not complacency.

    Posted by Jian at 07/12/2008 @ 11:28am

99. posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 07/10/2008 @ 3:36pm

    Well Mrs. vanden Heuvel, I see that all of Mask's old posts are back and everything is as it was. Thank you. That was a very nice gesture. Cheers!

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/12/2008 @ 1:29pm

100. Ah, I see FG is no longer with us.

     Posted by Benchrest at 07/12/2008 @ 1:35pm

101. Bravo for the lawsuit...

     Bravo to the International Red Cross for determining that the things that the US used to call torture are still torture now that the US does it routinely. http://tinyurl.com/57n8gn

     Bravo to the Nation for getting time stamps back on the blog. (Now if they'd just stay in time order ... and add the <b>HTML support</b> back in...)

     Fie on a ban of Mask. Anyone who doesn't want to listen has the right to "ignore". Personally I think his constant "devil's advocate" at times provided a useful service.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 07/12/2008 @ 4:36pm

102. For those who say that with this FISA legislation Democrats reached the best compromise they could, a decent compromise, is for them to acquiesce to losing their right to being free in their "papers and other effects," their right to due process and habeas corpus, and enable our further decline as a republic. Shame on anyone who compromises away liberty for the sake of coming to terms with opposing views that smack of monarchy and autocracy. Including Obama, what Democrats have done is capitulated to something worse than Tories: right wing neocons who demand legitimate tools for furthering their hell bent destruction of inalienable rights here and abroad in order to run their imperialist war games and colonizations: let us not mince words. They have given license to those who wreak havoc on our Constitution, jeapordizing expression of free speech. Our Founders went to war over search and seizure; those who signed on to this legislation betrayed them, our Founders who shed their blood to provide us a document that never before had taken hold among civilized men since what the ancient Greeks similarly had. That includes my own Senator, Bob Casey.

     What we must do is join with organizations that work to defeat even Democrats who betray us, as is being done as I write this in Georgia and California.

     Those who make excuses for this compromise are as guilty of allowing loss of liberty as those who signed the legislation.

     Posted by duganrushes at 07/12/2008 @ 9:01pm

103. so what Unocal entertained some Talibans in 1997 anywhere?

     Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/08/2008 @ 11:49am

     all right, HAMPPSTER!

     hey, maybe we can get them to comeback for a reunion tour.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 07/12/2008 @ 10:18pm

104. The traditional right-wing counter-objection is that we should not be opposed to warrant-less wiretapping unless we have something to hide, but when the DOJ hires only Republican lawyers, "something to hide" includes being a member of the Democratic party.

     Posted by rexrobards at 07/13/2008 @ 2:55pm

105. The right to defend ourselves as inalienable as it is, stops when we start to destroy ourselves as a country. We are doing that.

     A lot of people is accepting this because they think it is not THEM that are spied but others. What an error! What guarantees that we won't end in a police state in a few years?

     Posted by Frank42 at 07/13/2008 @ 3:09pm

106. Less than a century ago we did not have such intrusive surveillance devices, and amazingly "terrorism" was not an issue.

     not true. the NY stock exchange was blown up, among other things.

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/13/2008 @ 3:19pm

107. ........when the DOJ hires only Republican lawyers, "something to hide" includes being a member of the Democratic party.

     Posted by rexrobards at 07/13/2008 @ 2:55pm

     So, if Obama wins and do exactly what Bill Clinton did, which is wholesale replacement of all US Attorneys, the GOP/conservatives should be whining like you are now?

     IF you actually believe what you wrote, shouldn't you be HAPPY that your party will soon, have the chance to snoop on "something to hide" members of the GOP?

     Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/13/2008 @ 5:06pm

108. So ThE ACLU and The Nation are going to court so terrorist can continue to plan their terrible deeds. I hope people remember this when the day comes--God forbid---that we are hit again by Al Qeada----and if that terrible day comes I hope the reputation of both the ACLU AND THE NATION is destroyed forever----because in the name of blind progressive values they risked the security of the nation. Shame

     Posted by Len Mosse at 07/13/2008 @ 8:42pm

109. Wow, the web version of The Nation totally sucks now. Awful visuals, horrible layout, few interesting articles to peruse, and last but not least, totally boring comments. What happened????

     Posted by KSP556 at 07/13/2008 @ 9:32pm

110. The Nation and KVH joins ACLU suit?

     Money would be better spent on the shortage of postage she was begging the bloggers for a few months nago...and now nthis?

     PPPPphhhhhttttt...waste.

     Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/13/2008 @ 9:45pm

111. The Bush Administration has said they're exempt from FISA. However, we remember that FISA was actually enacted in 1978 because of previous government abuses; administrations from both major parties who bugged Dr. King, spied on political opponents, and possibly won re-election because they could use wiretapping to their partisan advantage. While I support wiretapping where due cause exists, we need an independent party such as the FISA court to ensure that wiretapping is being used properly. If any readers think the Bush Administration would not use wiretapping to its partisan advantage, you trust them a lot more than I do.

     Posted by JFKennedy at 07/13/2008 @ 10:41pm

112. "So ThE ACLU and The Nation are going to court so terrorist can continue to plan their terrible deeds. I hope people remember this when the day comes--God forbid---that we are hit again by Al Qeada----and if that terrible day comes I hope the reputation of both the ACLU AND THE NATION is destroyed forever----because in the name of blind progressive values they risked the security of the nation. Shame"

     We'll be hit again on domestic soil only if the neocon conspiracy is revived under a McCain presidency. Note the references in the above post to "God" and "destroyed". So typical of the conservative, war-monger religionists. All they understand is "them versus us" and perpetual war/destruction, justified by their imaginary dictator/fascist God in the sky. How sad the state of mankind is under such ignorance and delusion. These jokers would take us back to the Dark Ages if they could.

     Posted by NukularProficy at 07/14/2008 @ 05:07am

113. Lenny, Lenny, you are a hopeless case. those who are fighting to retain our constitutional rights are responsible for future attacks? are you really that stupid? ( a rhetorical question, we all know the answer to.)

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/14/2008 @ 08:59am

114. Lenny, Lenny, you are a hopeless case. those who are fighting to retain our constitutional rights are responsible for future attacks? are you really that stupid? ( a rhetorical question, we all know the answer to.)

     Posted by emile duBois at 07/14/2008

     My Constitutional rights are just fine. The government can check my phone records anytime they want---I have nothing to hide. And if takes this type of check to make sure that another 9/11 is stopped--I can live with it. The British have cameras everywhere ---if we tried that here I am sure you would scream bloody murder. Society always makes compromises between safety and individual rights---sometimes those compromises are tweaked in times of emergency--this is one of those times. Now if you want to get into a pissing battle about who is stupid and who is not--go find some child to c