Slashdot Mirror
NSA Wiretapping Whistleblower
Kagu writes "ABC News is running a short piece about an interview with former NSA Employee Russell Tice and his allegations that the NSA wiretaps are more pervasive than believed and used in ways he believes violated the law. "
A lot more info on this subject, including a transcript of the interview of Russell Tice by Amy Goodman, can be found here.
From the interview:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
In fact, there are commercially available engines out there that anyone can buy. Check out Collexis, which also has demos online. This isn't as advanced as what the analysts at the NSA are using but it's close. Plug something like this into ontology software such as Cerebra and you've got a decent tool for keeping dossiers on people.
Nothing about this is illegal until the information passed into it is acquired illegally. Like most people, I'm a little more than annoyed that our civil liberties are slowly ebbing. One thing I've learned from history is that freedom and liberties are often the hardest things to find once you've lost them.
Recently, I've relied on the ACLU and certain political groups to jump all over the president and anyone who is part of the government if they overstep these bounds. I sure hope Tice gets his wish to reform the intelligence community as to how they handle wiretapping Americans. They can wiretap everyone else in the world but I don't want our government wiretapping us without the usual requisite warrants.
Side note on Tice, I kind of admire him for doing this. He's not going to go to jail because he's (intelligently) not revealed anything classified. He's only saying that this is going on. Now, I hope he's prepared to not work there anymore because I imagine the rest of his career is going to be fairly cold with people treating him like a snitch.
My work here is dung.
It doesn't bother me that they want to wiretap suspected terrorists, but why the no-warrant stuff? Can't they just get a classified warrant? I wouldn't care at all except that they appear to be going around the law that I had thought applied to everyone. I guess it applies to everyone except for enemies of the state, or anyone that is unfortunate enough to be flagged as one. For instance, that professor corresponding with his friend in the Phillipines that had his mail opened, read and re-sealed. Isnt' that a federal offense?
stuff |
A recent study (German) showed that 10% of all Germans or 16% of all Germans older than 18 years already use VoIP. Germany is placed 3rd in broadband use in Europe in absolute numbers, although it is the country with the largest population. This is a new trend, numbers are rising fast. I guess that the numbers in the US will be even higher. So switching to encrypted VoIP might be a viable solution for the near future.
Chriss
--
memomo.net - brush up your German, French, Spanish or Italian - online and free
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
In India, lots of piliticians are arguing that their phones are being tapped on the order from PrimeMinister Office. Is it worse than that?
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
This is probably the number one commandment of the SIGINT Ten Commandments as a SIGINT officer. You will not spy on Americans.
Intelligence agencies instilling moral values in their agents. What will they think of next?
May the Maths Be with you!
I think that the only way to get to the bottom of such serious allegations is to investigate the evidence. Perhaps if we could secretly intercept the communications between the administration and the NSA we might find out what is really going on.
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can leave until the day after.
"If you picked the word 'jihad' out of a conversation," Tice said, "the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing." According to Tice, intelligence analysts use the information to develop graphs that resemble spiderwebs linking one suspect's phone number to hundreds or even thousands more.
It can be argued that people who don't want to have their conversations monitored will not use keywords such as these that tip off the eavesdroppers or technology that recognizes them.
And conversely, people may use meaningless conversations with many keywords to delay the processing of these investigations.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps you can enlighten us. What classified information has Mr. Tice revealed?
American citizens were spied on without warrant all the time!
Psychological concerns like, say, his inability to keep a secret?
"The first rule of SIGINT is you DO NOT TALK ABOUT SIGINT"
"The second rule of SIGINT is you DO NOT TALK ABOUT SIGINT"
"If you picked the word 'jihad' out of a conversation," Tice said, "the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing."
.mp3s 'illegally'.
I'm not defending the intelligence community's tactis, per se, Americans deserve to know why warrants weren't requested.
OTOH, if all they were doing is looking for jihadists, then I'm not going to march on Washington just yet. I'm concerned about the word 'terrorist' being expanded to include people who smoke weed, bitch about the government, and download
We need to clean up the process, or if there is some classified reason why warrants just could not be requested...well, that needs to be declassified, explained, and reviewed by the media, congress, etc.
Thank you Dave Raggett
They may be illegally listening to average americans, but that's illegal as a technicality.
Bullshit. It's either legal or illegal. The phrase 'illegal as a technicality' makes about as much sense as 'pregnant as a technicality'.
If you're listened to by the NSA, who cares really?
I CARE. I have a fundamental right to privacy, like every other American citizen. The argument of 'if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear' is a recipe for oppression.
YOU'RE NOT THEIR TARGET
Not yet, anyway...
It's illegality on a technicality like sharing music with friends so they can go buy their own copy of a CD. Not immoral and not reprehensible.
Really? I think the RIAA might take issue with you on that. What a perfect refutation of your entire argument.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Famous last words of the ignorant masses.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Nothing was stopping Bush from doing this in a legal manner. NOTHING.
Bush, during campaign 2004 repeatedly told the American people he would never do such a thing, even with the mis-named Patriot Act in place.
Bush Logic: Since the Terorrists hate our freedoms, perhaps we should take away the freedom of Americans. That will show that Bin Laden.
Bush, worst president in US History.
I'm sure you'll also agree it's perfectly sensible to crosscheck that movie tip you gave your aunt against your credit card statement. Just to make sure you didn't *shrug* download it or something. Right? Why not automaticly sending fines to people mentioning they jailwalked or drove to fast to their meeting? You know, they're all *CRIMINALS*.
Why stop there? Why not earn an extra buck by selling information to Wal-mart? You might be expressing opinions against their monopoly on groceries, that would clearly indicate both an anti-american thinking and some extra vochers. I'm sure certain elements in the white house would like to know which blacks to imprison for minor charges like drug possesions (all blacks are users you know) to make sure they cant vote (but hey, we all know blacks doesnt vote anyway, right).
All in all, good thinking. Please stop the terrorists. Just make sure you know which ones are the terrorists.
Telephone calls to and from the subject are represented in a spiderweb model. Telemarketing firm calls suspect and several 10.000ths of other people. Others are called by other marketing firms again. Model explodes?
Or this one, just as interesting: The model takes marketing firms in account, a marketing firm employee is a terrorist (not suspected) and does the communication by calling terrorist one, communicate, than terrorist two, etc.. So what to do when you use the model? Include firm because of the second case, exclude firm because else about everybody except the UNA bomber is a terrorist (UNA bomber did not have telephone is his residence (-:, and he was working alone, so the model would not work anyway).
