"With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts"

[ProSense]

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging NSA's Patriot Act Phone Surveillance

By Brett Max Kaufman

<...>

The ACLU's complaint filed today explains that the dragnet surveillance the government is carrying out under Section 215 infringes upon the ACLU's First Amendment rights, including the twin liberties of free expression and free association. The nature of the ACLU's work—in areas like access to reproductive services, racial discrimination, the rights of immigrants, national security, and more—means that many of the people who call the ACLU wish to keep their contact with the organization confidential. Yet if the government is collecting a vast trove of ACLU phone records—and it has reportedly been doing so for as long as seven years—many people may reasonably think twice before communicating with us.

The kind of personal-data aggregation accomplished through Section 215 also constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Last year, in a case on GPS tracking by police, five members of the Supreme Court indicated support for the common-sense notion that government collection of individual bits of seemingly innocuous personal information over a long period of time could amount to such a complete invasion of privacy that it would be unconstitutional. The surveillance program that came to light with the release of the FISC order constitutes precisely that kind of unreasonable incursion into Americans' private lives.

Finally, the ACLU's complaint charges that the executive branch's use of Section 215 violates the plain language of the statute itself. The statute requires that records seized under its authority be "relevant" to an authorized foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. But while that language imposes a real limitation on when the government can use Section 215, the FISC order covering all VBNS customers demonstrates that this "relevance" restraint is shockingly inadequate. Similarly, the FISC order shows that the government—with the FISC's secret approval—is acquiring future records of telephone subscribers based on the same "relevance" requirement, even though the statute uses words that clearly show it was only meant to cover "tangible things" already in existence.

With today's lawsuit, the ACLU is now attacking Section 215 on three legal fronts: in our ongoing FOIA litigation seeking the government's secret interpretation of the law; in the FISA Court through yesterday's public-access motion; and now, in a constitutional lawsuit in federal court. When the government is claiming such chillingly expansive surveillance powers, it's all hands on deck. Stay tuned.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-nsas-patriot-act-phone

Section 215 of the Patriot Act - FOIA (includes list of FOIA requests and documents release)
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/section-215-patriot-act-foia

ACLU Motion in FISA Court for Release of Court Records - In Re Orders Issued by This Court Interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-motion-fisa-court-release-court-records-re-orders-issued-court-interpreting

Here's my question: Is everyone prepared for a decision siding with the Government?

I ask because some people appear unwilling to debate. It's either "accept this position or you're stupid."

Their postion is that there is nothing to debate.

This is a situation in which a balance has to be struck between Constitutionality, national security, privacy and the need to know.

It's not a cut-and-dry issue like gay rights or voting rights. Equality period!

In a country where surveillance has been part of the fabric of law enforcement and national security, with the acknowledgment that it's a necessity, the debate is about how to do it while protecting Americans, classified information and the Constitution.

Also, think about the current SCOTUS. Are you prepared?

CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, ET AL. v. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf

Additionally, Congress is going to act at some point, and everyone knows the sausage-making process involved in writing and passing laws.

Senators: End Secret Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022993363

There will be a debate, and as everyone knows opinions will vary and there will be many attempts to introduce misinformation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. And ...

in the unlikely event that the law is struck down, and a terrorist event occurs ... will the same people arguing so adamently that "freedom" trumps security, then blame the government for not preventing the event?

[ProSense]

2. If the law

"in the unlikely event that the law is struck down"

...is "struck down," Congress will spring into action to fix it. The debate is going to happen regardless. I don't think anyone has proposed getting rid of our national security apparatus.

[longship]

3. Yet another excellent thread.

Good information.

Thanks.

[ProSense]

5. Thanks. n/t

[pipoman]

4. I love the ACLU!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. I expect the courts to decide for the government.

I'll hate it. I won't be accepting of it. I can only raise one voice, but I'll continue to do that, yes.

[ProSense]

7. That may or may not happen, but

Congress can still be pressured to act. Certainly there is a solution.

[ProSense]

8. Kick! n/t