Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

External links added

Added links to HTML versions of ACLU v. NSA/Gen. Alexander (initial filing), EFF for HEPTING, etc. vs. AT&T and DOES 1-20 (initial filing) (related litigation), and ACLU Washington Leglislative Director Caroline Fredrickson's statement to the House Judiciary Democratic membership briefing held 20 January, 2006. 

Dredeyedick 06:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Bias Evident

This article contains serious political bias. This article needs to be rewritten.

Here is an example. The article refers to "warrantless domestic spying program." In reality, this was not a domestic spying program, it was a program targeting overseas people and international conversations. The claim that this is domestic is fabricated to effect a political argument. Wikipedia is factual, not political. This article need to be rewritten. --SafeLibraries 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. The article refers to "warrantless domestic spying program." True. User SafeLibraries.org states "In reality, this was not a domestic spying program, it was a program targeting overseas people and international conversations."

Let us take these assertions a piece at a time.

  • Has the administration admitted it was a spying program? Yes.
  • Was/Is the (continuing) spying domestic? Yes. (Domestic = within US borders).
  • Was the spying done without warrants issued by a court with jurisdiction upon having been shown probable cause? No. By the administration's, and the NSA's own admission - I'm thinking about what the NSA told Qwest, that they would not go to the FISA Court because they would be turned down, and that they would not go get a letter of authorization from the Attorney General for the same reason, whereupon Qwest refused further cooperation with the NSA's request... which was followed by threats of withholding further government contracts from them.

Ok. Next.

  • "In reality, this was ... targeting overseas people and international conversations."

Really, now? Unless User SafeLibraries.org works on this program with the NSA, or is privy to classified information about the program, 'in reality' this contention must be considered spurious. To make such a claim might, in less temperate forums, be considered an attempt to inject "serious political bias" into an article that simply describes a lawsuit.

The fact is very few know the extent of this program... and there are other programs as well. The NSA won't clear the representatives and the senators on the intelligence oversight committees to even hear what former NSA employee Russel Tice has to say, while the President himself has, according to Attorney General Gonzales, refused to clear the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility lawyers to investigate DOJ's involvement in setting up this warrantless domestic spying program.

In reality, not enough information has come to light to make the contention, as fact, that the spying was restricted to overseas people and strictly international conversations. Unless, of course, User SafeLibraries.org knows something the rest of us don't know, and wishes to share it here.

So. Respectfully disagree. I fail to percieve the claimed "bias," and this suggestion that it be rewritten seems to me to be itself an attempt to introduce an agenda. The thing the article describes, the lawsuit, is political. The quote in the article, from the ACLU's Romero, express a political view. That Romero said these things is a fact. That these things he said are germane to the reporting of the issue of the lawsuit is an editorial call, and I think a good one.

I understand the problem User SafeLibraries.org may have with the word "domestic" in the phrase "warrantless domestic spying program" when the administration has plainly told us that the program was narrowly focused on calls and communications with one end in the US and the other in another country - but that's the point. It is the administration, amid an end run around FISA, saying this. And this administration has been shown to have lied and dissembled in the past.

The fact is we don't know the extent of this thing, and won't unless, or until, the Congressional Oversight, Judidical, and Governmental Operations committees grow spines enough to hold real hearings.

In the absence of facts, in reality, we don't know just how restricted or unrestricted, domestic or international this spying program is.

My two cents. Respectfully disagree.

SafeLibraries.org, if You think this article shows serious bias, how about this: Rewrite it the way You think it should be worded, then place it here on this discussion page for a week or so for comment? I don't mean rewrite it to parrot the administration party line, for that may or may not be a lie... this guy Bush has a history. I do mean, subtract out what bias You feel is there, present only verifiable facts, in short, NPOV objective reporting. I don't see a problem with it so far as NPOV or objectivity, but You seem to - so ... let's improve it!

