ACLU Cry About Government Crackdown On Leakers
Posted on July 30, 2006
What do you call someone that leaks sensitive secret government programs designed to protect Americans and track down their enemies for all the world to know? Traitor? Deranged?
Well, if you are the ACLU you call them brave heroes.
The American Civil Liberties Union today strongly objected to the government’s attempts to crack down on brave whistleblowers who come forward to report on illegal or unconstitutional activity in government agencies. On Wednesday, Russell Tice, a whistleblower and former National Security Agency intelligence analyst was served with a federal grand jury subpoena to “testify and answer questions concerning possible violations of federal criminal law.”
To the ACLU transparency is fundamental to democracy. To their extreme viewpoint nothing should be kept secret. We should be so transparent we are see through.
“Transparency should be applauded, not punished. Courageous federal employees like Mr. Tice who bring hidden truths to light, letting lawmakers and the American people know when official misconduct has occurred, perform a valuable public service.
Why don’t we just start sending courtesy copies of all our plans to fight terror over to Al Qaeda?
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “ACLU Cry About Government Crackdown On Leakers”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Why just wait a minute Jay.
I understand and share in your frustration over what the NY Times did in revealing a LEGAL spying program that we had in place.
These LEGAL programs should not be revealed. They are important state secrets.
But according to the passage from the ACLU that you posted:
“The American Civil Liberties Union today strongly objected to the government’s attempts to crack down on brave whistleblowers who come forward to report on ILLEGAL or UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITY in government agencies.”
Shouldn’t illegal activity be revealed so we can get back to the business of busting terrorists?
Yeah, you might notice that the ACLU have already decided that the governments actions are “illegal” even though they have no evidence or prior ruling to make such a case.
Ha ha ha. True True.
Jay,
Do you have specific evidence that says warrantless wiretapping was LEGAL? If so, I’d like to see it- everything I’ve seen so far points to it being a “slam dunk” that the program was illegal.
miguel,
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created by section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)). It was originally comprised of seven district judges from seven circuits named by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve a maximum of 7 years.
In 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act (section 208) amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to increase the number of FIS Court judges from seven to eleven, “of whom no fewer than 3 shall reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia.” The membership of the Court in 2006 was as follows.
The FISA Court of Review issued an opinion in 2002 that stated “all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information…”
Court of Review recognized that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, “as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”
FISA could supplement the President’s power to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance; it could not take away that power, which is vested in him by Article II of the Constitution.
See United States v. United States District Court (“Keith”), 407 U.S. 297, 308 (1972) (when discussing the “constitutional powers of the President,” reserving any “judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers within or without this country”); United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913-14 (4th Cir. 1980) (stating that the President’s authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance arises from the fact that, “perhaps most crucially, the executive branch not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs. The President and his deputies are charged by the constitution with the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States”) (emphasis added); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 601 (3d Cir. 1974) (en banc) (explaining that electronic surveillance is a necessary aid to the President’s fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities as “Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and to administer the nation’s foreign affairs” and stating that congressional attempts to limit foreign electronic urveillance that “hamper the President’s effective performance of his duties in the foreign affairs field would raise constitutional questions”); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973) (“because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, . . . the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence”).