Slashdot Mirror

"The Congress shall have Power To . . . *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; . . . *To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations*; To declare War . . . and *make Rules concerning Captures* on Land and Water; **********To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers**********, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To translate that for you girly, retarded Democrats, the government can do literally anything required to protect the United States. Anything, ever, to any threat or innocent or anyone else, foreign or domestic. Shut the hell up, you effeminate, pussy-whipped dorks. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the public is threatened, the government is all-powerful in its capacity as protector of the public against rebels and invaders, such as terrorists.

"The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . . To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

What about the Constitution and thousands of years of international conflict is difficult for Democrats to understand? Please learn to read beyond a fifth-grade level--and actually apply your newfound skills--before you type anything else pertaining to political philosophy, law, or our great Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

And to recap for you retards, the government's power to defend the United States is unlimited.

And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can make up whatever rules it pleases to deal with those whom its Executive captures.

And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, such as terrorism and conspiracy with terrorists, however it pleases.

Never mind. You're retarded. You'll never understand any of this. Neither will you understand the proceeding.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I'll translate that for you Democrat girly-boys: "The government may imprison any citizen or foreigner if imprisoning him--even if he's *known to be completely innocent of everything*--preserves public safety during a time of rebellion or invasion, such as right now, when terrorists have invaded and continue to invade." Imagine that you've retired from public service but were privy to classified information that would now be useful to terrorists. If the government fears that the terrorists seek to abduct you and use your knowledge to harm the public, the government may imprison you, though you be completely innocent and even known to be completely innocent. Of course, the government would probably imprison you comfortably, since it would still consider you a friend, but it would be imprisoning you nevertheless, and the public need never know of it. It would imprison those supposed to be unfriendly less comfortably.

Also, we were invaded on 9/11 and before, and the people we're imprisoning are presumed to threaten public safety in conspiracy with the invaders. This is an open and shut case to people who aren't retarded international socialists.

You people deserve no respect.

"The Congress shall have Power To . . . *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; . . . *To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations*; To declare War . . . and *make Rules concerning Captures* on Land and Water; **********To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers**********, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To translate that for you girly, retarded Democrats, the government can do literally anything required to protect the United States. Anything, ever, to any threat or innocent or anyone else, foreign or domestic. Shut the hell up, you effeminate, pussy-whipped dorks. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the public is threatened, the government is all-powerful in its capacity as protector of the public against rebels and invaders, such as terrorists.

"The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . . To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

What about the Constitution and thousands of years of international conflict is difficult for Democrats to understand? Please learn to read beyond a fifth-grade level--and actually apply your newfound skills--before you type anything else pertaining to political philosophy, law, or our great Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

And to recap for you retards, the government's power to defend the United States is unlimited.

And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can make up whatever rules it pleases to deal with those whom its Executive captures.

And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, such as terrorism and conspiracy with terrorists, however it pleases.

Never mind. You're retarded. You'll never understand any of this. Neither will you understand the proceeding.

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

I'll translate that for you Democrat girly-boys: "The government may imprison any citizen or foreigner if imprisoning him--even if he's *known to be completely innocent of everything*--preserves public safety during a time of rebellion or invasion, such as right now, when terrorists have invaded and continue to invade." Imagine that you've retired from public service but were privy to classified information that would now be useful to terrorists. If the government fears that the terrorists seek to abduct you and use your knowledge to harm the public, the government may imprison you, though you be completely innocent and even known to be completely innocent. Of course, the government would probably imprison you comfortably, since it would still consider you a friend, but it would be imprisoning you nevertheless, and the public need never know of it. It would imprison those supposed to be unfriendly less comfortably.

Also, we were invaded on 9/11 and before, and the people we're imprisoning are presumed to threaten public safety in conspiracy with the invaders. This is an open and shut case to people who aren't retarded international socialists.

You people deserve no respect.

Sorry, you are incorrect. The Supreme Court cannot strike down a Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional. If an Amendment is ratified, it is in the Constitution by definition. And things that are in the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional. See Amendment XVI http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

Good Luck on that. Amazing that the in triplicate demanding military/government had no duplicate records? Info on the tests you might get a hold of but anything connecting your father to them specifically probably went up in smoke.

Bush had to get a court ruling to get in the first time and the second time he did not have the majority of the popular vote even if he got the electoral votes.

With the advice and consent of Congress. Check out Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

While we're on the subject, it always amazes me how people attribute almost super natural powers to the president. When you read article II you realize the president can't do shit without Congress's approval. That's the wy they designed it after having had problems with a king.

The White House is not exempt...the NARA handles The President and his staff.

It's ALL archived:

http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-re cords.html

Thibodeau and the rest of the people at NARA have been thinking about this problem for awhile, as have other researchers around the world. If you're interested in such things, there are a few places to start looking.

