Slashdot Mirror
Secret Court: Government Lied to Get Wiretaps Approved
Paersona writes "Ever wonder what Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is doing to pass the time while she waits for the next step in the Microsoft case? Apparently she is now serving as the lead justice of the FISA court that oversees intelligence agencies' requests for domestic wiretapping. Today, the Washington Post reveals that the FISA court has released a rare public report rebuking the FBI and Justice Department for their handling of wiretap requests." The New York Times also has a story about the FISA court. The court's opinion is available.
Hmmmmm....the FBI which holds american citizens without charge, denies them bail or access to a lawyer all based on secret evidence has been slapped on the hand for their tactics by....wait for it....that's right. A SECRET COURT!? Be very afraid......
More wiretap requets were approved under the Clinton administration (8 years) than under the Reagan and Bush (the first) combined (12 years).
Reagan's excuse was the War on Communism. Clinton's was the War on Drugs. GW's is going to be the War on Terrorism.
BTW, we *ARE* talking about wiretaps on U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil. The CIA has jurisdiction for foreign nationals and there is a much less stringent procedure. (i.e. -- insert tape, push "record")
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
If you understood the announcement of the FISA court you would understand this has everything to do with YRO. I imagne it wouldn't be a big step to go from phone tapping to packet sniffing, and the DOJ could say you are a suspected terrorist, monitor you, then send your name, address, phone number, penis size, whatever, to the FBI for criminal charges (got any MP3's to a CD you dont own, legally thats felony copyright infringement) with not warrant. Get it now? People should be EXTREMLY pissed off about this.
-- Insert wisdom here:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/tr anscripts/fisa_opinion.pdf
The court rebuked the administration of WILLIAM JEFFERSON BLYTHE CLINTON, not the administration of George W. Bush :
Maybe I'm a pinko commie fag too, but I like to know this stuff. It matters to me and I want to know when government officials are falsifying information.
All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
This is a good sign that Kotar-Kotelly isn't afraid to take on the current powers that be. Many people, even ones with good track records, have taken up a don't-rock-the-boat attitude since you know when. It's good to see that it hasn't hit K-K. If she's willing to stand up to the PATRIOT-enabled FBI, it bodes well for her honesty in the Microsoft case.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This woman seems to wield a lot of power over both individual citizens and major corporations. I would like to know more about her.
Pretty much always, aren't they?
Louis Freeh was far from a saint. Nothing to do with the administration: it was often pointed out that Freeh paid little heed to the desires of the president or attorney general.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Nobody is going to jail
Nobody will be held accountable
It was all done to protect American lives.
Sometimes I feel that the federal judiciary is the only place that "gets it" about fundamental American rights and legal traditions. Then, of course, I think of Judge Kaplan and I get depressed again.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Agreed. Many pundits* are saying that this is the most secretive administration ever, and this just adds another log on the "What are they hiding?" fire. These antics are exactly what everyone was afraid of when Ashcroft was appointed in the first place.
*Source: NPR report I heard yesterday.
Stop Continental Drift! Reunite Gondwanaland!
Found these via Drudge...
Special Court Rejects Ashcroft Rules and Secret Court Rebuffs Ashcroft (related to the main story).
And from the second story... "The department discovered the misrepresentations and reported them to the FISA court beginning in 2000.".. which means the improper actions occured before 2000.. i.e. Before Bush. So Bush/Ashcroft are not responsible for those infractions.
Having said that (and despite being a conservative), I do hope these revalations reign in some of the trampling of civil liberties Ashcroft/Bush are considering. I fully understand their desire to fight terrorism, and I understand some liberties we were used to in the past may be crimped in the process. But eliminated? Virtually removed? A number of their proposals (and some things currently put in place) are simply troubling and I hope this is a wake-up call they cannot simply trample over the Constitution in the name of protecting the public. Freedom is not without its risks, either to those who defend it or the society which enjoys it. We all simply need to be aware of that risk and vigilant in our own way to insure we don't lose our freedom to either the terrorist, the criminal or our own government.
(and no, I don't get my music via gnutella either)
-'fester
-'fester
Correct. Landline telephone, cellular and data surveillance that occur inside the U.S. borders and/or by U.S. citizens is the jurisdiction of the FBI and thus under the oversight of this court.
It DOES matter to the general Slashdot readership, people!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
with the fact that a secret court exists and issues wiretaps authorizations?
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
Have you listened to talk radio these days? It's like Bill Clinton's still in office. It's bizarre! They're locked in fatal copulation (picture any number of icky-looking insects that mate and die) with the Clinton administration. They can't move on -- it feels too good and pays too well. And like flies to a porch light, there's little chance they'll get anything out of it other than attracting all of the other flies to their same light.
Hand-waving fanatics become their own parodies after enough time passes, it's simply incumbent on the informed citizenry to ensure that the damage accrued over the course of that time is not fatal.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
In reality, no matter what the label, they are still Poly want a dollar polititions that are crapping on John Q. Public.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
"We believe the court's action unnecessarily narrowed the Patriot Act and limited our ability to fully utilize the authority Congress gave us," the Justice Department said in a statement.
So, in other words, Congress (Legislative Branch) attempted to give additional (unconstitutional?) power to the Justice Department (Executive Branch), and this power was taken away by the court (Judicial Branch). Apparently the system, corrupt and ineffective though it may be, actually DOES work sometimes.
Now, if only we can get the DMCA overturned.....
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
No? Really? I am so surprised.
Best Slashdot Co
...and you people have the gall to be discussing the FISA court rebuking the FBI and Justice Department???? My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
While I agree with you that a load of shit is going on around the world (and always has been): it's imperative that you clean things up in your own house, regardless of what the neighborhood looks like. If you want to stand for civil rights and liberties, for justice and equal opportunities and oppose the idea police/military regimes you have to follow your own ideals. Otherwise they are worthless and "The Free World" becomes another meaningless term used for propaganda, political power struggles and disposal of the opposition (as it probably is right now, anyway). If you don't pay attention to our society's very foundation then our course is meaningless. And protection from arbitrary, unchecked wiretap is part of this foundation, we call it privacy. And no, privacy is not for terrorists only.
