Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Tech And NSA Wiretaps
Tyler Too writes "Is there more to last week's story about President Bush authorizing wiretaps without court review? Ars Technica writes about what's going on behind the curtains with the National Security Agency's technology: 'When the truth comes out (if it ever does), this NSA wiretapping story will almost certainly be a story not just about the Constitutional concept of the separation of powers, but about high technology.'"
The problem for the average American isn't necesarily that liberties are being taken with regard to surveillance of fringe elements who might be prone to terrorism. The real problem is in defining what is a fringe element and who might be prone to become a terrorist. The recent news that groups like Greenpeace and PETA are being investigated leads me to believe that the authorities consider anyone with an opinion about anything as being involved in a fringe element. Strangely, the NSA, FBI and other institutions harbor people who think like this regardless of the current administration and political climate. It seems that we have to clarify to them what is acceptable every couple of decades or so.
The Bush administration really screwed up this time, and I'm saying this from a completely non-partisan point of view. The FISA court exists specifically for quick wiretaps when the government believes there is an immediate threat, and they even have a 72 hour period where you can get the tap authorized by FISA after the tap is placed. As far as I'm aware, they never even brought some of these cases before FISA.
The fact that they did this without even consulting the FISA court is completely illegal, and bypasses the checks and balances of our government. I don't think anything will happen to the prez, but this is really just disgusting.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
This really isn't anything new. In fact Carter used the Exact same Authority that Bush is using now. That executive order became Executive Order 12333 under Reagan in 1981. Gorelick also stated that Clinton used the same authority. From a CATO Report:
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
FISA itself has ruled that:t ml?id=110007703
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.h
Bush also pointed out that the 9/11 resolution gave him additional authority. Here is the verbage:
"use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons [...] "
What's the real difference between spying and restriction? Spying is, of course, a necessary prerequisite for restriction as the government needs to know what you're up to in order to prevent you from doing it. So what the president ordered wiretaps? If the president ordered wiretaps in violation of his Constitutional duties then he violated his oath. If you allow one president to violate the Constitution for "security", then you are saying the President is above the law. That, unfortunately, is a prerequisite for dictatorship.
http://www.flurry.com
E-mail and news on y
How about this plan:
We begin the call in the clear. We tell each other our public encryption key.
Go silent and key in the other parties public key.
Begin speaking again and the voices are encrypted using the public keys.
On the receiving end, the encrypted packets are decrypted using the private keys.
There we have a phone call that's impossible to tap.
When the truth comes out (if it ever does)
You'll be pushing 70, at a minimum, and the technology will seem quaint, though cool from a historical perspective.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
1 579.html
George W Bush
April 20, 2004
Here is his full statement from that day:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-38
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
The article talks about "Soft Triggers" which are interesting. A lot of focus has gone on keywords, but there are far more efficent technologies out there for building predective models. Why do you want a predective model? Simply put with Petabytes of data out there from intercepted transmissions you have to predict based on the content of a message if a message in innocent or threat. Replace the words "threat" with "spam" and all of a sudden technologies like Bayes and other data mining techniques are interesting.
If you don't think this is valuable, go read a book on Enigma and find out how much exactly reading your opponents mail helps.
However technologies such as this are not covered by FISA. I think it would have been better to revise FISA to cover technologies such as this, but non-withstanding that, it's really nothing new in terms of excercise of power then anything Clinton or even Carter did.
If the article in question is to believed, and they are scanning 1% of all US calls, they probably aren't distinguishing between foreign and citizen conversations. They're simply eavedropping on everybody and then trying to figure out what's going on.
Ignoring civil liberties is almost never warranted, and every time we do it, it turns out that not only do we regret it, but most important *it was never necessary to do in the first case*.
Didn't we learn anything from the internment of Japanese citzens during WWII?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The way things are going you probably won't get either.