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
How do you know they are after them and not us? How do you know where they draw the line between them and us? If they say they are not allowed to do something, but then you find out they were doing it some of the time anyway, how can you really be comfortable that they are not targetting you?
Mark my words, this will turn into a constitutional crisis, especially if Bush and Chaney are not impeached for their wrongdoing. What we have is not, as Chaney put it, a strengthing of the executive branch. This is a takeover of the democratic process itself. The president is acting as a dictator by being above the law. I have already written all my representatives on this matter, and I recommend that if you feel strongly that your rights were violated (either directly through spying, or indirectly by the violation of constitutional laws), you should also write your representatives. Oh, and the argument by Bush that he is protecting the homeland is hogwash, especially if you believe him when he took the oath of the presidency to "protect the constitution". If he truely is protecting the homeland, he must uphold his oath of the presidency and protect the constitution. By protecting the constitution, I mean also that he must abide by the constitution and it's laws.
The vidicon was the first small, lightweight cheap television camera, developed IIRC in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It was a vacuum tube, but it was "about the size of a hot dog," and it enabled the development of television camera that were about the size of a VHS camcorder and cost about $1000. It was a revolution and led to the use of closed-circuit TV cameras by serious amateurs, schools, corporations, and for surveillance. (It wasn't up to broadcast quality, and TV studios continued to use the gigantic iconoscopes and image orthicons).
When it came out, the press--I particularly remember an article in Time magazine--commented that this was the invention that would for the first time make it possible to develop "telescreens" like the ones described by George Orwell, and would usher in the era where Big Brother was watching you.
Of course the problem was always that as long as it takes a human being to interpret the information, the ratio of number of spys to the number of people spied upon is too large to be economical for intruding on ordinary citizens.
But now, all of Orwell's technical visions are starting to become true--courtesy of computer technology....
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Why is this modded as flamebait?
ALthough the moderator may disagree with parents opinion (finding it naieve for example), the post is not a flamebait at all. Although I also disagreee with the opinion stated in the post, the text itself is honestly expressed, not meant to insult and should therefore not be modded as such.
If you disagree with the post, reply. Don't be a weazel and abuse your mod points
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
> Really? I think the RIAA [riaa.com] might take issue with you on that. What a perfect refutation of your entire argument.
Because the RIAA is the upholder of all that is good in this country?
That is truly the saddest thing I have read on slashdot.
former NSA Employee Russell Tice
In other news, authorities are investigating the disappearance of former NSA employee Russell Tice. He was last seen in the area of Ft. Meade in Maryland. "I don't know what could have happened to him," one neighbor said, "one morning he was outside getting the newspaper, and the next he was gone."
Seriously, shouldn't he be a little worried about having an unfortunate accident in the near future??
It's very easy to get labelled dangerous and get put on no-fly lists. By illegally monitoring Americans, they can then put those average, every day Americans on no-fly lists and other things to make their lives difficult. Average Americans are their target, because they can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist. Just ask the people in Guantanamo Bay.
What freedom have you lost? You can still make the phone call. You can still talk about whatever you want. You can publically bash our President. I think you have plenty of freedom.
A "whistleblower," under Federal law, is someone who, whilst still employed at the offending agency/company, brings illegal action to the attention of internal resources, the point being to remedy the problem. They then are protected from negative action being taken against them, since their intention is to help the organization improve and ferret out evil-doers. The point is not to throw the issue to the sharks in the media AFTER being fired. That's vindictive, not constructive.
--- "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all..."
I don't think anyone really cares who the targets are or that the wiretaps are occuring. The problem is they are doing it without Judicial oversite and that is a big problem. It is one thing to wiretap a american it is yet another to do so without the checks and balances provided by the judicial system.
Got Code?
What makes all of this so much more painful to me is that the old intelligence system was turning up the information required. Terrorists were nabbed at the borders, and so on. The New York bombings were on the radar. It wasn't a lack of information that was the problem, it was a lack of analysis. How does taping a hundred, a thousand, a million more telephone conversations help? All of this information has to be mined, but each extraction that is not related to the criminal case comes at the expense of someone's rights.
We HAD a system that was balancing individual rights with the need for surveillance*, it was working in the sense that good information was being found without tapping one phone in 300.
Now, the barn is on fire and everyone seems to want to spray water on the house.
*Need for surveillance -- I'm not convinced that the level of big brother spying conducted before the attacks was warranted. Frankly, the FISA courts scare the hell out of me. I don't like secret warrants more than gag orders or secret laws. I was willing to accept them -- part of the great compromise of democracy -- but they look like they were the slippery slope to today.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
"I have a fundamental right to privacy, like every other American citizen."
Careful. The word "privacy" appears exactly zero times in the Constitution of the United States of America. Though the courts have established this right through legal precedent, these court decisions can be changed (see Dred Scott, et al). The right to privacy in the U.S.A. is hardly "fundamental."
--- "When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school, it's a wonder I can think at all..."
I hope he's prepared to loose his house, wife, current job, sanity, life in general. Hopefully something good will come of it.
"THEY ARE NOT AFTER *YOU* is the main thing to remember" While this may be true at the moment it may not be true in the future. You are assuming that government will always be benign and that you will not take a political stance against any non benign government. Governments especially in times of crisis can change for the worse. How would you oppose a non benign government which has advanced tools which peer into every aspect of your life. Dissenters can be rapidly targeted and removed with ease, freedom of speech won't save you in that situation. You only have to look at history to see how many times bad political changes have happened in the past and that was before governments had such powerful tools to potentially supress people.
Tracing calls inbound or outbound to known terrorist phone numbers, in itself is probable-cause, no?
I'd say it is. I don't think anyone would disagree. Either you're intentionally missing the point in order to troll or you're just ignorant.
The point is the NSA needs A WARRANT to do the tap. Hell, FISA lets them get a retroactive warrant for up to 72 hours after the fact. What is stopping Bush & Co. from getting a warrant from a secret court that has never denied a single warrant application in all of 2004? Its very likely that they had no probable cause to monitor these people.
Just another non-issue.
Apparently the 4th amendment is a "non-issue".
SIGINT officer? Do they also have SIGHUP officer? ... :-)
Well, as long as they don't send you a SIGKILL officer
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
matter of choice.