It seems to me that the terrorist have already won, as we (the citizens of the U.S.) are so cowardly that we will give up our freedoms for a bit of safety. And anyone who thought that the government wouldn't eventually abuse its increased powers was naive.
Isn't doing interviews what got Judge Jackson removed from the MS case?
I saw a Microshaft VisualStudio 60 Day Trial link on the top of the story!!!! Oh! The Horror!!
I cant imagine how many shrinks would be swamped today by slashdot geeks who wants to "just talk"
Also I would be leaving early today to witness porky pig flying over Atlanta.
Then again, I shouldnt be surprised since CNN reported today that Osama Bin Laden got his US Passport today.
Rapid Nirvana
Y'know, if Judge Jackson had NOT given interviews, the MS case might have been finalized by now. The appellate courts didn't overturn his Findings of Facts or guilty verdit. They didn't even say that his penalty was inappropriate. They merely said that his penalty *appeared* to be biased, based soley on the fact that he given interviews before the case was over.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Campaign finance reform, Corporate reform, Patriot act and similar legislation, our involvement in Israel/Palestine conflict...
It's all about trust. Until issues of trust are resolved, we will never get anywhere. and remember that actions -should- speak louder than words.
I'm glad that this judge has exposed these actions of the FBI. The next time the FBI says that it's ridiculous that any agent would abuse these broad powers given to them under the Patriot Act, we can just point to this example. The next time the FBI says that these powers are necessary in order to combat terrorism, just point to this example.
-Sorry, you gotta earn my trust! and you haven't been doing a very good job (referring to this administration). Talk is cheap.
Guess that hasn't been the case.
Refreshing.
No, it was commenting on an ongoing case that got his rulings partially overturned.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
at least there is a court, instead of inteligence agencies going and doing domestic taps at their own free will. Also, this court has been around pre-9/11 anyway, it's nothing new. Remember how NSA said they needed approval before domestic intelligence? This is what they were referring to. It's nothing new, other than maybe the judge who's operating it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
this pretty much sums it all up.
At what point did YRO turn into "Secret Court"??
And is it realy secret if we all know about it??
And does the fact that we know about it mean that we are all unknowing participants in this secret "Society"??
This and more on the Allaldo show.
The / in
I'm a nerd, and I find this interesting. Find another one, and you have "news for nerds".
This is hardly surprising, considering the FBI and Justice Department have always seen the ends to justify the means. The Justice Department, FBI, and CIA have always looked for loopholes in the law, pushed the limits of the constitution, and flat out broken the law in attempts to circumvent our right to privacy in order to obtain information about people. They seem to think that they have a right to know anything about any person at any point in time, and that their "right" to know pre-empts people's right to privacy because it's in the best interest of the country.
If you write an email that suggests something unpopular, or that you have considered (but not taken) a particular course of action, should the government step in as a "preventative measure"? Common sense says no, but is there a case you can think of where the ends justify the means? Case in point:
If the FBI had sought the right to tap the phones of the suicide bombers 3 days before Sept. 11th, but had no real evidence or reason to do this, could you have condoned it at the time, not knowing that it could have prevented the greatest domestic disaster in our lifetimes?
Basically, government agencies have tried to prey on the fears of Americans after 9-11 in order to achieve the greater flexibility in domestic espionage that they have always sought. Are they justified? I say no, because I believe that our personal liberties are inalienable. But some people believe that the sacrifice of certain freedoms is preferable to living in fear.
Thoughts?
-AAAWalrus
"By comparison with that existing
today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and
inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some
extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends
everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested
in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church
of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of
the reason for this was that in the past no government had the
power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The
invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate
public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process
further. With the development of television, and the technical
advance which made it possible to receive and transmit
simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an
end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough
to be worth watching, could be kept for twentyfour hours a day
under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official
propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed.
The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the
will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all
subjects, now existed for the first time."
"All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental
attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to
sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature
of present-day society from being perceived. Physical
rebellion, or any preliminary move towards rebellion, is at
present not possible. From the proletarians nothing is to be
feared. Left to themselves, they will continue from generation
to generation and from century to century, working, breeding,
and dying, not only without any impulse to rebel, but without
the power of grasping that the world could be other than it is.
They could only become dangerous if the advance of industrial
technique made it necessary to educate them more highly; but,
since military and commercial rivalry are no longer important,
the level of popu lar education is actually declining. What
opinions the masses hold, or do not hold, is looked on as a
matter of indifference. They can be granted intellectual
liberty because they have no intellect. In a Party member, on
the other hand, not even the smallest deviation of opinion on
the most unimportant subject can be tolerated."
Ummmm...
/ == 'slash'
.sig a bit off?
\ == 'backslash'
now that we have that part straight, isn't your
What is your Slash Rating?
say "make us".
Welcome to hell. (aka Republican USofA)
Fucking idiot people in this country make me sick, although people are fucking stupid everywhere so why should we be different.
FISA has the power to enforce its findings by simply rejecting requests for warrants. The DoJ, just like you, has the ability to go to court if they think FISA is misintrepreting the Patriot Act. That's what Ashcroft is doing, in an attempt to allow evidence collected via FISA-style taps to be passed along to criminal investigations. Whether or nor you agree with Ashcroft, the balance of powers remains in effect.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There is no sense of personal responsability, it's always Clintons fault.
Does anyone else see the incredible irony in this statement?
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
As much as I would love to blame Bush and Ashcroft...