We've read a lot about the network wiretapping technologies in use by the intelligence agencies, Carnivore, and similar At least one of the technology providers allows us to take a closer look at the actual technologies used. Unispeed openly claims to provide solutions to police and intelligence agencies. They'll even let you try the stuff for yourself
I understand the nessecity for wiretaps & high levels of secrecy to avoid intelligence falling into the wrong hands,
but we keep hearing we are at war with terrorists, no body is safe.
I know there is a large imminent terrorist threat, but is this a war or more just a large unkown fear placed by the administration onto the population. So many people are fearful of nothing, they don't understand whats going on or why it needs to be done & the more it all goes on people are getting more and more frustrated because of all the paranoia regarding this supposed war.
At some point in war there is meant to be communication between to sides, some sort of resolve, this is not happening, it is just a bunch of fundamentalists trying to stir the pot while the Government keeps declaring its a war on humanity.
These wiretaps are more confusion to add to everything else thats going on around us, nobody know's anymore who's right or who's wrong, all we see is a President on TV bascially doing announcing he needs america to help him fight a war on Terror and thats all the details the american people are going to get.
I guess I'll side with ol' Bennie Franklin, who said something like "Anyone who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
This space intentionally left blank.
If the Dems manage to gain back a majority in the house next election, I would think they would be obliged to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush. It would have a lot more validity than the impeachment of Clinton, and they would look like wimps if they didn't.
If you post it, they will read.
To directly respond to you, lemme put it like this:
If we lose liberties present in the Constitution, the Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?
Maybe you or someone else can specify some criteria for the terrorists 'winning' over our (former) way of life. If we don't spy on everyone, have the terrorists won?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Look. The word "terrorist" has a rather specific meaning. Raiding a mink farm and freeing the mink doesn't qualify as terrorism. Sabotage, economic warfare, street theater, whatever, but it isn't terrorism.
Even if they killed the mink farmer, that's just murder. (My point is not to minimize how horrible murder is!) But it's not terrorism.
The real problem is that "terrorism" is getting stretched to mean "anything law enforcement wants to have an easier time checking into". This trivialization of the word "terrorism" means that pretty soon, we're going to need a new word for the real thing...
*crickets*
No?
I got nuthin...
Karma whoring
A reality of abolutes and black-and-white would be convenient for ethicists, philosophers and just about anyone else who wants to know the difference between right and wrong. You must know that it doesn't work that way. Invoking terrorism as an excuse for abusing civil liberties? Please. We may as well invoke the bogey-man as a reason to pay taxes or Santa Claus as a reason to be a moral person. Let's all put our shirts back on, set the can of Old Milwaukee down and take a deep breath. Civil liberties are at the core of a strong democracy, and as they are eroded, so will be a democracy's strength.
Life is full of misery, loneliness, and suffering - and it's all over much too soon. --Woody Allen
A better question might be: "Did we learn anything from the use of the 'Office of Censorship' which opened and read every international letter, postcard, package, telegram, or telephone call sent or received by US citizens from 1941-1945?" The answer to that would be a "Yes, it worked." Spies and sabateurs were caught. It was effective. And the program was terminateed when no longer needed in 1945.
arstechnica.com cannot be found right now.
and the article is not in the google cache.
The difference that you missed between what the Bush Administration has done and what past presidents have done is this: FISA only allows warrantless surveillance of NON-US-PERSONS. Warrants are still legally required under FISA and the Patriot act for surveilling US Citizens. Which is why the FISA court was set up - so they could get a warrant in minutes if necessary, or even within 24 hours AFTER the surveillance had begun. So what's their excuse? Judicial oversight just too much hassle, with that minutes-long waiting period?
include $sig;
1;
Do not fear, I live far from you, I live in a training camp in Pakinstan.
Seriously:
Hate does not spring from nothing.
I do not say will should be nice to terrorists, they are criminals. We should be nice to people then there would be no terrorist and no popular support for them.
I, for one, do not wish to live under a highly corrupt, two hundred an sixteen year old country that wants to rule the world.