--Dredeyedick 04:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Dredeyed*ck, "The fact is very few know the extent of this program..." and, "The fact is we don't know the extent of this thing, and won't...," and "In the absence of facts, in reality, we don't know just how restricted or unrestricted, domestic or international this spying program is." But we are supposed to believe the existing biased article is the truth. And why does Dreyeyed*ck want us to believe this biased article in light of his admitting no one publicly knows the truth? Because "this administration has been shown to have lied and dissembled in the past" and, "I don't mean rewrite it to parrot the administration party line, for that may or may not be a lie... this guy Bush has a history."
Dreyeyed*ck is right that I'm not a fact witness in this case, so I will rely on others better qualified to remove the bias from this article. In fact that is why I made the suggestion it needs rewriting but did not rewrite it. However, based on Dreyeyed*ck's statements, his edits will need close attention. --SafeLibraries 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say we just remove the word "domestic" since you just admitted this "truth" is unknown. If it's unknown, why is it in the article -- just because the ACLU says so? Please, this is wikipedia.org, not aclu.org. --SafeLibraries 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the change now since clicking on the link brings you to the page just for that topic and that very page does not describe it as domestic. Case closed, really, on that word. But other work needs to be done as well since more of this article is biased as well. --SafeLibraries 12:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing the word "domestic", because (I may be wrong) warrants based on probable cause are required only for domestic surveillance. This is, I believe, the legal basis for the ACLU's lawsuit. Because of this, I'm replacing the word "domestic" to the phrase "warrantless domestic surveillance."

User SafeLibraries.org, why not rewrite the article as You think it should read and place it here on this discussion page, or on Your talk page, for others to comment on? (Also, my correct Username is Dredeyedick, not "Dredeyed*ck, please.)

I have visited your site SafeLibraries.org, and based on what I see there, You seem to have some sort of axe to grind against the American Library Association and the ACLU, and appear to have equated the top management of the two organizations, imputing to them both some sort of agenda to push pornography to children using the public library system.

Maybe this is so. Maybe not. Either way, it does not seem to me related with the controversy surrounding warrantless domestic surveillance by the NSA, or the legal and constitutional reasons behind the ACLU's lawsuit.

It is good to be Bold in edit changes. But it is also good to be prudent, and to study the issues involved before making what some may consider precipitous changes to an otherwise responsible and accurate report. The word "domestic" is in the phrase "warrantless domestic spying program" for a reason, in the context of the article regarding ACLU v. NSA. That reason has to do with the legal foundations for the complaint, so it would be misleading, legally and journalistically, to remove it, and in my opinion would introduce vagueness into the article, making it less truthful and accurate, without necessarily improving the task of informing the reader.

For these reasons I am restoring the word "domestic" to the phrase. I ask that User SafeLibraries.org please refrain from removing it again unless, or until, some others have weighed in on the question, Thanks.

I do agree with User SafeLibraries.org that the article needs updating. Yesterday the ACLU filed another lawsuit in this matter, in Detroit (I seem to recall) on behalf of some physicians, challenging the domestic spying program on grounds of violation of Doctor - Patient confidentiality. I think this needs to be mentioned as related litigation, and another article stub created, but I haven't the time at the moment to do this.

--Dredeyedick 16:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this lovely. In the past I have been criticised for editting pages about subjects of which I have a deep knowledge. It was suggested I edit other pages. So I have. Now you are the exact opposite. You are telling me to "study the issues" first before making edits. I tell you, you're head could spin here. And "studying the issues" has nothing to do with exposing and correcting open and obvious inconsistencies with other wiki pages, particularly those specifically linked in this biased article.
Now I'm removing "domestic" again precisely because the very page that the link ("warrantless domestic spying program") links to, namely, "NSA warrantless surveillance controversy," the main page on the topic, does not call it "domestic" surveillance. Rather, it discusses the "domestic" issues as being part of the surveillance, but not the entirety. Therefore the existing page on the topic, long before I came along, does not call it "domestic" surveillance. This is obvious on the face of the article and its contents. This has nothing to do with my opinion one way or another. This is just a fact for all to see, so long as they are not wearing biased eyeglasses.
On the other hand, it has everything to do with your opinion -- as you explained Bush is a big liar, therefore it must be domestic surveillance, even though 3 times you said it's impossible to tell. Three strikes you're out. You are internally inconsistent (we don't know, but it's domestic), and your argument is patently inconsistent with the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy wiki page. My opinion is not involved; yours is. This is wikipedia, not Dreyeyed*ckpedia.
I look forward to others getting involved in this discussion. --SafeLibraries 19:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you argue by removing the word I am hiding the legal basis for the law suit. Let's look at the sentence. "ACLU v. NSA is the name of a lawsuit filed on January 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, by the ACLU on its own behalf, and on the behalf of three other organizations and five individuals as plaintiffs, against the NSA, to challenge President George W. Bush's warrantless domestice spying program." Now let's remove the dependent clauses for clarity: "ACLU v. NSA is the name of a lawsuit filed on January 17, 2006 ... to challenge President George W. Bush's warrantless domestic spying program." Obviously, the sentence is written in a way that makes it appear as a given truth that spying program was domestic. More accurate would have been something that indicated that the statement was merely the ACLU's view, not a given truth.
No one here want's to cut off the ACLU from debate, or to control the ACLU's views. Of course the ACLU does that to everyone else all the time but that it not the issue here. So the ACLU is entitled to get it point across. BUT, the ACLU is NOT entitled to have its view represented as the given truth.
The sentence could have said, by way of a quick example, "ACLU v. NSA is the name of a lawsuit filed on January 17, 2006 ... to challenge President George W. Bush's ALLEGED warrantless domestic spying program." Now isn't that more fair? Doesn't the ACLU insist on such language itself regarding the criminals it defends itself? The addition of the word "alleged" would make it much more accurate.
BUT! This is an encyclopedia! It is not an ACLU position paper on various ALLEGED matters! The TRUTH is supposed to be in an encyclopedia, not a bunch of allegations!
So again, removal of the word "domestic" is the best way to resolve this particular bias. --SafeLibraries 20:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else want to comment?