CAMiLEON http://www.si.umich.edu/CAMILEON/
Cedars http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cedars/
InterPARES http://www.interpares.org/
DSPace http://www.dspace.org/

Lockheed Martin won the NARA contract to develop the Electronic Records Archives.
http://www.archives.gov/era/acquisition/option-awa rd.html

After hearing them talk about it at the Managing Electronic Records conference (http://www.merconference.com/), I'd say they have a few things to work out yet... but these are important questions for the preservation of history, culture, and more. These questions also involve authenticity, the value of evidence, and more...

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

And let's not forget that fewer than 3,000 Americans died from the 9/11 attacks.

Ah, the old "9/11 wasn't that bad" argument. The attacks disrupted way more than 3000 lives. And the threat of regular attacks would do a lot more damage. Middle Eastern countries that face frequent terrorist attacks are not exactly bastions of civil liberties and economic strength.

I find it ironic that the people who bemoan the latest "erosion of the constitution" are the same people who seem to have the least faith in it. The founding fathers knew that human nature is to overreact to events and sometimes lose sight of what is in the entire nation's best interest. The articles of confederation failed because they didn't take that into account.

Our constitution is not a guarantee that every group of politicians will never overstep its bounds; it is a guarantee that the imbalance will eventually correct itself. Don't forget that this whole round of legislation was prompted by a supreme court decision. I happen to think the process works pretty well, despite being a little slow, and I fully trust that in time any current constitutional crisis will be resolved, just like it has on every previous occasion.

Another "act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity" in which a president overstepped his constitutional authority for what he deemed a worthy cause was the emancipation proclamation (read it). Later, the legislative and judicial branches got involved to make it absolutely clear that the abolishment of slavery was constitutional. I have no doubt that we will eventually reach a similar acceptable balance in the fight against terrorism.

But, no, as far as I know, there is no martial law provisions that would allow the feds or a fed dept (FEMA) to overrule anything like that on the state level.

Well, consider some of the Executive Orders. (I make no claims as to the reality of the claims made on that page, e.g. regarding "black helicopter traffic" reportings.) Take 12148 as an example:

Section 1. Transfers or Reassignments

1-1. Transfer or Reassignment of Existing Functions.

1-101. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Department of Defense, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

1-102. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including any of those functions redelegated or reassigned to the Department of Commerce with respect to assistance to communities in the development of readiness plans for severe weather-related emergencies.

1-103. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Federal Preparedness Agency, General Services Administration, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

etc. etc. etc.

Another, arguably scarier example, EO 11000 (text can be found here and here):

ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

font face="Times New Roman">

SECTION 1. Scope. The Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering civilian manpower mobilization, more effective utilization of limited manpower resources including specialized personnel, wage and salary stabilization, worker incentives and protection, manpower resources and requirements, skill development and training, research, labor-management relations, and critical occupations. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States.

SEC. 2. Functions. The Secretary shall:

(a) Civilian manpower mobilization. Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent civilian manpower resources, such plans and guidance to be developed with the active participation and assistance of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other organizations and agencies concerned with the mobilization of the people of the United States. Such plans shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

(1) Manpower management. Recruitment, selection and referral, training, employment stabilization (including appeals procedures), proper utilization, and determination of the skill categories critical to meeting the labor requirements of defense and essential civilian activities.

(2) Priorities. Procedures for translating survival and production urgencies into manpower priorities to be used as guides for allocating available workers.

(3) National guidance. Technical guidance to States for the utilization of the nationwide system of public employment offices and other appropriate agencies for screening, recruiting, and referring workers, and for other appropriate activities to meet mobilization and civil defense

But, no, as far as I know, there is no martial law provisions that would allow the feds or a fed dept (FEMA) to overrule anything like that on the state level.

Well, consider some of the Executive Orders. (I make no claims as to the reality of the claims made on that page, e.g. regarding "black helicopter traffic" reportings.) Take 12148 as an example:

Section 1. Transfers or Reassignments

1-1. Transfer or Reassignment of Existing Functions.

1-101. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, Department of Defense, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

1-102. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including any of those functions redelegated or reassigned to the Department of Commerce with respect to assistance to communities in the development of readiness plans for severe weather-related emergencies.

1-103. All functions vested in the President that have been delegated or assigned to the Federal Preparedness Agency, General Services Administration, are transferred or reassigned to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

etc. etc. etc.

Another, arguably scarier example, EO 11000 (text can be found here and here):

ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

font face="Times New Roman">

SECTION 1. Scope. The Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) shall prepare national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering civilian manpower mobilization, more effective utilization of limited manpower resources including specialized personnel, wage and salary stabilization, worker incentives and protection, manpower resources and requirements, skill development and training, research, labor-management relations, and critical occupations. These plans and programs shall be designed to develop a state of readiness in these areas with respect to all conditions of national emergency, including attack upon the United States.

SEC. 2. Functions. The Secretary shall:

(a) Civilian manpower mobilization. Develop plans and issue guidance designed to utilize to the maximum extent civilian manpower resources, such plans and guidance to be developed with the active participation and assistance of the States and local political subdivisions thereof, and of other organizations and agencies concerned with the mobilization of the people of the United States. Such plans shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

(1) Manpower management. Recruitment, selection and referral, training, employment stabilization (including appeals procedures), proper utilization, and determination of the skill categories critical to meeting the labor requirements of defense and essential civilian activities.