You have no democracy at all. That equally describes the society where there's no expectation of privacy, and every citizen knows they may be under government surveillance.
If you believe the Bush administrations definition of fast food as "manufacturing" jobs, you can start speculating what "international" and "terrorist" means.
For instance if you place a domestic long-distance phone call, it could go over a satellite link. Well, orbit is international territory. Therefore using Bush administration verbal gymnastics, this would be an international call. And what about cell phones??? Well, all those signals go into orbit, so that could be an "international"
What about terrorists??? Well we already know that the Bush administration considers unions (the NEA in particular), peace activists and environmental activists as "terrorists". And many Democrats subscribe to ideas of unionism, peace and environmentalism. Indeed they believe anyone who opposes this war is aiding and ebetting terrorists. Ergo, Democrats are terrorists.
And what about any businesses that do businesses in country where there may be terrorists? Couldn't they be terrorists as well. Well I'm sure there is a lot of strategic business information that could be learned from "international" calls by "terrorists".
The fact that Bush refused to go through the FISA court leads you to believe that this court was unlikely to approve the wire taps they wanted. This court has a history of rubber stamping pretty much anything an adminstration wants.
The alternative thought is that Bush is asserting a new right of "presidential supremacy". This basically means that the President can do whatever he wants so long as he claims it is pursuit of his "commander in chief" duties. Frankly, this is the more disturbing option. This is the avenue that Hitler took.
If Congress does NOT oppose these actions, Bush will have successfully established a precedent of violating the law simply because "he feels like it". This would transform GW Bush into a dictator. GW Bush could decide to cancel the next election because of "terrorist threats".
If you are a Republican, please think long and hard about giving your approval to this. Now think whether you would approve this if it was Bill Clinton.
Finally, consider Bush's justification. There have been no terrorist attacks since Bush started the program. Well, consider that from the first WTC attacks in '92, Al Queda made no successfull strikes until 2001. A total of NINE YEARS passed between Al Queda attacks against US territory without a SINGLE illegal wire tap (at least during the Clinton administration).
I would submit that there was PLENTY of intelligence available to the Bush administration to stop attacks. Indeed, the Clinton administration managed to thwart multiple Al Queda attacks against the US without using illegal wire-taps (but no doubt using the legal (and secret) FISA court). John Ashcroft de-prioritized anti-terrorism to just under porn and prostitution.
Richard Clarke was screaming as loud as he could to get access to the President and take anti-terrorism seriously. He was ignored. The intelligence fore-shadowing 9/11 was forestalled. Somehow the Bush administration had managed to bring the US airforce to a state of unreadiness whereby it could not intercept a jumbo jet.
Please Republicans, take your party and your Constitution seriously. This man is dragging your party into ignominy. If you are a patriot you MUST support checks and balance. The President is NOT an elected king. The Presidents job is to respect and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The President cannot just "make up" laws.
If you don't support checking the president's power, you are a fascist. If you don't like that label, than you need to change your position. You will bring this country to a state of civil war against those of us who will NOT bear a President affecting the same transformation on the US as Hitler did to Germany.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
...that they didn't think they could get the FISA court to rubberstamp?
The FISA court has only turned the government down, what, twenty times in thirty years? And the law allows them to wiretap first and get court approval afterwards... and if the court turns them down they can appeal to another secret court, and if that court turns them down they can appeal to the Supreme Court, meeting in secret session with only the government in attendance.
The mind boggles. What could they possibly have been afraid to take to FISA court?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
You can read a summary of the past 5 years of spying on Americans in their own country here. Included are reasons why Ashcroft chose the N.S.A. instead of the F.B.I. and a timeline of the whole complicated story.
Throwing blood on minks is NOT a "terrorist" activity.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.
I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder. Terrorist KILL indiscriminately at civilian targets in order to produce a state of fear. As goofy as they are, none of these liberal radical groups do this.