I've got other things to do.

Still think "domestic" belongs there.

Sad that User Safelibraries.org won't botrher to write the article the way they think it should read and place it here for comment, but rather try to start an edit war.

I'm not buying. There are WP procedures for dealing with this sort of abuse, but I'm too new to know what they are, and haven't time to pursue it currently. If anybody wants to see a bunch of related html documents converted from the pdf originals, visit http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html, where You may find a very easy to use, internally linked html version of the lawsuit, with links to each section, page, and paragraph.

Cheers, --Dredeyedick 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Domestic belongs in the text. That is what is being challenged in court; that is the allegation made. This appears in both the case filing and the linked article. As far as putting alledged in, if it is a matter of factual disagreement between the parties (the ACLU and the NSA) then some indication of this fact certainly should be included (remember, Wikipedia does report allegations, but we report them as allegations, not fact). I am not sure however, that this is a point of factual contention; at least it is not clear from the article linked that Americans were being wiretapped. As such, I have restored the word. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 07:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. So I added in the word "alleged," in keeping with your second sentence and concerns for bias generally. If that's what the case alleged, then say so. So I added alleged. As you say, it's reported as an allegation, not as a fact. Without that word alleged, the sentence makes it appear as a fact. --SafeLibraries 23:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to set the record straight, President Bush is quoted in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy as saying "What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States; and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an al Qaeda link or affiliate." So he clearly admits one end of the conversation is domestic. The FISA provisions are very clear about what must be done in that situation: get a warrant from the FISA Court, either before or even after the conversation is intercepted. The Administration says this process it too cumbersome and that it has inherent power under the Constitution to make these taps and also that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq supersedes FISA. The district court disagreed. The Supreme Court has already rejected those two arguments in a recent case on Iraq war prisoners. We'll see what happens.--agr
Please tell me if I'm wrong on this, but, as I understand it, the plaintiff claims it is domestic, the defendant admits it is domestic (and merely argued that the case shouldn't be heard on national security grounds) and the judge ruled that it is domestic. Any of these would mean that including domestic in the article was deserving. With all three being the case, the article doesn't make any sense without mentioning the word.
We should clarify that the government has only been shown to be tapping domestic-to-international calls, as opposed to domestic-to-domestic calls, but completely removing the word, domestic, from the article, as User:SafeLibraries.org proposes, makes no sense at all. If there is a controversy over this article the POV of both sides should be discussed, in line with WP:NPOV. Supporters of the defendants should add their POV to the article (assuming they have verifiable sources) as opposed to trying to censor what the very subject of the lawsuit is.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read, perhaps today, the New York Times first page, first column story on this. The NYT got it right. On the other hand, this wiki article, at least before corrections were/are made/being made, got it wrong. The NYT might be an excellent example to follow here, instead of people like us, assuming none of us are not on NYT's level. Thanks to the NYT's story, I have found for myself mainstream, well-respected third party evidence that this is not a domestic spying case, further vindicating my view that claiming it was as fact was merely someone's POV. --SafeLibraries 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES TO BE SERIOUSLY BIASED. Just look at it. The external links are all ACLU articles, friends, and blogs. The reaction section is only an ACLU quote. The whole thing is from the ACLU point of view, except where the Taylor decision rains reality down on the propaganda. This article, let's be honest, needs serious balance. And balance is not enough where the truth is ignored -- there's no balance between untruth and truth -- partial truth is not encyclopedic. If I knew how to add one of those POV warning tags, warning people to wade through the propaganda, I would apply it to this article. --SafeLibraries 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the White House statement on the ruling and included a quote from it in the reaction section along with mention of the NY Times critique. --agr 18:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. Much better. Could use more, but much better. Your changes are so good that people looking at it now, after your changes, will wonder why I made the comment in the first place! Although your excellent changes illustrate the exact reason why. --SafeLibraries 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a very sterile and spartan look. I am trying to add an information link to the precedent case by the Supreme Court in 1972. I have put the information in as a See also section. This article appears to be blocked. Will you all allow this information to be included? It reads: United States v. U.S. District Court, 1972, was the precedent setting Supreme Court case that established the legal requirement for warrants in cases involving the domestic use of electronic surveillance.Jmcneill2 07:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added the link 2 ways on the theory that at least one will continue to work if / when Findlaw changes their scripting reference syntax that the second way will be handled properly on their end. Added both to "See also" section:
United States v. U.S. District Court, 1972, was the precedent setting Supreme Court case that established the legal requirement for warrants in cases involving the domestic use of electronic surveillance.
And to "External Links / Court documents" section:
--Dredeyedick 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love this. People making this thing better. --SafeLibraries 15:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who will the appeal be heard by?