What choices we do make is what will define us as a people.
Some people are making bad choices and hurting and killing other people by the tens of thousands, some people are hurting far many more but killing far fewer.
I resent the fact that the president just couldn't be bothered to go and get the legal authorization 'post-facto'; perhaps because there was no authorization or justification to be granted; in which case he is a more paranoid bastard than Nixon ever was and doesn't deserve to finish his term in office (but the alternative is the veep? Would we really trust him?)
The alternative would be worse unless we would watch him like hawks.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The FISA court denied a total of 4 requests betwen 1979 and 2004, out of thousands. The could have gotten the wiretap order if the wiretap was done for legitimate reasons, or on a person they could reasonably suspect. If it was emergency, they could apply up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance.
There's no valid reason to have done things like this. Orders were clearly legally required, and if they weren't obtainable for some reason, the Bush administration should have sought changes to the law, not ignored the law. That's not how the US works. And since you want to make this a Democat/Republican issue, when did the GOP become the party of violating the law whenever it wants to, without any expectation of punishment? Do you think because Bush is a Republican, he gets the power to just decide he doesn't need to follow a given law if it suits him? I know you'd be howling if Clinton had done the same thing (and don't say he did, because the single thing you can legitimately point to in that regard [the Ames case], was a physical intrusion that wasn't covered by FISA till 1995).
Fear!!!! Scare!!!! Run hide!!! We will protect you at any cost!!!! It's for your own good!!!
Pitiful.
If there is probable cause, there's no issue with going through a court. If the NSA was going through a court for warrants like they should, that provides judicial oversight of the executive branch, a necessary check-and-balance. If the NSA can do whatever the fuck they like, our government lacks transparency and there is no balance of powers -- facism results, as we can readily see. It doesn't matter *who* is being watched, or why. What matters is that we Americans are being spied upon on a widespread basis without warrants, which is a fundamental violation of the rights of all Americans. Terrorism itself is the a non-issue. One major terrorist attack, five years ago, killed almost 3000. Aspirin kills over 10000 people yearly by painful hemmoraging stomach ulcers, and no one even gives a shit. We should be focusing on real problems, real threats to American lives, rather than swallowing the bullshit propaganda our government and media systems alike publish.
Kidding aside, the overriding principle of intelligence in the U.S. used to be "Speak truth to power," once upon a time. The bending of those agencies' souls in the run-up to Iraq is terrifying to anyone who remembers the elder Bush's term at the CIA. George H.W. Bush didn't preside over an agency whose sole purpose was to buttress decisions already made by "instinct."
"Intelligence" groups do have their principles. They aren't what you'd call morality, exactly, but when they're distorted it ain't any good at all.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Whether it is or not is a determination to be made by a court, not an instrument of the executive branch or the Chief Executive himself. If the Adminstration cannot be bothered to even go through the motions of using the FSIA Court where warrants are virtually never turned down, and can be sometimes asked for AFTER an intercept in emergent cirucmstances, then the Adminstration must view itself as beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is dangerous, unprecedented and should not be tolerated.
Under our system of justice, the ends (i.e., you're talking to Al Quaeda, so the government should listen) do not justify the means (i.e., let's not get a warrant, let's just listen). This fundammental concept is twice enshrined in our Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
On a very basic level this clause reflects a judgment that when the government wishes to act in certain ways, it must follow certain procedures; that is, provide an accused with what has been called "Due Process of Law." Sometimes the question of the extent of what process is due can be hotly debated. There is no debate, however, that the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures requrires that the police obtain a warrant from a judicial officer before such a search can take place. The Adminsitration no doubt is aware of this, but has chosen to ignore it.
It also ignores (not just here, but in other instances) that the Constitution regards the "process," of justice is so important, that in cases where the government fails to give an accused Due Process and obtains evidence in defiance of the accused's Constitutional rights, such evidence will not be allowed to be used in the prosecution (the "Exclusionary Rule"). Again, the administration ignores this judgment by our Constitutional Founders (which makes W's insitance on "Strict Constructionists" for the SCOTUS somewhat hilariously ironic) that individual guilty men may, in fact, go free, to protect the integrity of the system and insure that the executive respects the law it is charged to enforce. The is supposed to serve as a deterrent to instruments of the executive (police, FBI, etc.) to follow the system of checks and balances by, for example, asking a judicial officer for a warrant before (of, in the case of the FSIA, sometimes even after) executing a Fourth Amendment search.
Bush Lies On the Record.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/07-01 .htm
All your base are belong to Google.
The problem is that you won't have any real "evidence" until after the terrorist act is committed and people are dead.
Just like we had no evidence before 9/11.
Oh wait...we did.
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
That is the worst possible example you could have used to support your case. Iman Ferris' phone was tapped with a warrant from FISA. They already had evidence that he was an Al-Queda operative before he even entered the country.
You are far more likely to die from so many other things then terrorists. Your paranoia is ruling your thoughts. Iraq is still far from a Democracy, many years to go. Costing a now estimated $2 Trillion by 2010. Also, Saddam has nothing to do with Terrorism. Quit hanging on to false ideas.
"The mentality was we need to get these guys, and we're going to do whatever it takes to get them."
Like that's a bad thing.
Let me propose a different scenario that might help you understand the detriment of the "You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide" mentality. Hypothetical Fast forward a couple years. The government has installed automatic road monitoring devices that can track when people are speeding and where they are going, no problem, you don't have anything to worry about, just don't speed. No problem. The government also required all new cars to have road monitoring software, which just so happens to contain a killswitch for law enforcement, that will disable your car if need be, Great!, now if someone steals my car, law enforcement can just disable it, this will protect people! A year later, you're sitting with your wife in your living room, watching reruns of Fox News, feeling great about your police-state-protected suburban life, you look over and your wife is grasping at her chest, unable to breathe. She's having a heart attack. 911 service in your area is bogged down / inefective (problem exists today in some areas) so you need to rush your wife to a hospital yourself. You get her to the car, jump in, and start racing down the road. You get a mile down the road, and the automatic road monitoring system flags you as a speeder, and uses the the software in your car to correct your speed, causing you to go the speed limit. Your wife is dieing, so you continue to force the pedal down. No luck, you can't get your car over the speed limit. Your wife dies on the way. Or maybe the road-side monitors just shut your car off the first time.. and your wife died. Or maybe it just alerted a nearby officer, who pulled you over for speeding and didn't listen to you when you tried to explain yourself.. and your wife died. You are'nt a criminal, you have nothing to fear, except not bieng able to take matters into your own hands because they've been tied behind your back.