By the way, it is quite ironic that while the FBI classifies PETA, Greenpeace and ELF as terrorists, they DO NOT classify white supremacist groups who practice para-military operations and gladly sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" and "The Turner Diaries".
I have NO DOUBT that the Bush administration is spying on liberal organization by labeling them "terrorists". And I also have no doubt that they are simply asserting another authority that they have not admitted to for domestic calls.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Kind of depends on who you think are the domestic enemies of democracy, doesn't it?
If we believe that we can defeat terrorism by reducing privacy, maybe the first place we should open up is the nation's largest employer, and no, it isn't Walmart. Perhaps if we had greater openness on the part of this group, it would lead to a stronger democracy and less terrorism. Isn't democracy defined as public understanding and participation in government?
I think the Patriot Act would be fine if it worked both ways. I should be able to find out what my representatives are doing the same way they can with me. What deals are they making with the energy lobby? What deals are they outsourcing on no-bid contracts? Surely if giving up privacy makes us safer you have no problems with that.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
WOW, talking about taking it out of context!
The court was talking about executive branch's ability to gather intelligence on FOREIGN SOIL!!! They deemed that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to foreign governments and their agents. Which is the correct reading and MOST of us here would agree to.
What the courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled against is using that power on US CITIZENS! In fact FISA specifically guards against and makes that illegal. To balance that it makes it easier for authorities to get secret warrants and allows warrantless searches within the first 15 days of a war and allow agents obtain warrant AFTER the tap.
They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
LIAR!!! Do you have security clearance? Have you seen the list of warrantless searches? No? Then how do you know? Oh because Bush said so? Oh, and they also said they didn't use Patriot Act on non-terrorist groups and guess what? They used it on Peace groups and PETA!
But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
LIAR!!! Were you there when they were briefed? No? Then how the FUCK do you know? EVERY senator (Republican & Democrat) said they did not get complete information on this. But you KNOW they are lying??
And NO, this is not a reason to hide things! It is a DAMN GOOD REASON TO NOT HIDE things!!! Because if they didn't then Bush would have some RECORD to bolster his statements.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
Man you are just a walking LYINGPALOOZA!!! You mean to tell me that Al Queda DID NOT suspect that this government was TAPPING EVERY PHONE call? Hello? Govt has been tapping Al Queda since the mid-80's. Are you REALLY that dumb to think that Al Queda was SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YA to find this out from NY Times?
Not only are you a liar, you are dumb too...
Orwell also had great exposure to the super-totalitarian government of post-war Burma.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
"They hate us for our freedom" - GW Bush
Well if they hate us because we are free and have liberties from a totalitarian government, than taking away freedoms for the sake of FIGHTING terrorists affectively accomplishes there goal.
Well, that's GW Bush's world. Which tells you he doesn't think very long about keeping a consistent line of values and reasoning.
Don't kid yourself. The terrorists hate us because we're up in their business. They want us out of the Middle East. Increasing our presense in the Middle East only increases the amount of radicalism. Hence more terrorism.
That's why "fighting the there so we don't have to fight them here" is so stupid. Fighting them there only makes more of them.
This is probably too complicated for the average Republican to understand. I will translate to something you might be able to relate too. Remember Fantasia where Mickey makes the magic broom (Mujahadeen). Well Mickey is so pleased with himself that he falls asleep when he thinks the job is done (abandoning Afghanistan after the Russians withdraw). Well Mickey wakes up and finds the broom has overfilled the water (WTC, 9/11). Then Mickey tries to kill them by hitting them with an axe (Iraq). Well, Mickey didn't think it through because every time he kills a broom, 6 more rise to take it's place (Iraqi Insurgency). Eventually, Mickie realizes that the mindless use of force is not the answer and must turn to someone more learned in magic (diplomacy (UN)).
