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
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.
This woman seems to wield a lot of power over both individual citizens and major corporations. I would like to know more about her.
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
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
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.
1. Probably
2. Probably, though there might be a lot of finger pointing at people no longer in positions of authority. Lots of political bullshit.
3. Wrong. The majority of the wiretaps approved during the Clinton administration were for the "War on Drugs", not terrorists. And we're not talking "Big Columbian Drug Lord", either. We are talking general U.S. Citizens. The CIA/NSA doesn't need special permission to wiretap non-citizens outside the U.S. -- that is the very DEFINITION of their existence. The FBI deals with U.S. Citizens and U.S. soil, thus the oversight needed.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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."
My brother met Osama Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia - apparently it's a fairly common name over there.
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"
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.
Yeah, I mean, no real geek uses Visual Studio right?
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
I guess it would if it were intended to mean something, but it doesn't
What is your Slash Rating?
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.
hmmm...I didn't know that, thanks.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
"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]
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."
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
... 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
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 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.
When Slashdot moderators have the power to drag you away from your home in the middle of the night and hold you incommunicado in an offshore prison, you can start whining.
You're right, though, in one respect: you weren't trolling. That's why we really need a new moderation category -- "-1, Ignorant."
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
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.
I believe the system works, despite its flaws, when it is used the way it was designed. In the case of the government, we have a perfectly good design: the Constitution. The problem is that the current government is ignoring that design. The "valid alternative" you're looking for is simple: follow the design (which, BTW, was laid down by people with much more historical knowledge, and in some cases direct personal experience with tyranny, than the vast majority of modern Americans.) Why is this so hard to understand?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
> 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.
Being able to recognize that the world isn't strictly black and white, right and wrong, good and evil is not ignorance.
Which is funny because your original post made just that distinction. "You have nothing to fear from losing your civil liberties as long as you're not one of *those* people."
First, those people were bonifide terrorists.
Then it was any non-citizen with a visa violation.
Then it was any citizen accused of terrorism.
Now it's any citizen *suspected* of terrorism.
Soon it'll be "marginal" political organizations. Then a more mainstream one like Greenpeace. Next thing you know, the "PATRIOT" Act will be used to harass members of opposing political parties.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but it's hard not to when we're sliding down headfirst, eyes closed.
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.
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
We not only have the RIGHT to criticize our gov't, we have the DUTY.
Good point.
Probably many more honest, well-intentioned government officials than there are corrupt ones, but without scrutiny and public clammoring, the level of corruption tends to be monotonically increasing. Who watches the watchers?
With or without the complainers: With the complainers, do something wrong and get caught at it. You just proved that the complainers were right all along. Get enough public outcry against what they haven't done yet, and they won't do it.
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?
"It was all done to protect American lives."
Life is less important than liberty. It was less important in 1776, it was less important in 1812, it was less important in 1859, and it is less important now. To hell with the "war on terror" if its cost is Americans' freedom. People in the Soviet Union, people in China, people in North Korea; they're all alive, none free. Live free or die; think about it.
(I mention the Soviet Union because it was one of the most visible totalitarian states of the recent past.)
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
True, lots of the reaction here and elsewhere is counterproductive and foolish.
I prefer to thing of the ABILITY to dissent as being good, but the dissent itself depends on both the circumstances and motives.
As far as not needing to know motives -- that isn't necessarily true. An action can have many different reactions, especially when combined with other actions. Many of the actions of gov't aren't open for scrutiny, so you don't see the big picture.
Still, your final sentence about being able to dismiss a lot of the knee-jerk reactions is correct.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.