This is the result of a slow and steady decline of our intelegence comunity since the end of the cold war.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
She's an Capricorn, a natural blond with a GSOH, and her turns ons include long moonlit walks, back rubs, and putting the fear of god into arrogant, power abusing men.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Bravo and well said.
Frankly, I went to read the parent post and honestly felt ill from how short sighted and stupid the AC was.
The idea of "it doesn't matter, because I didn't do anything wrong" is all very fine and dandy until you find out that trumped up charges are being brought up against someone you care about because they managed to piss off some minor bureaucrat. And that's exactly the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes, and precisely what the Constitution is supposed to protect against.
"John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it now if he can." -- President Andrew Jackson, historical precedent and general all-around tough guy.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Y'know, if Judge Jackson had NOT given interviews, the MS case might have been finalized by now. The appellate courts didn't overturn his Findings of Facts or guilty verdit. They didn't even say that his penalty was inappropriate. They merely said that his penalty *appeared* to be biased, based soley on the fact that he given interviews before the case was over.
...
... Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code requires judges to recuse themselves when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." ...
Actually, they overturned quite a few of his rulings, but they decided not to throw out the Findings of Fact (which MS asked them to do). They ruled that the DoJ didn't make a strong enough case for several of the 'guilty' verdicts that Jackson handed down, and that the appearance of bias was reason enough to remove him from the case, and they overturned Jackson's Final Judgment. Furthermore, of those portions that were not outright overturned, many portions of the case are 'on remand', meaning that those portions of the case must be reheard before another ruling can be made based on those portions of the case (and as of yet they have not been).
As for the penalty:
We vacate the District Court's remedies decree for the additional reason that the court has failed to provide an adequate explanation for the relief it ordered.
The District Court has not explained how its remedies decree would accomplish those objectives. Indeed, the court devoted a mere four paragraphs of its order to explaining its reasons for the remedy.
Check for yourself (PDF) It's in section V.
Followed by Section VI. Judicial Misconduct:
All indications are that the District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant.
(emphasis added)
I really wish more people would at least get a good first-hand overview of the 125 page document before they try to state what the court did and did not say. They might also understand why the DoJ changed their tune so quickly after the appeal if they looked over the portions of the case that were thrown out or remanded.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
"Ever wonder what Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is doing to pass the time while she waits for the next step in the Microsoft case?
Umm, No I don't think so. No I can say for certain it hasn't crossed my mind.
This space intentionally left blank.
If you find out she's the judge in your case, cry. By the way she handles M$ and the DoJ, I'm guessing she wakes up every morning with the same thought on her mind: "Whose ass am I going to kick today?" Excellent work, Colleen!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
you might be surprised to find out that the FBI "often" uses rational reasons for implementing such things as solitary confinement. SURPRISE! definitely be afraid... perhaps citizens should be aware of those rights they are letting go of in the name of security.
thank you colleen kollar-kotelly! judges are the ones that generally make the diffference. an FBI rubber-stamp judge is a frightening abuse of power.
A Judge is too important to be working on only one case at a time, but I'm sure time isn't being wasted. Obviously there comes times when her thinking leads to the need for research. This research is surredly done by others working for her and gets read by her which may present furthur needs for research. Sending the research team out again. Also the individual states and microsoft are given time to research their own things and send her any briefs they might find relivent. Sure if eveyone involved with the case spent all day everyday on this case it would be done faster, but sometimes its best to take your time on these matters.
An AC wrote:
> The worst terrorist attack in recorded history
> occurred nearly a year ago,
Worst terrorist attack, yes. But no where near what it could have been. Nearly three thousand died. Many more were wounded. But in a tower complex that could have had up to 50,000 people in it, it is clear that the terrorist attack is only part of the story. The other part is the wisdom, courage and compassion of those who sacrified themselves, those who died in the line of duty, and ordinary people who helped each other. That part worked a shining miracle, saving tens of thousands. Those noble, heroic hearts put those heartless monsters to shame!
> followed by a Holy War against Islam,
9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. Since we are talking about the *World* Trade Center, you might keep in mind that good followers of Islam were murdered that day as well. That isn't Allah that Bin Laden is following. I don't care who he thinks his boss is, or how many Islamic poems he mutters. I'm sure Azi Dahaka gets a big kick out of being called "Allah" though. Right up there with "Great Devil that comes from the Sky" and Nostradamus's little nickname "King of Terror".
> and now Israel and the Palestinians as well as
> India and Pakistan are teetering on the brink of
> their own war,
Which is a really novel experience for them. Not.
> Argentina is in the midst of a financial crisis,
Yes, I know. My sympathies. Most of the world is having some kind of economic problems.
> America is considering launching attacks against
> Somalia and Iraq,
I've got a unique idea: how about we take down the Al Quada organization in all 60 countries before we add new enemies to our plate. But no, we must go after Saddam at all costs because he is using the "weapons of mass destruction" we gave him on an ethnic minority inside Iraq (kinda brings back memories of the Old West and those smallpox blankets). If there was honest hope of helping the Kurds, I might be more willing. But somehow I think any real humanitarian assistance is pretty far down on the list.
> and you people have the gall to be discussing
> the FISA court rebuking the FBI and Justice
> Department????
They need a good rebuking. Ashcroft needs to take the curtain off the statue of Justice and get reaquainted.
> My *god*, people, GET SOME PRIORITIES!
>
> The bodies of the thousands of innocent
> civilians who died (and will die) in these
> unprecedented events could give a good god damn
> about the FISA court rebuking the FBI and
> Justice Department (and I'm sure if they were
> still alive, they'd thank the wiretaps that
> could have saved their lives), your childish
> Lego models, your nerf toy guns and whining
> about the lack of a "fun" workplace, your
> Everquest/Diablo/D&D fixation, the latest Cowboy
> Bebop rerun, or any of the other ways you are
> "getting on with your life" (here's a hint:
> watching Cowboy Bebop in your jammies and eating
> a bowl of Shreddies is *not* "getting on with
> your life"). The souls of the victims are
> watching in horror as you people squander your
> finite, precious time on this earth playing
> video games!