Tomorrow we'll make the same analogy, we'll just use drug dealers instead of terrorists.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
I think it was Richard Maybury's Whatever Happened to Justice where I first read about the "bandit theory of government". It goes something like this: in the beginning, people got together to work to provide for a living. But some people didn't want to work. So they set up a camp, and periodically raided the surrounding villages. Eventually they decided that banditry was too much work, so one time they moved in, and never left. "I am your King, these are my royal officers, it is your privledge to pay us tribute." Then tribute became "tax", and the government began to provide services to justify collection of said tax.
According to Mr. Maybury, there are three politcal systems: Liberty, Tyranny, and Chaos. Liberty is what America is about; bandits have successfully re-taken the American government over the last 100+ years, leading to the problems facing the country today. Government schools were instituted to "dumb down" the population, and strip them of the possibility of an independant livelihood. (Reference: writings & speeches of John Taylor Gatto, specifically On The Scientific Management of Children: A Short Angry History ).
Government is the problem. Many people advocate that the bandits set up false terrorist attacks, to solidify their power. Some of these people are certainly kooks, but following the general principle of 'where there's smoke, there's fire', there has to be something to the claims of a grand conspiracy.
Richard Maybury predicted the current World War III 10 years ago. He's certainly worth investigating...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I believe four of their requests were turned down. bush doesn't like any challenge to his authority.
Another possible reason was the taps were on political opponents. You don't want someone outside your circle to know what is going on if you are engaged in criminal activity.
I wonder if McCain and Kerry were monitored by NSA?
photosMy Photostream
I wish I had, then I might be able to make some sensible comment on it.
:v)
Sadly, Arstechnica does not currently appear in DNS space visible from New Zealand, as of a few hours ago. I have retreived an IP address from cache and tried to traceroute to it, but no joy.
I too would like to see a cached copy. Anyone?
Vik
In the Department Of Records:
"The Truth Shall Make You Free" - on statue
"Information Is The Key To Prosperity. A Ministry Of Information" - sign
above security stall.
"Help The Ministry Of Information Help You" - poster on wall
"Be Safe: Be Suspicious" - sign on wall
"Loose Talk Is Noose Talk" - poster on the wall of the computer room
Kurtzmann's office:
"Suspicion Breeds Confidence" - sign
Ministry of Information logos are stamped on many of the small items in
Kurtzmann's office, such as the teacup given to Lowry and the fishbowl.
These are nearly impossible to see on video.
Shangri La Towers:
"Happiness: We're all in it together" - Billboard
(This billboard is copied from a sign that appeared throughout the United
States during the depression.)
"Mellowfields. Top Security Holiday Camps. Luxury without fear. Fun
without suspicion. Relax in a panic free atmosphere." - advert on wall
above children playing.
"Reality" - graffiti on wall
"Shangorilla Towers" - Shangri-la tower's defaced sign.
"DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE, MUTILATE" - stencilled on concrete wall inside.
Mr Lime's Office at Info. Retrieval:
"Trust in haste, Regret at leisure" - poster on wall
"Don't suspect a friend, report him" - poster on wall (also seen in both
Lint and Kutzmann's offices)
Jack's Office at Info. Retrieval:
"Who can you trust?" - poster on wall
Processing Plant:
"Mind that parcel. Eagle eyes can save a life." - poster on wall
"Power today. Pleasure tomorrow." - poster seen when the house gets lifted.
Shopping Mall:
"Consumers for Christ" - banner carried by band in the mall.
"Utopia Railways" - ad in the street when Sam blows up the building.
"Keep your city tidy" - sign on the trash can.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Perry
Osama is powerless to transform the United States into a totalitarian regime. GW Bush is well on his way.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
When the PATRIOT act was passed, conservatives blew off complaints that its provisions would be used to target people who were not "terrorists" in the sense that members of al Qaeda are terrorists. It was written off as liberal paranoia, and lawmakers assured us that these laws would only be used to target real enemies of the United States. Since then, the law's provisions have been used to target vandals, drug dealers, anarchists, and peace activists, and now eco-fanatics. Many people in law enforcement have been scrambling to define everything as "terrorism" so they can do sneak-and-peek searches, look at what library books people are reading, etc. It's exactly what the "liberal paranoids" were warning about.