(2) Priorities. Procedures for translating survival and production urgencies into manpower priorities to be used as guides for allocating available workers.

(3) National guidance. Technical guidance to States for the utilization of the nationwide system of public employment offices and other appropriate agencies for screening, recruiting, and referring workers, and for other appropriate activities to meet mobilization and civil defense

No, no no. See, it's ok if we do it, because we're the good guys. That's what evil looks like in the mirror, but so what? Before you answer, don't forget: "Americans should watch what they say", and those who claim the administration is gutting the liberty America is famous for "only aid the terrorists" :

"All persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families". Never mind that that liberty was a phantom six months later. Ashcroft couldn't be bothered with phantom niceties like keeping his word or honoring habeas corpus.

But that was then. Now? They're still at it. Now they're sending Generals to the Supreme Court to argue:

GENERAL CLEMENT: And if you think, in order for there be to a -- to be a valid suspension, Congress has to do it consciously, then I think you could see why the arguments are mutually exclusive. My view would be that if Congress, sort of, stumbles upon a suspension of the writ, but the preconditions are satisfied, that would still be constitutionally valid.

Those preconditions, by the way, are invasion or insurrection. Lincoln tried it with the Civil War in progress and it's widely considered a permanent stain on not just his reputation but his character. Nobody else, ever before, never since. Not in 1941 when the Japanese Navy invaded Pearl Harbor. Not in 1814 when the invading army reached Washington D.C. and burned every government building to the ground. No. Now the country's in real danger. We must suspend accountability now, and apply only his military authority to whomever he pleases. Bush has been scouring the country for almost five years to find evidence of those Islamo- fascists' secret invasion, and hasn't come up with enough evidence to charge even one person, so we must suspend habeas to stop it from succeeding.

He promises the only people he'll imprison without enough evidence to convince a criminal court will be Scary Bad non-citizens. We must trust the President. If that invasion nobody can find but he tells the Supreme Court is underway anyway really doesn't exist, that would be ... sad.

how can you expect your ideas to be taken seriously?

You forgot to add, "Nation-, national security information.".

Link goes to one transcript. Here's a list of related material - the second set is more relevant but doesn't produce quotes as lovely as the above example.

Right now, there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US. Because of that, all online gambling businesses are breaking the law.

wait one minute there.... the absence of a law legalizing online gambling does not, in fact, make the activity illegal. There's no law legalizing mowing your yard (oh God, at least I hope there's not!), but it is legal to do so. IMO, gambling is something should remain regulated at the state level regardless.

Will someone PLEASE mod this up? I've already commented in this thread (wish I could take it back now!) so I can't at the moment.

As for the original poster, what in the world makes you think that there is no such thing as legal online gambling in the US? Is it merely that there's no law formally making it legal? PLEASE tell me that there's a reason besides a lack of a law formally making it legal. Because if that's it, please immediately read the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It's extremely important, it's your friend, and it's what gives you the Constitutional right to do the vast majority of the activities you do every day.

When confronted with the falsity of your statements, you resort to pedantry. You backed up your pedantry by citing the wrong law. The one you should have cited is here. Had you looked at the right law, you'd see that this law defers to Executive Order 12356 as to what is classified information. And Executive Order 12356 discusses declassification authority and states that material can be declassified by the person who classified it, or "the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing." You think that the President might fall under the umbrella of "a supervisory official" of every single person in the Executive Branch? I do. So, no, the President doesn't have to put anything in writing or issue an executive order to declassify classified material. He can just do it.

When confronted with the falsity of your statements, you resort to pedantry. You backed up your pedantry by citing the wrong law. The one you should have cited is here. Had you looked at the right law, you'd see that this law defers to Executive Order 12356 as to what is classified information. And Executive Order 12356 discusses declassification authority and states that material can be declassified by the person who classified it, or "the originator's successor; a supervisory official of either; or officials delegated such authority in writing." You think that the President might fall under the umbrella of "a supervisory official" of every single person in the Executive Branch? I do. So, no, the President doesn't have to put anything in writing or issue an executive order to declassify classified material. He can just do it.

I wouldn't mind if the US turned into something along the lines of a democracy, a nice variant, say a representative constitutional republic with free and HONEST elections, and an executive branch that followed the laws as written and intended, not as they feel like doing. Tell us when that happens, then maybe we can "export" that idea to other nations. Perhaps if we even had more than one political party in the "official" running for national office we would be taken more seriously.

BTW, we are never leaving iraq, never. Never. You can read about it in the PNAC documents, and you can see the proof in the embassy they are constructing and the permanent military bases. Iraq is centrally located in the last remaining huge region with cheap oil(cheap as in energy needed for extraction versus proven reserves), has the bulk of the fresh water in the entire region (this is to not be underestimated in importance) and was the most immediate potential threat that Israel had, and they control a big part of US mideast foreign policy and a lot of our MSM for consciousness shaping/brainwashing. And no, it is not racist to notice that, it is the simple truth, anyone can see it.