>
> You people disgust me!
You disgust me, if your solution is to sit around quaking in terror. I will not dishonor the memory of those people by bowing to the will of their murderers!!! They want us to be terrified. It is the terror, not the deaths, that is the key to the definition of the word "terrorist". Anyone who huddles up in fear, drags the flag around for a security blanket, or uses the terror of 9/11 to further their quest for tyranny is basically inviting the King of Terror to come and put up a throne for himself in Washington D.C.
The terrorists took the right to Life away from people on 9/11. I will not surrender Liberty and Happiness too.
"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power..."
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
I have been feeling very bitter of late, watching the slide of America from democracy to corporate oligarchy and, finally toward corporate faschism.
... something all too many lower courts have seemed to be willing to do in any case regarding the aformentioned media cartels. Like you, I think of Judge Kaplan, or the supreme court's repayment of political debts to The Shrub in the last election, and my moment of optomism fades.
So much so that I have been seriously considering emigration, and have been giving a lot of thought to what metric I would use to determine the "drop dead" (ie. okay, no more delays, time to go) moment.
But this ruling is a rare breath of fresh air, and restores some of my faith in our tattered civil institutions. Not a great deal, mind you, but some. It is freightening to have two of the three branches of governmetn (legislative and executive) willfully and knowingly ignore the constitution in the persuit of their goals (howerver laudable [the eradication of terrorism] or despicable [the introduction of digital prohibition to prop up the media and copyright cartels]), but not nearly as freightening as it would be if all three branches had chosen to shred that venerable document
Nevertheless, this was a courageous and important act. A few more like this and we might actually save and reclaim our democracy. The odds are long, mind you, but the goal well worth persuing anyway.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Real geeks use ProjectBuilder and InterfaceBuilder. Extra points for doing so on an original NeXT cube.
no matter how many times i hear arguements like this, the point is always missed. I'm gonna use an analogy here, so don't read the first sentence and think i'm offtopic. Near where I work, there's a freeway interchange being built. The thing will take 5 or more years. If it takes five or more years to build an interchange, how much longer will it take to build and debug a governmental unit? FISA is not strictly a president thing, in the same way that it's difficult to tell how a president did economically until after their first term ends, regardless of whether they are the one in office at the time or not.
Regardless of this detail, the homeland security crap going on is the fault (yes, it is sheer folly to think that it's gonna work) of the media and the Federal Government in tandem. Our present government is reactionary due to the media forcing them to react to situations after the fact rather than while they occur or before. It becomes so bogged down trying to get media coverage of "we're doing something about it" that nothing gets done save for whatever it takes to get enough positive media coverage to get reelected by showing that you're fixing the problems after the fact (or making people think things are fixed which they're usually just slapped together with spit and bailing wire, accomplishing nothign more than a PR department's dream and a totalian's wet dream). This however is different. Checks and balances show that they're working and the media tries to beat the crap out of them for it.
C'mon, people. This shows that things are working somewhat. Don't take infringements on your rights to mean more security.
To quote Thomas Jefferson: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
The administration which brought you Waco, the Ruby Ridge cover-up, and Elian Gonzalez would have been so much better.
Or not. The government has used secret courts to review wiretap requests based on classified evidence for decades. Why does it only bother you now?
I certainly do. But at any rate, administrations always blame their predecessors for everything. Remember Clinton blaming "12 years of Reagan-Bush" for the economic disaster? What happened? Bush(41) dismantled Reagan's economic policies (so there's no point, other than party politics, for connecting Reagan and Bush) and Clinton put them back in place (while screaming the whole time that they were "evil"). Politics is a game that I find disgusting--but it's still a game.
Not to say that the current administration is not guilty of overreaching their powers, but this clearly extends at least as far back as Clinton.
I wonder what you know about the relationship between the FBI and the Clinton Administration? The FBI was practically acting as an arm of the Republican Party in its attempts to "get" Clinton.
... and she's deciding whether or not to accept the DoJ's capitulation in the case against Microsoft. And Microsoft has gone on the record several times claiming that judges have no power over them. (I hear this tends to piss off judges.) Why am I starting to smile?
Nope, no sig
While I agree with you that a load of shit is going on around the world (and always has been): it's imperative that you clean things up in your own house, regardless of what the neighborhood looks like.
Very well said.
It should be pointed out that the 3,000 deaths in New York, while tragic, are hardly a blip in the population.
We have had more than 50,000 people die in car accidents since then. All horribly mutilated, some burned beyond recognition, others decapitated, some crushed within the tin can that became their automobile, some crushed beneath the wheels of an oncoming car, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. In short, each death was horrible, left behind it a wake of trajedy and grieving, and each represents a life that ended much sooner that it should have.
Yet we live with this stark reality every year, and few if any of us fear to climb into an automobile and drive to work.
The terrorists can scare us, can knock down a couple of buildings (as can a 5.0 richter earth quake, a big forest fire, or a wopping hurricane, and we get a lot more of those than we do terrorist attacks), but they cannot do us any real, significant harm!
Even the economic damage the fear they create is minimal. The markets had recovered virtually all of their 9/11 losses and the economy was on the upswing, until Enron, WorldCom, and a whole slew of other corrupt American executives and CEOs were caught with their hands in the life savings of the middle class, pilfering the nation's wealth for their own miserly gains. In the wake of such criminal behavior the markets and the economy tanked as every thinking person recognized and chose to avoid further opportunity for the wealthy to defraud them, and as a result of this behavior, and our governments neglect in regulating and preventing it, the economy now shows no signs of recovering, an unpleasant event that is entirely self-inflicted by greedy, rich CEOs and executives whose ethics died shortly after the umbelical was cut, and the tame politicians they've had in their pockets for the last twenty years. Such subhuman filth, who represent the highest, most priveleged economic class in America, are responsible for most of our economic troubles and hardships, not Osama and his flea-ridden, filthy followers.