More importantly, the powers will be abused at EVERYONE. The way Dubya's kind of absolutist self-righteous thinking works, anyone who opposes him is impeding his effectiveness, and therefore deserves to be treated as an enemy. Some people really do see the world in black and white, or "with us or against us", as Dubya put it.
The problem is that there is no black or white in the real world. Everything is more or less gray, but if you've decided the world is black and white, and you believe that you're "white", then anyone who is not white equals "black". Ultimately, this 'thinking' extends to include everyone else as an enemy, since no one will be perfectly "white" according to our "white" believer. Here's relevant joke.
By the way, this is a 'revenge' karma-recovery post after another anonymous and cowardly troll moderator splattered me with his muddy mod points. I also feel like I should 'retaliate' by racking up a few extra positive mods. However, what I really want is to know who my spineless 'accuser' is.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Slashdot effect, or did someone pull the plug at Server Central?
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached ... ... ...
Where did I put my tinfoil?
% whois arstechnica.com
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.SERVERCENTRAL.NET 64.202.100.113
NS2.SERVERCENTRAL.NET 64.202.96.102
% host arstechnica.com 64.202.100.113
% host arstechnica.com 64.202.96.102
% traceroute-nanog -A -O -U 64.202.100.113
1
2
3
4 dist4-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (67.114.50.66) [AS7132] postmaster@pbi.net 14 ms
5 bb2-g2-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.41.239) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 45 ms
6 bb1-p3-0.irvnca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.191.205) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 12 ms
7 151.164.42.77 (151.164.42.77) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 16 ms
8 core1-p8-0.cranca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.241.225) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 13 ms
9 core2-p11-0.crscca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.242.81) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 44 ms
10 bb1-p8-0.crscca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.40.62) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 27 ms
11 ex2-p5-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net (151.164.41.109) [AS7132] postmaster@swbell.net 33 ms
12 unknown.sjc.scnet.net (66.225.245.237) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 29 ms
13 ge0-3-0.j1.sjc.scnet.net (64.202.104.230) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 26 ms
14 ge-3-0-1.3940.j2.ord.scnet.net (205.234.205.97) [AS23352] root@manage.scservers.com 66 ms
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * ^C
% whois scnet.net
Administrative Contact:
Server Central Network
Customer Owned Domain (hostmaster@servercentral.net)
+1.3128291111
Fax: +1.3128291110
2002 West Chicago Ave
PMB 101 / Hostmaster
Chicago, IL 60622-5548
US
% whois scservers.com
Administrative Contact:
Server Central
Domain Customer Owned (admin@servercentral.net)
+1.3128291111
Fax: +1.3128291110
2002 W Chicago Ave PMB 101
Chicago, IL 60622
US
- A.
I'm not endorsing this in any way at all, in fact I'm ashamed that he did this, but you are saying that this is worse than murdering 15 million of your own people and depriving them of property and liberty as well? I understand this is a bad thing, but acting in this polarized manner is exactly why today's political climate is as vicious and childish as it is.
But the problem is, they never start with killing 15 million people (side note: it doesn't matter "who's people" they are). They start with a little spying here, a little bending the rules there. Lie a bit a cause a few tens of thousands of people to die. Get your people into the positions of power, eviscerate the press (if it hasn't rolled over already). Come to some accommodation with the "opposition" ("play it our way or we'll ruin you" is always popular).
In short, make it so that no one dares move against you.
Then you can kill 15 million people, or even twenty if you're in the mood.
--MarkusQ
P.S. The polarization isn't causing the problem. The polarization is a consequence of some people realizing what is going on, and others squeezing their eyes shut and hoping it goes away.