Revealing classified information to the media is illegal. Stop. End of discussion.
There is a well established (as in legally defined) process for intelligence people to bring any problems that they might have to various review boards in the millitary, the DoJ, the NSA, and Congress as well. The "Domestic Wiretapping" program was actually already undergoing these reviews over the course of years.
Thanks to this "principled whistleblower" and his friends we have now lost a source of actionable intelligence. This on top of apparently arrests of people in Italy who were planning to launch attacks aimed at much greater casualty figures than 9/11. (You can go and ask the NYT why they didn't bother reporting this to you.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
"Disbelieve whatever the President says and believe whatever his enemies say"
That's the trouble when you lie sometimes. Not only do people disbelieve you all the time, they start believing your enemies. Which is why its a bad idea to lie in the long run.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Here's a little article I'd like to share on the scope of the NSA 'wire tapping'. It's titled: Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report if you want to google it. It's originally from the NY Times but they like to lock up articles and make you pay for them. The original popped up in an obscure corner of the times on Christmas Eve. What great timing for such a story...
"We thought it was a STO; standard training operation"
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Who went after CUM stains on a dress rather than Bin Laden?
Is it too much to ask to have a 'smart' guy running the free world?
And quit blaming Clinton for Bush's solid performance as Village Idiot.
If he is found to have broken the law without adequate justification, it is quite possible he will go to jail. That is the risk you take if you deem it necessary to disclose such information.
Would you be equally happy for Bush to go to jail if he is found to have been responsible for the illegal wiretaps in question?
I view intelligence activity as an iceberg - most of it is hidden beneath the surface. That which pokes out normally indicates something much larger lurking beneath the surface.
Stop playing the fucking cheerleader, it's unbecoming.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
>I CARE. I have a fundamental right to privacy, like every other American citizen. The >argument of 'if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear' is a recipe for oppression.
And by "privacy", you're referring to the right against unreasonable search and seizure. "Unreasonable" here is defined as searches conducted without a warrant issued by a judge. And eavesdropping on telephone calls is a search, otherwise other forms of private communication (the mail) would enjoy higher forms of privacy even though they are essentially the same.
The bar was set very, very low with the FISA courts (too low, in my opinion), but that's too much protection now?
And, on privacy: These events do little but engender cynicism. "Left and Right" have no meaning anymore. They're teams, slogans, bad words to call people, not ideological positions. Which side is the side for privacy? For limited government power? I suppose I know the answer: which ever side isn't in power.
Now that's depressing. The best I can hope for with these "kooky" ideas about liberty is to be an obstructionist.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
You do NOT own the information on who bought item X.
You, being the vendor, have more limited privacy rights than I as the private customer do.
Again, look at the vendors and the private customers.
Comcast is a public vendor so they don't own the info on my connection.
Comcast does own the info that they were requested to connect to
&
but
neither of them own my name.
One of these wiretaps was able to stop a guy by the name of Iman Ferris who was plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
And he reported that there was no way they could do it -- there was too much security. And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.
2004 -- 1758 applied for, 3 withdrawn, 1 withdrawn and re-applied for, 1754 approved, 0 denied, 94 modified (don't ask me about the discrepency; it's in the report)
2003 -- 1727 applied for, 1724 approved, 4 denied, 1 re-approved after denial, 79 modified
2002 -- 1228 applied for, 1226 approved, 2 denied, 2 appealed and approved, none listed as modified
2001 -- 932 applied for, 934 approved (2 from December 2000), 2 modified
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.
Man, I love that guy!
Unless you're Martin Luther King Jr.
I'm sorry; I'm not needing the rhetoric of the behind-the-scenes on this one. If someone in the USA gets a call from a terrorist, or makes a call to a terrorist (even by a wrong phone number), that's "safe to wiretap" to me, no matter who makes the decision. Let's all hope they DO.
In this case, isn't it clear that our lesser civil rights (privacy) is subject to our main one (not getting blown up)? If a cell was starting in my town, I'd want the government, at any level to at least KNOW that. In fact, I'd move-to-impeach on any member of government stopping this action.
Let's not help the terrorists by waxing poetic about the finer details when the case is so clear.
I wanted mostly to point out WHO is running WHICH headline- that'll tell you where the motivation comes from. Again.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Thank you, my American friend. So you think your government should go through the courts before spying on US citizens, but anything goes when it involves citizens outside the US? It's similar double standards that keep Guantanamo Bay up and running. As a wise person once said:
"Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself."
May I conclude from your comment that (in return) foreign governments should also go through their courts before wiretapping their own citizens, but it's okay for them to spy on US citizens? For example by wholesale tapping of satellite communications? (yeah I know that's probably being done anyway, just asking about the ethics here).
If you think not, then you'll probably agree that the only fair thing to do, is to apply the same standards in every case. That is, to have all wiretapping activity supervised by independent courts, regardless of whether the subject is a US citizen or foreigner, has a long beard, is into fetish movies, has a goldfish called Wanda or playing golf for a hobby, or not. With wiretapping being illegal, unless it involves individuals whose name popped up in the course of a legitimate investigation, and okay'ed by an independent court, and no more than is absolutely needed for that investigation.
BTW: very much agree with your point on losing civil liberties.
--This comment scanned for anti-US sentiments, flagged and logged indefinitely for unknown purposes.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also known as the 4th amendment.
Bush ... repeatedly told the American people he would never do such a thing...
And you expect a politician (of ANY party) to not do exactly the opposite of what he says, huh?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The millenium bomber was nabbed at the border because one agent thought he looked like a drug smuggler. (It turned out it was explosives and not drugs in his trunk.)
As for things working before 9/11 it obviously failed because they couldn't get the FBI to help look for two of the hijackers and they couldn't search the computer of the "13th hijacker".
The point is that these operations were not law enforcement actions. We're talking war here people. Arresting someone after they've blown themselves to smithereens isn't terribly effective.