Indeed, the terrorists, in contrast to our own corrupt officials, aren't even relevant.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't go around the world eradicating them and their followers wherever we find them, nor does it mean bin Laden's head wouldn't look good on a pike.
It does mean we shouldn't allow Aschcroft and his cronies to ride roughshod over the constitution, and that we shouldn't allow Bush Junior to use the country's military and spend our strength fighting Daddy's unfinished, and unrelated, battles a la Iraq.
Frankly, if the choice I'm given is between freedom with a 3,000 death/year terrorist pricetag, and an Orwellian society that maybe, perhaps, reduces that number to a few hundred, or even to zero, I'll take the three thousand deaths per year and keep my freedom thankyou very much. My car is far more likely to kill me than some towel-head Saudi fanatic hiding out with his donkey in some dirty cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, and I'm not about to stop driving because of it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Bush(41) dismantled Reagan's economic policies (so there's no point, other than party politics, for connecting Reagan and Bush) and Clinton put them back in place (while screaming the whole time that they were "evil").
What in the world are you talking about? Reagan's policies (like Bush's) were massive tax cuts for the rich, leading to budget deficits, in an attempt to force the government to stop spending money on the citizenry. Clinton RAISED taxes on the rich in 1993, leading to budget surpluses.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is ALL about YRO. Today, it may be wiretapping, but I assure you, they are tapping other stuff. It is only a matter of time before the new McCarthyists are reading and listening to EVERYTHING we do.
Anything you say will be held against you.
OK, this is way offtopic, I'll admit.
There has been a lot of discussion about refering to the New York Times for articles (due to the required registration), and the usual response is that the stories aren't available elsewhere.
Now we have a story that is submitted coming from the WP, and Michael has to throw in an entirely gratuitous link to th NYT again. Time to stop refering to those twits!
Come to think of it, my opinion of Michael goes down every time he adds something to a story, so much so that he's down to about 4JK[1] now. Time to start focusing on delivering the stories without the added commentary, Michael!
Bah. End of rant. Thanks for reading.
[1] The JK scale is a measure of an editor's relative worth vs. Jon Katz. All unknown editors start at 10JK (ten times as relevant, readable, and rational as J.K. himself) and move up or down, depending on performance. Once an editor drops below 2JK, he or she gets ignored.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Okay.
The source for current information is the U.S. Courts website on wiretaps. This covers 1997-2001. Archival information (pre-1997) is available through the U.S. Gov't Printing Office.
What the FBI is allowed to do is summarized on the FBi Website FAQ. I quote the relavant question:
Q. Are FBI Special Agents permitted to install wiretaps at their own discretion?
A. No. Wiretapping is one of the FBI's most sensitive techniques and is strictly controlled by federal statutes. It is used infrequently and then only to combat the most serious crimes and terrorism. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, contains the protocol requiring all law enforcement officers to establish probable cause that the wiretaps may provide evidence of a felony violation of federal law. After determining if a sufficient showing of probable cause has been made, impartial federal judges approve or disapprove wiretaps. The approving judge then must continue to monitor how the wiretap is being conducted. Wiretapping without meeting these stringent requirements and obtaining the necessary court orders is a serious felony under the law.
Finally, this site is a good jumping off point for further information on wiretaps and Judicial oversight.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
So let me get this straight, the definition of "Troll" is now "anyone who shares a view opposed by the majority"?
Maybe I was wrong...maybe those in power really are just out to destroy free speech for their own benefit. Thank you, moderators...you've shown me the light.
"I strongly urge both the faint of heart and the faint of butt to leave the room at this time."
- Strong Bad
And while we're on the topic, what is with the whole tax cuts "for the rich"? Why is everyone always so concerned with the rich? I think it has very little to do with economic differences and a lot to do with cultural differences.
Where I live, we have rich people and poor people who get along just fine and tend to appreciate each other as human beings. I believe that this is because the rich and the poor here have the same culture. They all like to do the same things, eat the same food, read the same books, and all have similar religious beliefs. There's little or no resentment or mistrust on either side.
In places like England or certain urban segments of the United States, where the rich and the poor are separated by culture, resentment and hatred are rampant. Seems sad to me. Just a thought.
So that's what they're calling perjury, lies and fabrication of evidence? Why the hell haven't these agents been prosecuted?
This is exactly why we should NEVER have secret courts and secret evidence. I can't friggin' believe this is being allowed to happen here.
We select the people in executive and legislative branches, based upon how good they are at selling out. It sounds ridiculous, but it's true: the less trustworthy they are, they more we want them. It's because we still stupidly watch TV to be marketed their candidates, and the way to get on TV is to have lots of money, and the easiest way to have lots of money is to sell out.
When there are chokepoints (I hesitate to call them "monopolies") on one-to-many communication (candidates talking to voters), then democracy is its own enemy.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
ahhh
zZgodZzZZblesszZZZamericazZZzZ
Why wait for the Judges to decide that our government agencies are out of control and stomping all over the 4th Amendment? Our legislature authorized the Patriot Act. Our legislature can repeal it.
and you are a troll(and coward, anonymous one at that), and because of people like you 10M people can be slaughtered, or 10M can die of starvation and it's not even noted as big thing on the history books. like, 10M africans/chinese/whatever means nothing but 3k U.S.A citizens do, not to mention that it was not only usa that the attack was laid against, however, before this usa barely cared about terrorists because "they're not our problem, even though we are migrating ourselfs into every corner of the world". (10m is under the real figures on few cases)
t _one_arms_stash. usa is just once again doing inner politics with foreign politics, this is something that stinks about politics in usa.