The answer to the mystery of the NSA snooping scandal - why did they break the law when it was so ludicrously easy to get FISA warrants? - appears to be developing: they weren't just wiretapping, they were data mining. They were using Echelon to 'Able Danger' the whole country (this is Poindexter's Total Information Awareness, which is supposedly dead, in action). The problem is that FISA was enacted prior to the current capability for data mining, and didn't anticipate how ubiquitous it could be. The reason they couldn't use FISA is that they would have had to obtain a FISA warrant for every person in the country. Data mining requires that you follow each link discovered by your snooping, and wouldn't work if it had to be subjected to FISA or the Constitution. The NYT article, now being spun as resisted by the Bush Administration (as if the NYT would publish anything without Rove's say-so), appears to itself be part of the spinning, a limited hang-out to cover up the bigger scandal.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
So, what are you supposed to do when the President declares himself above the law?
:v)
Roll over?
That's where your "defence of liberty" kicks in. Of course, tinpot dictators won't like that one bit and will try to eliminate your ability to covertly take the country back.
From the outside looking in, I see the process is probably already underway.
Vik
I'm at war with cockroaches. Will it ever end? No. More keep spawning to take the place of those I destroy. The only way to win my war is to remove the conditions where they can live, and thrive.
The "War on Terror" is about power and control, period. The President was a very powerful man, an oil Co. CEO, who jumped to the highest office of one of the most powerful nations on the planet. Who has more power than a President? A President during wartime, when the title, "Commander-in-Chief" carries real power. Who do you have a war with? You don't really want to fight a country that has a descent chance against you, you might lose! But they can't be a pushover, either. That would just be a "Police Action". You need an enemy that stikes fear into the hearts of the people, but is insubstantial like smoke and shadows, or the Bogeyman.
The only way to stop "terrorism" (an ideology), is with propaganda and an opposing ideology. To control the minds of the populace. The easiest way to do that, is to have the people volutarily give up their freedoms, for safety, "for the children" *RETCH!*
So, we have someone who, by his apparent actions, NEEDS power. And circumstances JUST HAPPENED to give him the most undisputed power on the frikkin' planet. He has control over the military, industry, economy, and society, of America. And he is quickly removing the remaining checks and balances on his power.
The world is in serious peril.
DAMN! I need to quit listening to talk radio!
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
And by that definition most governments are terrorists as well.
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
Like when France conducted paramilitary operation against Greenpeace, attaching a mine to their boat, killing one crewmember?
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Any legitimate security issue would have gone through the FISA court without problems. Somebody is hiding something they shouldn't have been doing, and it's probably going to be really embarassing when it comes out.
Wrong.
We're in charge.
That's the one and only thing that differentiates us from a dictatorship.
The fact that they seem to think that "THEY'RE IN CHARGE" is exactly what's got so many people who love this country so upset at them.
--MarkusQ
GWB could not have done all this without OBL. He absolutely needed something like 9/11 to rally people around him and the republicans.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Throwing blood on minks is NOT a "terrorist" activity.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity."
If your intent is to make a person fear you, and hence change their behavior becuae of that fear, you're a terrorist.
Vote for Pedro
You dismiss this too lightly.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Isn't that what happens to any conservative speaker who visits a college campus these days? Maybe you should ask Ann Coulter. I'm sure you don't agree with what she says, but doesn't she have a right to say it?
Ann Coulter spews hate-filled tirades on an almost daily basis in her widespread column and in her countless network appearances, so she can hardly be considered an oppressed voice crying out in the wilderness. In one of her college stand-up routines, many students stood up and left the hall, prompting Coulter to yell: "Yeah, that's right, leave! The anal sex classes are just down the hall!" That's a little one-liner that would have made the brownshirts proud.
If GWB was half as bad as you make yourself believe he is, you'd already be dead. Michael Moore would be thin...in line for the "Showers" at Bush's Death Camps in West Texas.
No, but under gwb and his executive orders, his government has the power to detain you indefinitely without legal representation and even to outsource you to one of a prision in Guantanamo, Syria, Egypt, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Pakistan and various other countries in Africa and Asia; hey, now that is one distinguished list!