Did you know about the bigger than 9/11 plot related arrests in Italy? Turns out that the information related to that was from domestic wiretaps in that country.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Let's say a political group such as the Republicans are in power (for example). They have established the precedent that it is okay to spy on Americans if they call foreign phone numbers and record all transcripts of all conversations those people make from that point on (since you are okay with that). You are the Democratic candidate (Bob) for Senator in a large, important state and you are battling a powerful incumbent Republican (Mike). Mike is worried about a strong challenge from this contender.
.02
Bob calls his mother in Germany, who is on a vacation. Now Bob is flagged as a potential terrorist, and all of his phone calls are being recorded indefinitely. Since Mike is the head of the Intelligence Committee, he finds out and gets permission to read Bob's phone call transcripts, including all of his strategic calls with his party headquarters. The FBI also starts surveillance on him since he is a 'potential terrorist'. Bob does something that is slightly illegal or damaging to a campaign. Let's say you went a few miles over the speed limit one time while late to a speech, or you spank one of your children, or you burn an MP3 from a CD (which will be illegal in the future), or talk to a mistress over the phone.
Your action is leaked to the media and kills your campaign, in addition to Mike using your campaign stratagies against you. You lose by a huge margin, and your political career is destroyed.
Maybe that is an extreme example, but political campaigns get very ugly. How about this?
If all of your phone calls are being recorded, this can be abused in many ways. The data can be stolen and used by marketing companies or detectives, political parties can abuse them, your calls can be analyzed by police-written pyschiatric programs for stress in your voice or certain keywords that indicate you might commit a future crime, etc...
Imagine being arrested for something you might do in the future, just because you yelled at your mother-in-law this morning on the phone and said you'd like to kill her for embarrassing you at the party last night. Would the world be safer? Maybe 1984 and Minority Report have the right idea. Or maybe society works fine the way it is, and we shouldn't have all of our conversations analyzed and recorded.
My
What's the real danger here? Well we have a Govt interpreting the law and taking a swing around the FISA court system. We also have senior Gvt people stating categorically, in the last year, that they are not doing what they now admit to doing. All this probably to allow a version of dataminning to take place, post 911, which would likely have been readily approved by the FISA court system. Let's face it, not even the NSA has the resources, or the ambition, to listen to spurious useless conversations with no possible connection to terrorism. But the risk is this: Because the issue has now become a source of public and Congressional debate the Gvt may lose the legal argument and be told to come back in line with the existing FISA system. Various people and entities might also be possibly reprimanded and new stiffer safeguards put into place. These new safeguards and individual concerns to stay "legal" might then discourage, or even hinder the genuine dataminning our Gvt really needs to be doing. Who would be to blame for this negative outcome? And how do we stop this from happening? It seems to me that pushing the legal boundaries could ultimately negatively impact intelligence gathering and those who pushed the current legal interpretation, for intelligence gathering, may become responsible for a much more constrained intelligence gathering ability in the near future. That would be a shocking conclusion and would reflect poorly on those who got us where we are today.
Yeah, of course the Predsident can do pretty much what he wants. It's just that when Bush constantly says 'trust me' and he turns out wrong time and time and time and time again, and lies about what he's doing, it's time to stop allowing a person like bush and the neocon cabal full authority without checks and balances.
Bush's Lie and Breaking of the Constitution:
"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. 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."
Monkey in Cheif = Liar.
and it is my sincere hope that every one of those murdering Arabs gets an early chance to meet Allah
A fine example of exactly the same intolerant behaviour. This attitude only serves to perpetuate the problem. The real danger to peace is you, and people like you - on BOTH sides. I only wish you extremists weren't so efficient at filling other people with your hate.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Not really. The Nazi party is dead...but with your post, it still live and breaths on, unabated it would seem.
Scare them enough, and they will fall in line.
Who went after CUM stains on a dress rather than Bin Laden?
You mean to say that you haven't had sex since Sept. 2001?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
"unreasonable searches" does, however.
As if it wasn't already known that the US government listened in on forign telephone conversations and email correspondence??
The US listened in on soviet military telephone conversations and the like durring the cold war and after 1989 they have used the Echelon system (in colaboration with the UK and Australia) to monitor other electrical communication as well. They also managed to kill some Al Caida chief in Yemen a few years back by using an armed drone (predator drone) after they pinpointed him in a car in the desert. I think they tracked in on his cell phone as he used it and used the attack drone to drop an anti-tank rocket (Hellfire missile?) on his car (as far as i recall not much was left of the car).
Yours Yazeran
Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer.
No Democrat calls his party the "Democrat Party". Lets review together:
A Republican belongs to the Republican Party.
A Democrat belongs to the Democratic Party.
"Republican" is both a noun and an adjective. "Democrat" is not an adjective. "Democratic" is.
That aside, the tone and style is quite obvious that this post is a troll or was written by a 12-year old.
Apparently the 4th amendment is a "non-issue".
Yeah, that's the way the liberal court has seen it- the times of having free speech and rules of immenent domain are gone by the wayside: there's a blackout on political (as in "free") speech 60 days from the election, and people in the THOUSANDS are getting their homes yanked to give them to people who would pay more. The rights are dropping day by day, mostly by the judges pen. It's a trend that has to stop.
More to the point...didja forget this is a war? Is it so easy to forget the scores of dead? I don't want this kinda thing going on in peacetime, but I *damned*sure* want it, now. And if the paperwork allows on terrorist to go free, I want a sniper there on the tower.
We're not dealing with nation-states and the Geneva Convention anymore- this is a very different threat. (As if anyone but us ever followed the Geneva Convention...)
Again: notice how the press mentions this, with and without the full headline, depending on your news source. Pay attention to that.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
How stupid are you mods?
Apparently not quite as stupid as some ACs.
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Martin Niemoller on October 14, 1968:
"When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned."
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
What's the best way to change the balance in a political party or keep a government agency in line? Sign up.
Who gets second interviews at the NSA? What are they looking for in their candidates for hire? What kinds of positions are available at the NSA?
Honestly, though... is the technology used by the NSA really that far advanced from what's available in the commercial market? Everything in my experience tells me the opposite is usually true of government agencies. (Sort off off the subject... but I used to deliver flowers for a small florist in WIlliamsburg, VA. Once I had a delivery to a lesser known military installation that was widely belived to be a cover for a (notorious?) CIA installation. I tried to leave the delivery at the gate, but, bemused, they ushered me through.... No address or markings on any of the buildings... I was scared out of my mind (yeah, I used to get star struck, too. Living in L.A. cured that.). When I finally found the intended recipient, he was working in a single-wide portable unit (like a half-size residential trailer). I knocked on the door, which opened up to two or three guys working in very dim light (there were no windows) hovering over equipment with all manner of blinking lights and dials. I swear to God, it looked like it was built in the '50's and had been wide use since the early '60's. It was 1988.)