usa is just part of america. and america is just part of the world. you still are more likely to die by the hand of your own countrymen than 'terrorists' in usa, not some shady terrorists countrymen, but by a regular friendly neighbourhood thug, given the size of usa it's surprising you don't have more homebrewn terror (oh yeah, you do but it's not terror).
usa has been extremely hysteric, and calling everything it's got on 'war on terrorism', except this war on terrorism is just war against certain 'rogue states', or they'd be doing something more concrete to stop ira/westbank/baski/that_greek_group_that_just_los
for **** sake, i just visited spain, and read there on location on the newspaper about 'summer of terror', apparently there had been few bombings this summer, did i start screaming and take the first transportation out because 'OMG, TERRORISTS'? no. it didn't even surprise me, it's a mediterranean country after all.
to keep this post somewhat up to the original topic, usa should firstly issue wiretapping as mandatory in big corporations so that they don't go do _very_ _stupid_ _things_, you _always_ get caught of accounting counterfeiting.
on other news pakistan turned itself into dictatorship and usa didn't even blink.
if this rant won't get me to negative karma i wonder what..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
ok great speech bravo!. getting on soapbox... so you say "it's imperative that you clean things up in your own house" fine, no problem with that but a house divided will fall and the geek community is not on the same page.
you say "If you want to stand for civil
rights and liberties, for justice and equal opportunities and oppose the idea
police/military regimes you have to follow your own ideals." good but, following your ideals wont work- good intentions is not enough maybe for that rare person who will stop at nothing and willing to pay the price. to many of us wont go that far or stick it out and when it begins to cost... well? who will stand with you?
your "worthless" statement has a point not every ideal or your own personel creed isn`t worth much if you don`t practice what you preach. however noble it sounds peoples own ideals are not all based for the good of humanity hitler proved that. so untill people can agree on what is good and hold to be the "TRUTH", what ground work are you building your decree on? a new lie built to replace an old lie is still a lie when you consider the source people are flawed and very self centered.
so who`s going to pay attention? who here hasn`t bought something made in china? so we all give them are money while they are laughing and pointing nukes at us. yeah, i shure feel secure knowing somone`s grandma is being stripped search at the airport in the name of " national security and law enforcement for the safety of the public"
do you decry what MPAA and RIAA are doing? shure you do a lot of other people posting here do as well. what are you doing about it? do you go to the movies? if so, aren`t you defeating yourself and helping make things worse? remember you have to count the cost if you want to stand on princple and be true to your word... getting of soapbox.
Right wingers accuse all the media of forwarding a leftist agenda. Left wingers accuse all the media of forwarding a right wing agenda. We all call the media fair and balanced only when they agree with our own preconcieved notions. It's a shame how so many resort to name calling like brats on a playground when someone dares to disagree with them. This story was an important piece of news not just for nerds but for everyone. If it doesn't fit into your fantasy view of the world, tough shit. Deal with it.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Cultural differences be damned. I'm happy to pay more taxes (both monetarily and as a percentage of income) than my collegues in the next cubicle who earn less than half my salary (and seem, from what I can see, to have to work a damn sight harder on tedious jobs I'd never in a million years want to do.)
KMSMA (WWBD?)
You can not quote exceprts from historically significant literature and use them to place relevant and insightful thoughts into the brains of other people (see 1984 EULA sec 256.1.0.2.4) even if said people have a valid license (to view and store in their short term memory only) the copyrighted material in question.
You have been reported to the Book Publisher Industry Assosiation (BPIA) and will be prosecuted for copyright violations and failure to uphold corporate profits.
Please stay by your computer while we send the authorities to pick you up for reeducation.
interesting pseudonym. . . and very well-written article.
Your writing is great - you can find a compadre or two over at www.e-thepeople.org . There are quite a few folks there who write highly-considered articles and who enjoy real intellectual debate. Of course they have their trolls. . but no too many.
I don't run the site (although I've met those who do). . . it is just a suggestion - you can probably add to an already smart crowd there.
> > There is no sense of personal responsability, it's always Clintons fault.
> Does anyone else see the incredible irony in this statement?
LMAO. Help yourself to a bucket full of virtual mod points.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> Have you listened to talk radio these days? It's like Bill Clinton's still in office. It's bizarre! They're locked in fatal copulation [...] with the Clinton administration.
One of the negative ads running in Texas right now says candidate Ron Kirk "supports liberal judges, like Hillary Clinton does", and even flashes a picture of her on the screen. It's funny to see that HC is such a bogeyperson that you can use her to scare voters all the way down in Texas.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
President can make a mockery of the legal system - a system which serves as the foundation for our government, spawn a generation of kids who think that oral sex isn't sex, and not but three years later be entertaining contract offers that would make him the highest paid talkshow host in the history of television, this shouldn't surprise anyone. There's far too little accountability, and with respect to Clinton, absolutely no sense of shame.
Where in the US Constitution does it decree the use of "secret courts" to rule on "sensitive materials" deemed to private for US Citizens awareness?
President can make a mockery of the legal system - a system which serves as the foundation for our government, spawn a generation of kids who think that stealing from stockholders isn't stealing, and not but a few years later be awarding huge government contracts to his crooked vice president's ex-company, this shouldn't surprise anyone. There's far too little accountability, and with respect to Bush, absolutely no sense of shame.
Wow, that was easy.
Hmmm. The bias is showing here, their legs are spread wide. How could anyone actually believe that Ashcroft had anything to do with this considering he was running for Senate re-election at that time? Come on...we all know that good 'ol Bubba Clinton and bulldyke Janet "Child Killer" Reno were still in charge in the year 2000.
I find it amusing how the ultra left publications such as the Washington Post will go to such lengths to tar and feather the current administration. The headline is a complete LIE and they know it. They must think everyone has their heads up their asses like they do.