So until we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chambers daily, I suggest you rethink your position and keep your mouth shut.
And
So, go ahead, join what's left of the Taliban if that is what your truly belive.
Wow, spoken like a true west texas brownshirt.
Once we have forced labor camps and we're filling gas chamber daily, it's already too late by several years, OBVIOUSLY.
What has happened in every country whose population has allowed its' government to take away its' freedoms for the sake of the illusion of a little safety is that eventually that population loses its' freedom with no benefit of safety. History only repeats itself over and over again because of ignorance. Vincible ignorance. Lazy ignorance. Mediocre ignorance. Ignorance creating fear, and this combination in turn creates a soul-destroying hatred which makes it impossible for meaningful analysis and discussion to take place.
Fortunately, the United States of America on the basis of an incredibly resilient document called The Constitution which cannot be destroyed overnight. But it can be destroyed with some time, a dash of power-crazed corporate whores, and a whole lot of ignorance from the population.
Oh, and speaking of ignorance, the Taliban controls around half of Afghanistan. The other half, the so-called good guys, the Northern Alliance (did you know that's their name, the Northern Alliance?), has in the past four years overseen the biggest bumper crops of opium in Afghanistan's history, most of it exported to Europe and Northern America. Right under the gun barrels of what's left of United States troops in the region.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
u sc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
u sc_sec_50_00001811----000-.htmlu sc_sec_50_00001829----000-.htmlu sc_sec_50_00001844----000-.html
...
This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act. Long story short, you always have to apply for a court order to wiretap. You can, however, do it without a warrant under the conditions provided here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
As long as there's no chance you'll be wiretapping on a U.S. person, in which case you're fined $10,000 and you spend 5 years in prison if found guilty. "Procuring" someone to wiretap under Title 18 of the U.S. legal code also gets you the penalty, of course, which GWB is guilty of.
There is another exception that gives the President to authorize electronic surveillence, searches, and seizures, without warrants, on any U.S. person or U.S. citizen anywhere at any time, with (each) authorization lasting no longer than 15 days, after which I suppose it'd be renewed.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/
Pen registers and trap and trace devices record the telephone number of who you're calling, and who's calling you, respectively. Normally you'd go to jail for a year for using one without a warrant.
This exception can ONLY be used if Congress has declared war. We haven't declared war since World War II. Everything we've done since then have been, starting with Korea, I think, have been "police actions." Congress has approved "military intervention" in Iraq, but not declared war.
Bush went to Judge John Yoo, who told him that Congressional approval of the war on terror constituted a declaration of war. The Washington Post and most places I've read don't buy that crap. Thus, Bush's claim to freedom is rendered invalid.
Now, aside from FISA, here is a second place Bush could be jailed.
Sec. 2511 of the Title 18, United States Code:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any
person who intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication
shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to
suit as provided in subsection (5)."
In the intervening space, it mentions how using mechanical devices, ala wiretapping, to get this information is illegal.
Subsection 4 says "Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in
subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Unless Bush stops the recorded wiretapping by the end of the year, he could be fined or go to jail, for procuring the recorded wiretapping.
Now, paragraph B makes an exception to that punishment for first-time offenders who are not wiretapping or procuring wiretapping for illegal purposes or commercial gain. Bush is not a firsttime offender because he has authorized the NSA to wiretap 30 times since September 11, 2001.
Not only that, but it doesn't matter whether Clinton or anyone else did the same thing. If it's illegal, it's illegal. If these retards who think Clinton's behavior somehow excuses Bush want Slick Willie behind bars, they're free to pursue any avenues open to them to make it happen. That doesn't get Bush off the hook, however.
That's another of my favorite arguments from these morons: "Bush briefed congress! Including Democrats!" So? Indict all of the treasonous fuckers. "Tu quoque" is never a valid defense.