Granted... I don't think its very necessary for the NSA to be using cutting edge or "tomorrow's" technology to effectively do what everyone believes that they do... but the rumors of, say, having every phone call made digitally recorded and scanned for flagging for future analysis by some monster computers system for certain key words to be just absolutely incredible. Anybody see Closet Land? Interesting... but left me with the distict feeling of bullshit. (Feel free to disagree... or (my minds blank) offer up some other incredible rumors of their technology.)
The Admin and the Engineer
Well, is this anything new? I've heard tell that presidents since Nixon have used various forms of this exact same power. Clinton was no exception.
I, too, am concerned for the thinning ranks of basic rights; but this is wartime, it's a repeat of previous works, and does anyone think that with the media blinding Bush at every possible turn, he'd do something without checking first?
Same with Abu-graib; the investigations were almost a year old when the NYT (or whoever) leaked it, and demos started demanding action...on a case already a year old.
We need this like we need YET ANOTHER Halliburton investigation; there have been like 20 so far, all to no end useful to the left. I just get so tired of all this. The same reporters who chant "No WMD" have written stories where 502T of yellowcake uranium were found in Baghdad. Yeah, THAT yellowcake. (NYT archive: 5/22/2004)
Yet still, this entire thing is all Bush's fault like Katrina and the common cold. Real journalists are turning over in their graves.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
He was gonna bring it down with a blowtorch. Adminstration officials act like this really had a chance, but really...
Nevertheless, how would you like to be the agent that captured a terrorist who was released because the evidence against him was illegally obtained?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051229d.asp
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The US spy on the UK communications and the UK spy on the US and UK communications. Then they compare notes.
The UK is in the process of building the world's most intrusive mass surveillance system, including car tracking, email surveillance, child databases etc.
It all starts by numbering everyone under the ID card legislation:
http://www.bristol-no2id.org.uk/blog/?page_id=5
This erks me that they spy based on words. The better way would be to find the suspects and spy from there. Based off a word means nothing. It assumes that your targets are stupid. They aren't. As for the online game comment. There is more then enough smacktalk going around online games to keep them tied up for years. Funnily enough I have a real world example. I play CS:S monthly with friends. We rent out a small building (kind of scout den). Last summer it was pretty hot so we had all the windows and doors open. When we went to get food later on some of the guys noticed a special branch car outside (Like the FBI) but didn't think anything of it. About an hour or so later a plain clothes cop wanders in with a gun on his hip which you rarely or ever see in Ireland and says "Whats up lads?". After about 5-10 mins there he realises we are just playing games. Turns out the neighbours could hear shouts of "Plant the Bomb", "Kill the hostages", etc and thought we were up to no good and had called them earlier in the day.
Here's an actual quote:
0 040420-2.html
"[T]here are such things as roving wiretaps. 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."
President George W. Bush, 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/2
The news media that lies nearly every time I watch it. It's easy to ignore the lies when they are what you want to hear. Ironically, after Bush leaves office and all of the kicking and screaming are done, the historical perspective will likely see him as just another President, unpopular from day one with an overactive press eager to demonize him for things every other President has done.
The news media claims Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Barring an admission from him, this can not be seen as credible. No-bid contracts have always gone to companies that those in power liked for whatever reason -- procurement issues like this happen in even the smallest towns in America, a fact glanced over by the news media. I suppose you expected Bush to run into flooded New Orleans and rescue people himself. What was it he should have personally done? The news media certainly doesn't seem to think that the municipal or state governments had any duty there. In fact, FEMA is blamed for being too late, even when they are not permitted to enter the area until the Governor (or other body with appropriate power) declares a state of emergency.
Ironically, if Clinton had done a better job, 9/11 would probably not have happened (though the Republicans in Congress can be blamed somewhat for distracting him with investigations)and Bush's approval ratings would never have gone much beyond the dismal numbers they were when he took office.
This is breaking news in the Baltimore area this morning (and last night). For those of you are are defending Bush for ignoring the courts and ignoring the Constitution, based on the premise that the NSA is "only looking for terrorists" you may be surprised...
From NSA SPIES ON BALTIMORE QUAKERS
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com
The National Security Agency has been spying on a Baltimore anti-war group, according to documents released during litigation, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters' balloons, and intended to deploy units trained to detect weapons of mass destruction, RAW STORY has learned. According to the documents, the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, a Quaker-linked peace group, has been monitored by the NSA working with the Baltimore Intelligence Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.
The actual court documents are online
And here's an interview with one of the primaries.
Granted, they didn't through them into Gitmo or anything (yet), but it's interesting because it's in zip code 21212, my own back yard ! (it's true what they say).
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Also, reports says the planned to attack Italy. Can you find any links supporting the idea they intended to attack in the US?
Contrast the quote in your article with: "Italy's interior minister, Giuseppe Pisanu on Friday played down the case, saying "too much fuss" was being made about it. However, he said that Italy remains on "high alert" over possible terrorist attacks." (from previous link)
Finally, the phone taps in this case appear to have been conducted entirely legally. How would this have aided Mr Bush in any way? The Italians can catch terrorists without breaking the law, but Americans can't?
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
Yeah, that's the way the liberal court has seen it- the times of having free speech and rules of immenent domain are gone by the wayside: there's a blackout on political (as in "free") speech 60 days from the election, and people in the THOUSANDS are getting their homes yanked to give them to people who would pay more. The rights are dropping day by day, mostly by the judges pen. It's a trend that has to stop.
Agreed. Although your assement of the court being "liberal", I take issue with.
More to the point...didja forget this is a war?
It never was a war. We never declared war. I'm not afraid of anyone. I will not die in a terrorist attack. You won't either. Guaranteed.
We're not dealing with nation-states and the Geneva Convention anymore- this is a very different threat.
Repeat after me. There is no terrorist threat. Its all a smoke and mirrors campaign to keep you afraid and in line.
Before anyone jumps on me about 9/11, I feel nothing but sympathy for those who lost their lives then. Unfortunately, part of liberty and freedom is that some people die. We can't guard against every last attack on our soil without giving up liberties that people fought and died for. Sorry. Even then, the parts of the PATRIOT Act that curb liberties have nothing to do with 9/11. This wiretapping has nothing to do with 9/11 either. It has to do with the executive being lazy and not wanting to do actual detective work to find people who wish to do us harm.