Indeed. Let's hope the court's readiness for a public airing of its annoyance continues.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This woman seems to wield a lot of power over both individual citizens and major corporations.
;)
I would like to know more about her.
Well, she's certainly not a MILF, if that's what you're asking.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually seen her. I just needed an excuse to use the term MILF on Slashdot.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Name one freedom which you think you've lost under this administration.
Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
I'm not supprised, but that's because it's not the administration you're accusing. More on that in a moment.
This is the same administration that tried to create the Office of Strategic Information whose mission in life was to lie to our allies and to the media in an effort to fight terrorism.
I see... Our allies like Saudi Arabi and Egypt? Those same allies who send us news reports specifically tailored to show them in a good light while simultaneously decrying America as a cespool of evil in their own government-sponsored press?
An enemy who can pose as an ally can do far more damage than one who is vocally opposed.
And people wonder why the world is reluctant to trust the US.
Actually, I don't wonder; the reasons are redily apparent if you look hard enough. We're the richest country in the world and those with less tend to be distrustful of those with more. One just has to look at the growin Have vs. Have-nots in American society to see this interaction at work.
Nevermind that a large majority of Those Who Have worked their collective asses off to get where they are, and work even harder to stay where they are. But that's another discussion, irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
This is also the same administration that has given you secret military tribunals with little or no constitutional protections for the accused.
How, exactly, should we extend our Constitution to include those outside of our borders? It's the Constitution of the United States of America, not the Constitution of Whoever Happens To Want To Use It.
We were at war in Afghanastan (sorry for the spelling), and rules and trials of war are completely different than those applied to American citizens.
Yes, John Walker is an American citizen. Notice the different direction the case moved once the Judicial branch came to an agreement on his legal status. He was an enemy combatant, as the detainees in Cuba are, but he's also a citizen. This moves him from war tribunals into Federal court for treasonous actions.
This is the same administration that imprisons individuals in secret for indefinite periods of time with no evidence or charges ever presented.
Not sure to whom you're referring here. People who were taken into custody shortly after September 11th, I'm assuming.
Yep, that overstepped the bounds set forth by our Constitution. This is a legitimate complaint.
Do you actually believe that "Dubya" walked into the FBI offices and said, "Hey, let's arrest a whole bunch 'a people and not tell them why?"
This is the same administration that wants to create a roaming death squad that would travel the globe murdering 'enemies' of the US.
Pardon me? "Roaming death squads"? Where did this come from?
This is the same administration that wants a return to the days of the J. Edgar Hoover's FBI abuses of private citizens and the McCarthy era witch hunts. (Bush's daddy used the FBI to harass groups protesting his central american policies.)
I see. Somebody proposes something you don't agree with and, immediately, it's "a return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover" and "McCarthy era witch hunts." Easiest way to spot a shaky foundation is the level of insults hurled instead of valid points.
Bush is quite good at wrapping himself in the flag and preaching the virtues of freedom, but the fact is he is the biggest threat to freedom and to the security of this country that has come along in our the 236 year history. His lies, double dealing, and school-yard-bully mentality is alienating even our most supportive allies and generating plenty of reasons why someone would want to launch a terrorist attack against the US.
Valid examples please? Or is this just another "terrorists are people, too" argument?
The sooner we're get him out of office, the safer we'll be.
And you'd probably like Clinton back? Remember, he's the one who was handed the keys to grabbing Osama bin Laden in the late nineties and responded "We don't have any reason to arrest him." This was, of course, after bin Laden's initial bombing of the World Trade Centers; it was known shortly after the attack his organization was responsible.
As to why it doesn't suprise me that the administration was doing this? The dates that all 75(!) of the abuses were filed were within the reign of the Clinton administration. The latest one was sometime in 2000. Bush didn't take office until 2001 and would have absolutely no way to affect policy before his swearing in.
The real suprise here isn't that the Justice Department was abusing it's powers, nor the fact that it was the Clinton administration that actually was the problem.
The secondary suprise is that a newspaper can look at a set of facts and point to the opposite direction. In this case, I suggest you read the Los Angeles Times article (free registration and all that); it's close to the same sort of "Bush is bad" article, but it does disclose in the last paragraph that the violations happened before Bush's watch and Ashcroft was actually praised for doing something about it shortly after taking office.
The real suprise, however, comes in realizing that the same person who so fanatically distrusts the current administration would so blindly trust a media outlet.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
Right and left really have no meaning anymore. They are two sides of the same fence, a fence made of money. Those appointed to a court who have no worry for job, for political attention, etc. are probably our only hope to keep the money grubbing half-wits in line. Then again, everyone has a price.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Judge Kollar-Kotelly was appointed to the United States District Court in May 1997. She received a B.A. in 1965 from The Catholic University of America and a J.D. in 1968 from Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America. Following law school, she served as law clerk to Judge Catherine B. Kelly of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Kollar-Kotelly was an attorney in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and then served as the chief legal counsel to Saint Elizabeths Hospital until 1984. She was appointed Associate Judge of the D.C. Superior Court in October 1984, and served as Deputy Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division from 1995 until her appointment to the federal bench. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has been a Fellow of the American Bar Association, a founding member of the Thurgood Marshall Inn of Court, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University School of Medicine in a joint teaching program on mental health and the law, and chair of the Board of the Art Trust for Superior Court.
Pretty impressive.
So you're advocating helping to replace the dictators willing to sell us oil with populists that would refuse on principle to sell us oil? Man, I hope you don't own an SUV... Look, we support dictators when we see them as beneficial to us. Then, when they do something to demonstrate they are not beneficial to our interests (like invading Kuwait, fer instance) then we bomb them. Got it now?