    The US military will be spreading out in all directions. This is a permanent war, it will never end, just get bigger. If they have to go to nukes or use biologicals and blame that on the "terrorists", they will do so. They want all that oil, and they don't want china to get it, and they don't care one bit about the people there, and a small but pretty powerful group of someones want one billion muslims just *gone* eventually, either completely gone or so beat they are just a small husk of what they were, and totally cowed. It's a big task but the stakes are larger, control of that area means control of the planet for the next century.

voting is not a constitutional right http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html

You have completely missunderstood the purpose of copyright and give undue importance to all the wrong things. If the goal of copyright is to make money for publishers, your reasoning is correct. If the goal of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", you are wrong. The original term of US copyrights was 14 years, despite the tremendous cost of publishing at the time. The goal is to spread information and culture, not to make sure a bunch of greedheads have money. As the cost of that spread declines, the time required to recoup costs diminishes and vanishes. The spirit of America is that you are free to do what you want but no one owes you a living. Exclusive franchises were hated then and should be today.

The RIAA are demanding government protection from legitimate competitors and a defacto control of culture. If you don't understand this, you don't understand how the music industry works. It's not so much your ability to get music that matters to them, it's their inability to control what you are exposed to that scares them to death. They seek to perpetuate an empire of control based on the technical limitations of 20th century broadcast and recording technology and a great deal of racketeering. Without RIAA only stores, selling junk sampled on the nations three radio networks, the world's big three music publishers start to look as good or worse than any other music publisher. Musicians and artists would then be able to market themselves freely and keep more of their earnings and the industry would collapse. Make no mistake at the level of control they seek with DRM and broadcast flags. They want the ability to limit what you are exposed to and are willing to pay for and then to squeeze you for every play while paying the artist next to nothing. The riches they earn are based on exclusion and extortion, not on the promotion of excellence and that directly contradicts the purpose of copyright.

In a world of cheap publishing there should be as many publishers as there are artists. Why not? Anyone can set up a web page. There's no longer a technical reason to reject any manuscript and not offer it to the public. The previous legitimate purpose of publishers, to chose and promote excellence, has been also co-opted by web. Copyright laws, based on paper and mechanical copy are insanely restrictive and obsolete.

No, you and I deserve to go to Hell.

The creator grants you certain rights anyways because it suits his purposes, not because in any way outside of him you deserve anything.

To secure your rights involves giving up the idea that you inherently deserve anything

that what you want is to be gained soley by virtue of acting solely upon the designation of the creator.

Article 1, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

"The Constitution was better as a document enumerating the things government CAN do, with the assumption being that all other powers are strictly excluded"

The bill of rights does very specifically, strictly exclude the Federal government from exercising other powers. Read the 10th amendment.
Bill Of Rights Transcript
It says that any power not granted by this constitution to the Federal Gov't is reserved to the states or to the people. This was to prevent the Fed Gov from expanding and squeezing the states and the people into oblivion. Unfortunately, it's the least supported amendment of all.
Only the courts uphold this, and only when a law is constitutionally challenged - that is, someone has to be hurt by a law before this amendment is used to stop gov't abuse.

In support of "power", here's the first-named power of Congress. As a starter kit on "competence", who funded the development of the Internet Protocol? Who decided to make it a DoD standard, and when? As for "right", see the post you responded to: whether you like it or not, your logic applies to every public project from research through schools and libraries to parks and roads and sewers. You get to choose your response here:

1. no public project should ever be funded,
2. you personally get to approve every single project, or
3. chosen representatives get to decide.

And those are just the most blatant of the flaws in your premises. Like the theocrats who recognize no distinction between "legal" and "moral", or their siamese twins the authoritarians who recognize none between "power" and "right", the economic neocons have lost the distinction between "price" and "value" just as their siamese twins the libertarians have done with "guards" and "government".

And there's a word for those who refuse to make such distinctions. It's "Orwellian". You already know the word for those who are simply unable.

Have a double-plus-good day.

Someone ought to make this document into toilet paper, since its now officially useless otherwise :)

With the way things are being interpreted, I figured this was more of what you had in mind...

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution explains all the things which Congress has the right to do with your tax money. Here is a transcript of the Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Now, where in Article I, Section 8 is Congress given the power to establish near-universal broadband? Is the government a corporation?

It's just more socialism coming from one of the anti-American parties. Don't expect any better from the Republicans though; they're just as socialistic.

Wrong!

Not being able to read the file format is the heart of the problem. Storing piles of bits is not the problem if you are serious about it.