If a politician had the balls to say that and not skirt the issue, I'd vote him/her in the re-election.
Free MacMini
I hold out little hope for that approach. I applied to the NSA for a job once. They sent me two letters, declining my offer. On both letters, they got my middle initial wrong, and it was on my fricking resumeact on it.
Argue with me that that's not a good enough reason to maintain privacy, and I'll be forced to report what my imaginary penguin told me about you to Homeland Security.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
- the worst President in U.S. history was that prevaricating fornicator Clinton...
- you know, the guy who gave Iran nuclear weapons designs?
- who launched inept cruise missile attacks into Afghanistan?
- who let that murdering Islamist terrorist Bin Laden go?
- who desecrated the Oval Office?
- Bush is protecting America, and it is my sincere hope that every one of those murdering Arabs gets an early chance to meet Allah
Clinton lied about his personal sex life, whereas Bush has lied about the treatment of prisoners, the justification for a war that's digging us deep into debt and killing many fine Americans and countless Iraqi civillians, and about spying on Americans. He also lied about the cost of his prescription drug plan handout to his pharmaceutical donors, has repeatedly supported legislation to curtail the freedoms and privacy of Americans, raised the national debt by a third, and has alienated all of America's allies with unilateral "my way or the highway" policies.
Clinton's poisoned nuclear weapons plan idea was foolish as was letting bin Laden go. I'll give you that. He did at least pay attention to al Qaeda afterwards and did try to get Bush to pay attention, but Bush and Rumsfield were too wrapped up in the post-Cold War Pentagon obsession with China as the next big thing (hence all that missle defense nonsense and posturing over the spy plane). You, however, can't say that Bush's handling of North Korea was much better when he labelled them part of the Axis of Evil which prompted them to expel inspectors and start building nuclear weapons. Nor can you really say that the Iraq was has been a crashing success in lowering the amount of terrorism around the world or for getting people to unite behind US leadership. Nor can you really say much for the neglect of the Israel-Palestine situation.
As for the "desecration" of the Oval Office, which President has eroded the credibility of the US when we say that we don't torture people. Hell, which President has made it so that we have to tell people that we don't torture. Which President is burned in effigy wherever he goes? You want to talk about descrating the US, you should focus on Bush.
Oh, and yeah, Bush is doing such a great job of protecting Americans. I feel much safer travelling abroad than I would've under Clinton.
Nah, that can't be it.
The freedom of privacy
Free MacMini
A "whistleblower," under Federal law, is someone who, whilst still employed at the offending agency/company, brings illegal action to the attention of internal resources...
Isn't that exactly what he's claiming to be? Didn't he claim that they hauled him in for a psychological evalution after he complained frequently about this being illegal, labelled him paranoid, and stripped him of his security clearance which prevents him from doing his job? According to him, when he complained, they took steps to proactively discredit him and effectively fired him.
The thing about whistleblower protection is that it is almost entirely enforced after an employer has taken punitive steps against an employee. It's like all other laws that way. You don't enforce them until they've been broken.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The erroneous idea that "the ends justify the means" has become pretty deeply established in modern society. It is one of the main causes of our troubles. One of its many consequences is the disrepect of the rule of law.
Examples:
Holding 'enemy combatants' without trial and subjecting them to torture. "Who cares if it's against international law," his supporters say. "These are terrorists, and we'll be safer for it."
Or take Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco. For a time he was shooting out gay marriage licenses like some sort of machine of gun of love. It was clearly contrary to California law, but he didn't care. He and his supporters felt that such laws should simply be ignored.
Obviously the first example is more serious than the second. But in both it's the same type of problem at bottom. People are unwilling to compromise. So when put in charge, they simply do what they think is right regardless of what the law might say.
I agree with you that any abuse of the information is definitely a problem. I also think that analyzing and prosecuting a person for a crime they didn't commit is wrong. But that is not what happened. Someone is not flagged as a potential terrorist for making a call to Germany. This is not a case of people being accused of future crimes. What happened is phone calls are monitored in an effort to find and monitor terrorists. This is not a witch hunt. It is a terrorist hunt. They are real. They do exist. They have caused great harm to many people. We need to work hard to find them because they are working hard to hurt us.
What bothers me is the same group of people who say that the war on Iraq was started on faulty inteligence and that 9/11 could have been prevented are now complaining that our inteligence agencies should not be collecting intelligence except in very specific ways. I think they need to pick a side and stop grasping at straws.
No terrorist threat- really? Can I quote you on this?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
You could easily argue that the fourth amendment provides the framework for privacy rights:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Or you could also look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 12 which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly of which the US is a part:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
While the UNDHR is not legally binding to the US Government, the US Constitution is. I would love to see the President's actions taken to court. Short of pardoning himself, I'd love to see how he can argue he is above the Constitution. Good luck with that.
Breathtakingly ignorant. Good job.
I seriously doubt it. Let's look at your list of right-wing talk radio buzzwords:
You seem to support the war in Iraq as having something to do with stopping terrorism, you accuse the secular dictator Hussein of being an Islamic fundamentalist, you constantly refer to people that threaten us as "animals," and you advocate strongly following tradition as a virtue (but one that is secondary to voting out of fear). Furthermore, you think that exposing the violation of our civil liberties is a bad thing compared to confirming what terrorist probably already suspected about the safety of their phone conversations.
You're obviously a rabid conservative and probably a devoted fan of Fox News talk shows or conservative talk radio shows based on the jargon you use. Your implied support for tradition, latent xenophobia, trust in unhindered law enforcement powers, and conflation of the War in Iraq as having something to do with preventing terrorism show extremely clearly that you're a conservative pretending to be a Democrat for astroturfing purposes. You're also extremely unclever at doing so. I'd suggest listening more to non-conservative points of view before attempting to ape them.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Actually no- it can't be. FoxNews, again, tells the whole story. Those others, not only tell part of the story, they tell the story _that_benefits_the_left, and sometimes uses the exact same words on all channels!
Remember the story you heard, "We go to war with the army we have, not the army we want."? This was the tip of the iceberg, but all CNN & company pushed. They wanted it to be a smartass comment to a man in uniform, by Rumsfeld (who they hate).