Yes, the measure of true integrity/morality is doing what is right even if it adversely affects us... but that doesn't get you re-elected. On idealistic terms, I agree with you. Unfortunately the world is corrupt and unfair and in practical terms it doesn't work that way.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Plus, if you speak against Bush, you're a terrorist.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That of course is precisely the problem. Especially when being a member of a group peacefully protesting when another member of the group has thrown a rock winds up branding you a terrorist even though your actions are peaceful.
If throwing rocks through government office windows in order to change policy isn't terrorism, why not step up to Molotovs? Little chunks of lead? Where do you draw the line?
It's a fair question, but it is loaded in this context, since any political group can easily be branded "terrorist" by an act of violence that takes place during a protest, whether or not committed by one of its members. The problem lies in the notion of "terrorism" itself, which licenses severe responses. Should someone who violates (for example) the embargo on Cuba get 20 years in prison? The Marin County kid who joined the Taliban got precisely that, for violating sanctions on Afghanistan, not because his "crime" was worth 20 years of punishment, but because he joined a "terrorist" group. I have no argument with the Taliban being branded as such, but what about domestic nonviolent groups who participate in protests such as Seattle, where isolated acts of violence did occur. Is any act of vandalism terrorism if used in a political context? What about political graffiti? How long before Mothers Against Drunk Driving gets branded as a terrorist group when someone spray paints "Don't Drink and Drive" across a bridge?
When someone is displeased with the good fortune of others, we call this envy. What I'm curious about is why people are so envious. That's where the cultural differences thing came in.
I'm happy to pay more taxes (both monetarily and as a percentage of income) than my collegues in the next cubicle who earn less than half my salary
I don't come from a wealthy family by any means and don't have a lot of money now (I'm just out of school and am trying to figure out how to make a living) but when I hear that a tax cut benefits someone other than me, I'm happy! The rich aren't the enemy--the government is the enemy. And anytime someone gets some of their own money back from the government, I'm happy because it's a little victory for all of us.
Now, I would certainly like to have *bigger* victories; to wit, seeing *everyone's* taxes reduced. But I seriously doubt that anyone in Washington shares my opinion on that--Republican or Democrat. :-)
C'mon. We've all seen the violence these protesters wrought in Seattle, here in New York, in Washington, and elsewhere. But this time the police just attacked them at random? Really? And if we take your word that this is what the (local, Democratic) city government did, what does this have to do with Bush?
And yes, there are limits on rights. Your right to extend your fist ends at the end of my nose, and your right to `protest' ends when your `protest' consists of looting Starbucks and Nike.
Pathetic.
So far all you've shown us is a local police department which may have overreacted when faced with protesters who when they were last in town looted and smashed most of the downtown area of their city.
If the protesters were peaceful, sure, this was an overreaction. If they weren't, it may or may not have been. In either case, no reasonable observer would react in anything like the paroxysms of hyperbole which you are exhibiting here.
Lekhitzot yadaim. Heskemim mezuyafim.. We shall survive together.
OK, so quick pop quiz: which of the two (Marshall and Jackson) is still cited in court cases?
Marshall. But of course nobody would cite somebody that set aside a judicial decision, when trying to make their case in court :) It's only the Executive who would refer to the Jackson precedent, and in this day and age they probably wouldn't get away with it.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Only in the hands of someone who had already decided what they wanted to conclude could a local police force reacting (possibly overreacting, you certainly haven't shown this) to protesters who last time they were in town trashed most of the downtown area while throwing bottles and molotovs at police, be turned into a hit parade of sorry cliches.
Those who you've decided to attack are `promoting violence and murder' (you haven't presented any example of either being promoted by those you're attacking, just by a local police force), are `fascists' (I doubt you'd know a fascist if one walked up and bit you on the ass, like most on the left `fascist' to you means `one I don't like'), and if someone (heavens!) has a minor tiff with a local police officer, they've been `tortured' (your words are an insult to those in places like Cuba or Iran, who know what they word `torture' actuallt means)
And of course, all of this is just a preparation for you to vent some spleen at people who have nothing to do with what you've discussed. You really had to stretch to bring Ann Coulter or Lucianne Goldberg into this discussion, for example, but hey, you were determined to, and you managed.
As I said, pathetic.
As I said, pathetic.
You seem to think that what you're pointing at is some sort of grand critique of the current Administration. This is, of course, absurd, as all you've done is point to what may have been an overreaction by local police officers in a city not even run by politicians of the same party as the administration, and who had every reason to be jumpy, for the reasons I've discussed.
Given such a grand leap of illogic, it's impossible to conclude anything but that you're desperate for some opening to attack the current administration (and a few columnists who you have even less grounds to leap upon), and have settled on this absurdity for lack of any better grounds.
Which, as I said, is pathetic.
And you ask whether I believe that this `would have happened under Clinton too'? How idiotic. This is the same Seattle mayor, the same police chief, the same police officers who you made the same absurd accusations about after the WTO meeting in the same city was `protested' by the looting of Foot Locker and Starbucks. During Clinton's presidency.
It would be absurd to blame Clinton for that, and it is absurd to blame Bush for this (never mind Ann Coulter or Lucianne Goldberg, you silly little twerp), but because you've decided that your goal is to find something to smear Bush for, that's the absurd conclusion you leap to.
If that's all you've got on Bush, it sure looks to me like he's doing pretty good...
You, on the other hand, are, as I said, pathetic.
By the way, one of us characterizes anyone who has the nerve (why the sheer unmitigated gall!) to disagree with him as `evil' a `fascist' and a `shit' and a `scumbag' (or plays stupid word games with their names). Do you really want to suggest that it's some other political affiliation which engages in dehumanizing their enemies and thus encourages violence against them? Really?
The fact is, such language, along with a bizarre hyperbole (a tiff with a cop is `torture', cops being a little on edge when protesters who threw molotovs at them come back to two is `destruction of the right to protest', and so forth) are the entirety of your position. You certainly haven't presented any coherent arguments for any of your claims.
And that, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is pathetic.