Is your 1.25TB of data your life's work? Or your company's main business asset? If so, you would have redundant hardware, a backup plan, offsite storage plan, disaster recovery plan and you would periodically validate your media to ensure that you could still read it. You would also have a migration plan based on technology changes and to ensure that your precious bits are migrated well before the media they are on is technically obsolete. Keeping the bits is not the problem, it just takes effort and diligence. If you really want your grandkids to read your stuff, you'll have to get serious. Something a bit more than burn a few CDs and throw them in your closet.

Without knowledge of the file format, all you have is the bits. Trying to reverse engineer a complex, undocumented file format is like trying to break an encrypted message without any idea of message content. Every possible message is equally likely. Think about it, in 50 years you have a file named foo.bar and bunch of bits. It could be anything from the lastest Paris Hilton video to a scan of the Magna Carta to a text version of Mom's favorite cookie recipe. Without the metadata to associate the file to a file format and the documentation of the file format there's no way to reverse engineer anything useful.

Open file formats are the *only* hope to retain useful data for long periods of time. Check out the Electronics Records Archive project at http://www.archives.gov/era/ to see people who are serious about archiving data. Their ability to preserve the data independent of hardware and software system can only be achieved with documented, open file formats.

Recently the Vice President has also claimed to power to unilaterally declassify anything that he wants.

Sec. 1.1. CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) an original classification authority is classifying the information [my comment: the VP has authority to classify stuff he wants to classify, but there are limitations on what he can treat as "classified". See Sec 1.7 below!]; (2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government; (3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and (4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage. (b) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information. (c) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.

Part 1, Sec. 1.4 (Classification Categories), Subsection (c) states:

Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:
... (c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

Further, see:

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.

The right to declassify rests with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, under the direction of the Archivist and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Cheney is so not that guy.

Further, Part 4 (Safeguarding), Section 4.1 (General Restrictions On Access) states, in pertinant part:

"....[C]lassified information originating in one agency shall not be disseminated outside any other agency to which it has been made available without the consent of the originating agency. An agency head or senior agency official may waive this requirement for specific information originated within that agency. For purposes of this section, the Department of Defense shall be considered one agency."

Thus, only the CIA had the right to release the name of a CIA operative; not Cheney.

Now, does the Veep have the right to declassify on a whim (without following procedure)? Nope. Absolutely not! Part 3 (Declassification and Downgrading) Section 3.1 (Authority for Declassification), Subsection (b) states:

"(b) It is presumed that information that continues to

I thought only the President had the legal authority to unilateraly declassify something without going through channels.

Actually, "channels" means anyone with Original Classification Authority, which includes the President, Vice-President, Director of Central Intelligence, and other intelligence community leaders (I believe DIRNSA, and presumably also the new DNI).

I believe that each individual is responsible for certain kinds of information. For example, the Director of NSA would obviously have some authority over information regarding crypto, so he wouldn't be authorized to declassify information about human spies. Higher-level authorities like DCI, DNI, and obviously VPOTUS and POTUS, would be able to declassify more and more.

So, yes, I would expect that VP Cheney would have the authority to declassify certain information, including, most likely, whatever it is "Scooter" is up the creek over (I honestly have forgotten). But I'm equally certain that such a declassification would have to have a paper trail, and anyone who simply "takes [someone]'s word for it," even the Vice-President's word, that something is now open for release, well, they're not doing *their* job to protect classified information.

I can't remember which Executive Order it is that covers all this...I think 12958 or something along those lines. Okay, I just checked, and OMG, I *did* remember the order. Check it out here: Executive Order 12958 - Classified National Security Information, as Amended . It's actually fairly interesting reading....

The difference in popular vote in 2000 was about 450,000 of 105 million votes, roughly equal to the total that voted for Pat Buchanan, and about a fifth of those who voted for Ralph Nader. In other words, very close indeed, which is the only time the distinction between the electoral college and popular vote really becomes relevant.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral -college/2000/popular_vote.html

The parlimentary system produces a similar effect, except that instead of electors, it's the MPs. Say 51% of the MPs get narrowly elected by 51% in their constituency; theoretically, the PM can enjoy a "majority" government with barely 25% of the popular vote.

US states differ on whether their electoral votes are split proportionately, or are awarded all-or-nothing. It's also possible for electors to vote other than the "way they are supposed to" according to the popular vote, but that's pretty rare in practice.

"Um... Actually, that's exactly what it was intended for. Give someone an artificial monopoly on their idea"

No, try reading the constitution of the United States. The objective was not to establish monopolies. Exclusive rights are granted to inventors and authors for limited times on the specific work of the inventor or author. The objective of these exclusive rights is to promote the progress of science and useful arts in the United States.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article 1 Section 8;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

I suppose what amazes me is how he is seen now. What Bush has done is amazing for anyone even slightly versed in US political history. The ideas of checks and balances and the separation of powers, so essential to the mechanism by which our government is kept from encroaching upon us, do not even give Bush pause. We are discussing a man who called the Constitution a goddamned piece of paper. Remember the Oath of Office? The Constitution specifies that:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How will history remember him is a small consolation for those of us concerned about our liberty.