  • If this is appealed, which court will hear it? The Supreme Court? Or is there another federal court who would take care of the appeal? Badagnani 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appeal will be heard by the 6th District Court. The 6th Distict court has a libertarian background, but has sided with government powers many times. --Jerluvsthecubs 03:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh thank you for the correction, I just woke up after reading that opinion. Hehe...I made an intro, I think tomorrow I will attempt to write about the specifics of the opinion.--Jerluvsthecubs 03:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could skip the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and go directly to the USSC; however, that scenario is rather unlikely. The only way that is likely to happen is if the following sequence of events occurs: (1) District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor lifts the stay at the hearing on September 7; (2) the DoJ appeals to the Sixth and moves for a stay pending appeal; (3) the Sixth denies the stay; (4) the DoJ appeals denial of the stay to the USSC. The Supremes also can step in at any time and take the case on their own initiative, but they very rarely do that. 207.69.136.202 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

The "Legal Analysis" section is unsourced and smacks of original research. I did see that a user here said he/she reconstructed from a BBC radio piece he/she heard; however, that's not sufficient documentation. While a "legal analysis" section may well be warranted, it should be sourced from, arguably, constitutional experts on both sides of the issue, not a recollection by one party from a radio program. 207.69.136.202 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I removed it. I believe it is not even correct. The Judge did not "preclude the program entirely unless the Constitution itself is amended." Indeed, she suggests the FISA could be amended if necessary. I've reproduced the deleted text below.--agr 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Taylor's opinion is sweeping in that it finds the NSA program in violation of not just federal statute, but various Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Since she held the program to be unconstitutional, her opinion would preclude the program entirely unless the Constitution itself is amended, the process for which is extremely difficult. If the appellate court or the Supreme Court overturns that section of her opinion and decides that the program is constitutional, then the Bush Administration would merely need the consent of Congress to continue the NSA program. Alternatively, a higher court might decide that the program violates neither the Constitution nor FISA, thereby allowing the program to proceed without even further consent or intervention by Congress. Though many legal scholars agree that the program is forbidden by FISA, there is no certainty that higher courts will agree.

[edit]

Content from Anna Diggs Taylor

I'm moving the following content here that didn't belong into the judge's biography. Maybe it has a place here, I don't know. Sandstein 05:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Issues of the NSA Ruling

According to The Detroit News: "A group represented by the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Bush administration over a spying program conducted by the National Security Agency without court permission. The NSA intercepts calls made from or to residents of the U.S. by suspected members of terrorist groups, according to the administration. The case was filed in Metro Detroit because of a large presence of Muslim and Arab residents who say they are disproportionately targeted by the surveillance, and because of a favorable court ruling by U.S. District Judge Damon Keith in a similar case in 1972."

Is the ACLU appealing the call database ruling?

Note that Taylor's decision has two parts: she ruled in favor of the ACLU on the (so-called) TSP, but she rejected the ACLU's claim on States Secrets grounds for the call database. The NSA is appealing the first part. Is the ACLU appealing the second part? Crust 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource featured text candidate

This text has been nominated to be a featured on Wikisource (see s:Wikisource:Featured text candidates#ACLU v. NSAOpinion ) If it is successful it would be the first opinion to be featured - any help in improving the formatting would be greatly appreciated. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._National_Security_Agency