This was something I expected from Microsoft, but I am hugely disappointed in Google for selling out like this. Choosing to kowtow to an authoritarian regime and violating the Constitution of their own country.

Once again, we have a clear demonstration of what happens when an MBA is put at the helm of a company. Morals and ethics go out the window in favor of the bottom line and making sure his severance contract is as fat as possible.

The more I read that article, the more I feel sick to my stomach! I would rather accept a lower profit for my company than betray the hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans who gave their lives in various wars to defend my right to the Freedom of Speech.

And what about the many people in other countries, including those in China, who gave everything they could to gain that basic right? It wasn't just those individuals who suffered, it was their families as well who were also punished in order to set an example for others.

Hey Google? What's next? Are you going to make a contribution to Sadam's Gas the Kurds! Defense Fund in Iraq? Or how about a little for the Tienanman Square Memorial- Oh, wait! There isn't one. Guess you're safe on that score.

Is Ask Jeeves still clean? Or does anyone else know of a decent search engine we can use in place of Googlesoft? Is it really possible today to boycott Google? I for one just changed my default search engine selection away from Google.

Thanks, Google for totally destroying my faith in you. And thanks for betraying your countrymen and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States. Take a good look at Article 1 of the Bill of Rights- Oh, that's right! You're not allowed to read that any more unless you get permission from the Chinese government, eh?

What ever happened to "Do No Evil?" I guess you have to change that a little to "Do No Evil to the Highest Bidder!"

This was something I expected from Microsoft, but I am hugely disappointed in Google for selling out like this. Choosing to kowtow to an authoritarian regime and violating the Constitution of their own country.

Once again, we have a clear demonstration of what happens when an MBA is put at the helm of a company. Morals and ethics go out the window in favor of the bottom line and making sure his severance contract is as fat as possible.

The more I read that article, the more I feel sick to my stomach! I would rather accept a lower profit for my company than betray the hundreds of thousands of my fellow Americans who gave their lives in various wars to defend my right to the Freedom of Speech.

And what about the many people in other countries, including those in China, who gave everything they could to gain that basic right? It wasn't just those individuals who suffered, it was their families as well who were also punished in order to set an example for others.

Hey Google? What's next? Are you going to make a contribution to Sadam's Gas the Kurds! Defense Fund in Iraq? Or how about a little for the Tienanman Square Memorial- Oh, wait! There isn't one. Guess you're safe on that score.

Is Ask Jeeves still clean? Or does anyone else know of a decent search engine we can use in place of Googlesoft? Is it really possible today to boycott Google? I for one just changed my default search engine selection away from Google.

Thanks, Google for totally destroying my faith in you. And thanks for betraying your countrymen and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States. Take a good look at Article 1 of the Bill of Rights- Oh, that's right! You're not allowed to read that any more unless you get permission from the Chinese government, eh?

What ever happened to "Do No Evil?" I guess you have to change that a little to "Do No Evil to the Highest Bidder!"

as the President has, according to some legal opinions, unlimited powers in wartime

The problem is that only Congress can declare war (See Article 1, Section 8), and Congress hasn't declared war on anyone since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, and other skirmishes in Central America and elsewhere have not been declared wars, thus those powers of the President do not apply.

• Here
• Here
• Here
• And Here

Um, yes it does. It's right there in the word "unreasonable." Only "unreasonable" searches are prohibited. "Reasonable" searches for "terrorists or if it's important to the security of the nation" are wholly allowed. Indeed this is how FDR justified the "Office of Censorship" that searched through all international mail, telegrams, and telephone calls (and even censored them if the Army decided they needed to be censored) before and during WWII.

Has the Bush administration actually invoked FISA as their legal basis? If so, I missed it. And, from what I've heard, it wouldn't fit. AFAIK, FISA requires either a warrant or only monitoring where no US person is likely to be involved (see Q18 in the EFF writeup).

Carter and Clinton both issued executive orders authorizing FISA monitoring, but specifically quoted FISA regulations to be followed. I haven't seen a similar order from Bush, and even according to legendary conservative Rush Limbaugh, the FISA courts were bypassed. Limbaugh's take on it was that the unprecedented denials and modifications of Bush's FISA requests forced him to go around the process.

In short, the President is not asserting legal authority under FISA. According to the Attorney General, his authority hinges (PDF) on his "inherent authority" as Commander-In-Chief, and Congress's Use of Force Resolution.

Of course, in my strict interpretation, I missed the part of the Presidential Oath, Constitution or the above resolution that grants him any power over surveillance. And, according to Daschle (partisan to be sure, but you'd think records of this kind of stuff would be easily checked), Congress specifically rejected the administration's request for having the resolution cover actions in the US.

sure goes a long way.

For the record, 'separation of church and state' was created in the late 1940's by a sitting federal judge. It has continued only through precident. There is no actual Constitutional or legal (Act of Congress) support for the doctrine. you misquoted the Constitution on the subject. It actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This means that Congress cannot pass laws specifically to either hinder or help a church (as they did in the 1870's to destroy the Mormon church. Didn't quite work.) It does not prohibit public display of religion, as when Congress appoints a minister to begin each session with prayer.

( see http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html and http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

In the first 50 years of the nation, this was understood to be a right of the states. Read Thoreau's notes in his Civil Disobedience essay that in 1845 Massachusits had an established state religion. He was opposed to being taxed to support a preacher of a church he didn't belong to. This was legal, and was supported by the supreme court of the time. While there are arguments against such practices, they aren't a part of this. The grandparents point that we have wandered far from the actual meaning of the 1st amendment is factual and accurate.

Whether that is good or bad is another point.

sure goes a long way.

For the record, 'separation of church and state' was created in the late 1940's by a sitting federal judge. It has continued only through precident. There is no actual Constitutional or legal (Act of Congress) support for the doctrine. you misquoted the Constitution on the subject. It actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This means that Congress cannot pass laws specifically to either hinder or help a church (as they did in the 1870's to destroy the Mormon church. Didn't quite work.) It does not prohibit public display of religion, as when Congress appoints a minister to begin each session with prayer.

( see http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html and http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

In the first 50 years of the nation, this was understood to be a right of the states. Read Thoreau's notes in his Civil Disobedience essay that in 1845 Massachusits had an established state religion. He was opposed to being taxed to support a preacher of a church he didn't belong to. This was legal, and was supported by the supreme court of the time. While there are arguments against such practices, they aren't a part of this. The grandparents point that we have wandered far from the actual meaning of the 1st amendment is factual and accurate.

Whether that is good or bad is another point.

Article 1, Section 9 of a certain piece of paper states:
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Hard to be more clear than that.

The world is far too complex and rapidly changing for Congress to have to pass a law about everything.

Perhaps the government should stop seeking control over everything and limit themselves to the explicitly enumerated authorities granted by the Constitution

Rule making follows an established process, is subject to law and Congressional oversight, and review by the Courts.

Strike two. Rulemaking has recently become a process shrouded in secrecy: citizens can't challenge rules with the weight of law that they aren't allowed to read (TSA's ID requirement is a stellar example) and the courts shy away from anything rubber stamped as "national security".

There is also Presidential guidance and oversight of the rule making process.

Using the Constitution please justify the president's authority to arbitrarily declare de facto laws. The president's role is to enforce, not to legislate. While some rulemaking will be necessary, I'll go out on a limb and guess that there are probably more rules (de facto laws) covering a wider range of subject matter placed by executive mandate than there are laws actually created by congress. This is quite kingly in nature and entirely incompatible with our constitutional establishment. Please note that with all of the leeway given to the executive branch they still want more power and control: the unilateral declaration of the broadcast flag legislation is a prime example. They issued an edict explicitly to nullify decades of established and tried law. They only asked congress to change the law once the courts (in a rare display of constitutionally-friendly rational thought) scolded them.

After TWA 800 went down President Clinton issued executive order 13039, eliminating whistleblower protection from the members of the primary recovery team: the president wanted to change the law so he changed the law by decree.

Sorry, but no.

Um... before you say "Sorry, but no" I strongly urge you to read what EO 13039 means. Here... I'll spoonfeed it to you:

EO 13039 adds the Naval Special Warfare Development Group to the exemption list of EO 12171, dated 11/19/1979. You see, just because EO 13039 doesn't say anything about removing whistleblower protections doesn't mean that it doesn't - the president can't just come out and say that, so - like large chunks of legislation - you simply reference something else and say "I've changed this" and leave it up to the reader to go back and see what just happened. Something you obviously didn't do.

EO 12171 - Exclusions from the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program, issued by Jimmy Carter in 1979, eliminates the restrictions of Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code entirely from certain agencies and only for extranational activities for others. (Only one organization was listed in the extranational only section and to my understanding all other exemptions were global in scope)

Since you didn't bother to look up EO 12171 I know you never bothered to read Chapter 71 of title 5 of the US Code before you opined that I was wrong. I shouldn't have had to connect the dots for you you, but since you refused to make even a token effort to verify before declaring somebody wrong when you knew nothing of which you spoke I'll hold your hand and spoonfeed the information because I'm feeling generous this morning.

By the way, in 2002 George W Bush exempted several other organizations from 5(71):

• (c) United States Attorneys' Offices.
  
• (d) Criminal Division.
  
• (e) INTERPOL -- U.S. National Central Bureau.
  
• (f) National Drug Intelligence Center.
  
• (g) Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.
  

[ Amendment IV ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want to read my stuff? Go ahead and crack it - no warrant necessary.

Get the rabbit installed on a machine behind your firewall
==> http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
Faster than freenet
==> http://www.i2p.net/
Encrypt Jabber
==> http://www.vanemery.com/Linux/Jabber/jabberd.html
Onion Routing
==> http://tor.eff.org/
Emerging Network To Reduce Orwellian Potency Yield
==> http://entropy.stop1984.com/
Free Internet telephony
==> http://skype.com/
GNU-ified P2p
==> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnunet/


DO NOT DENY yourself about 2 hours @ InfoAnarchy.org
OMG! ==> http://www.infoanarchy.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Pag e
LearnLearnLearnLearn ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography

=================EMAIL ENCRYPTION===============
GPG (Free PGP)
==> http://gnupg.org/
Integrated with Thunderbird
==> http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Mutt can't be beat as a mailreader and integrates GPG wonderfully.
==> http://mutt.blackfish.org.uk/
==> http://www.mutt.org/links.html
==> http://wiki.mutt.org/index.cgi?UserPages

!!! Please do not immediately send newly created keys to the keyservers (as many HOWTOs instruct new users to). They are already overflowing with "test keys" and other people's experiments from over the years THAT HAVE NO EXPIRATION and will never be deleted. These keys are "orphans" and most will never be used. As keyservers sync together, and most keys are never deleted once submitted - GET YOUR KEY SETUP CORRECTLY AND HAVE PRACTICE WITH IT BEFORE SENDING IT OFF TO THE KEYSERVERS!!! Otherwise storage requirements will continue to grow and using these in the future will become more difficult FOR ALL. Please, if you are just starting out with PGP or GPG or GnuPG or anything similar (the last two are in fact the same thing) use manual key distribution to begin (ascii armor your public key with


$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org

and copy and paste it into an email body or attach it to an email


$ gpg --export --armor my@email.address.org > myPubKey.txt

to gain practice with GPG before uploading your key. This way if you need to create another you won't have uploaded your mistakes. Many choices need to be made and it's worth getting things right before "going public" with your new digital ID. Experiment with yourself and a few different email accounts or with some friends first.)

SET AN EXPIRATION OF 2-5 YEARS OR SO AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR PREFERENCES THE WAY YOU LIKE THEM BEFORE SENDING TO A KEYSERVER! Better yet is to HOST YOUR

Wow, another wiki gets it wrong! Jefferson actually wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." from the the national archives

During the revolutionary times, many of the countries leader were not Christians, but Theists, who were profoundly affected by thinking such as that expressed by Thomas Paine in his book, "The Age of Reason" http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_ paine/age_of_reason/index.html

Theists believe in God, but do not accept they bible due to the many logical contradictions it contains. The Theist movement was at it's height in the late 1700's and early 1800's. Today they are known as Unitarians.

The Puritans of Massachusetts banned any observance of Christmas, and anyone caught observing the holiday had to pay a fine. Before the Civil War, the North and South were divided on the issue of Christmas, as well as on the question of slavery. Many Northerners saw sin in the celebration of Christmas; to these people the celebration of Thanksgiving was more appropriate. But in the South, Christmas was an important part of the social season. Not surprisingly, the first three states to make Christmas a legal holiday were in the South: Alabama in 1836, Louisiana and Arkansas in 1838.http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/AmChristm as/

In 1870, Congress finally passed a bill legalizing four national holidays. The wording carefully omits any mention of religion, but specifies the dates and uses the "common name" of the holiday: the 1st day of January "commonly known as New Years Day", the 25th day of December "commonly known as Christmas", the 4th day of July and any day appointed or recommended by the President as a day of public fast or thanksgiving Day holidays (Now Thanksgiving Day). View the actial bill here: H.R.2224, 41st Congress:http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?coll Id=llhb&fileName=041/llhb041.db&recNum=7905

As with the Puritans, not all Christian sects believe Christ was born on December 25th. For example, the "Church of God" states: "Any encyclopedia, or any other authority, will tell you that Christ was not born on December 25. The Catholic Encyclopedia frankly states this fact. The exact date of Jesus' birth is entirely unknown, as all authorities acknowledge -- though if I had space in this booklet I could show you scriptures which at least strongly indicate it was in the early fall -- probably September approximately six months after Passover." Their page debunking the many myths of Christmas is very interesting: http://www.cog-ff.com/html/special_topics_-_christ mas.html

My point is, the country was not founded by "Christians" as we think of them today, but by a mixture of different (sometimes shunned) Protestant sects (such as Puritans, who did not celebrate Christmas) and theists. As a non-christian, I am not offended when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas", because I celebrate the secular holiday, Why should you be offended if I wish you "Happy Holidays"?

"If Fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag"

- Huey Long, assassinated in 1935.

For the curious, the relevant section in the US constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

The big advantage of paper is that all you need to view it are your eyes. (Or your fingers, if it's written in Braille.)

On the other hand, anyone who has visited the US National Archives can see the efforts needed to preserve the original US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We have zillions of copies, but the originals are kept in sealed vaults with limited lighting. Exposure to air damages the paper. Exposure to light fades the ink. They've struck a careful balance to make sure that people can still see the physical artefact without destroying it.

Both paper and digital need to be copied to new physical media from time to time. It's a lot easier to make that digital-to-digital copy!

The constitution says what the government *CAN* do, if it is not mentioned in the constitution, then the government can't do it.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government can tax import/exports, but can't restrict them (unless national security is involved).