A member of the legacy media goaded a soldier to ask, "Why weren't there more armored hummers?" (paraphrased) He continued on to explain about the logistics involved, the course of action already underway, and then the line you heard. Nearly two minutes of detail. I saw the original cut, and the missing pieces.
And how does this explain the New York Times, 05/22/2004 running a story complaining about how Bush was being evil by removing 500T of yellowcake uranium, and nearly 2T of enriched uranium, risking lives of the poor, downtrodden Iraquis, driving it through the streets of Baghdad. (Yeah, THAT yellowcake)
YET TO THIS DAY THE CLAIM NO WMDs. That's not FoxNews. Go see for yourself!
Watch something other than legacy media. Better yet, Limbaugh's coming on at noon, eastern. He'll play the sources, and sometimes the actual audio from these other "news services".
Catch'im on WMAL in DC:
http://abcrad.sc.llnwd.net:12025/
Or, continue to live the lie...
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
In other countries, they're taking personal information much more seriously.Law enforcement is entirely different. The FBI can get a warrant and get any and all information about such sales.
"Ownership" does not mean that the store cannot provide the info when served with a warrant.
"Ownership" means that the store cannot SELL that info or provide it to any 3rd party (non-law enforcement).Why not? Our country was founded on such idealism.They have it, but it is not their's.No it is not. Just as it is not "silly" to expect that your HR department won't go posting your social security number on the web along with your name and home address.Right now, they can do anything they want with it, in the USofA. Other countries are more strict. And there is no reason why we cannot become stricter.
(Boy, I'm gonna get flamed for my arrogance here, but damnit I do consider my nation, the United States of America, the single finest nation on earth)
In all of this the most stunning omission from the argument you and the Admnistration advance is the lack of any articulated harm in obtaining the warrant. Nowhere has anyone completed the settence, "Yes, the Fourth Amendment is all well and good, but in this case, we can't get a warrant because ..." The FSIA Court can even authorize warrants AFTER the search occurs. I really struggle to understand why a warrant cannot be obtained when clearly, (1) it is required by the Fourth Amendment; and (2) obviously it can be, from the FSIA Court. The arrogant disregard for this bedrock principal of our system of justice, sadly, is not atypical of this Administration.
Bush Lies On the Record.
I too don't watch TV news. I get most of my news coverage from the radio or from the internet.
I'd be interested in hearing a few of the media lies that you claim you hear every time you watch TV.
That if I proclaim, "Give me liberty or give me death!" that I might be labeled as a threat to society or a terrorist...and I firmly believe that I would prefer death to a lack of liberty.
Oh wait, that trick doesn't work anymore, so what's he whining about?
$NSA = "National Security Agency"; The NSA's job is to protect US National Security PERIOD! They have been in the intel biz for decades - this is nothing new. This was done with Congressional knowledge and approval. Certain people are "shocked" that this has occurred when in fact they were aware of this and past administrations have been doing the same if not much, much worse for decades. I am personally much more concerned about private companies abusing our privacy than the NSA. The vast majority of NSA staff are true patriots and are doing their best to protect us from the scum that are planning to smuggle and detonate nuclear weapons in the heart of our cities. This is serious people. Please wake up! There are people that hate us so much they want to utterly destroy us and our friends and allies and there is nothing anyone can do to get them to change their minds. These terrorists are NAZIs and they will attack us at every opportunity they get. This has nothing to do with anything we may or may not have done or our foreign policy or anything like that. There are a lot of evil people on this planet that wish to destroy us - this is a fact that we much accept. Terrorists cannot be reasoned with. If you give a terrorist an inch they will take a mile and more! We cannot give them what they want. They will never stop. Iran is already 0-48 months away from having 40-100 nuclear warheads and have been supporting terrorism for decades. Iran has already publicly declared they intend to destroy the US, Israel and Europe. This is not an empty threat, they are perfectly serious about it. Unless we do something to stop them the next 9/11 will certainly be a nuclear one. The free world needs to unite and defeat terrorists and terrorist states once and for all. You cannot appease terrorists or terrorist nations. The world is a mess and someone has to do something about it! Iran, North Korea, Syria and Lebanon need to be cleaned up, among others. Please stop playing politics with our national security! All parties need to grow up and stop playing politics with our national security! If certain people wish to hate the current administration that's their prerogative but if they compromise national security in the process then they deserve to pay the price. Live long and prosper!
Name a "presidential scandal" and I will tell you what I recall of the TV coverage. They report pure rumor as fact. It's like they have the same sources as Capitol Hill Blue.
Okay. You think these powers are so great and required, so surely you won't mind if President Hillary Clinton (or any Democratic President) uses them, right?
Yes, and the economies of scale associated with accessing that information are what have allowed both the private sector and government to take wholesale advantage of it. Maybe we need to be more proactive. Just the other day I stopped for some gas. Upon handing the attendant a $10 bill, noting which pump I'd be using, I was told that they don't accept cash. I could have whipped out my debit card and been done with it, but I went somewhere else instead. How many people would be willing to go the extra mile and actually shun some convenience in order to protect themselves? Damn too few, I'd argue. Convenience is like crack...it's a long-term addiction, and very difficult to overcome.
Now, we tap into the phone of the guy who was planning to blow up the Brooklyn bridge. The bad guys don't know we can do this.
Are you serious? Do you think these people have never heard of wiretapping? Seriously?
Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
Don't worry, there's a fix in progress for that problem.
It might be more accurate and helpful if we always refer to it as the "PATRIOT Act" to call attention to the fact that the name is an acronym. It at least encourages people to remember that it's an arbitrary set of letters designed to politically shield the Act from discussion. Are you going to argue against the "Patriot" Act? Are you not a Patriot?
"Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism": What are these tools? Any tool is innocent, but many can be put to good or bad use.
Heck, might as well propose the "PUPPY" Act (Put all Urban People Permanently in Yugoslovia) and see who complains. You're not against puppies, are you?
The weasel word is "unreasonable" though; the "War on Terror" is being used by this administration to exact an all-out assault on the definition of what is reasonable, and that is why the 4th ammendment is a little wimpy with respect to actually protecting privacy.
Congress is the only body that can declare war - it is in the constitution. Look it up sometime. You claim to have worked for the NSA, but are apparently ignorant of basic constitutional law. Every military action from the Korean war to Vietnam to the Gulf war was an authorized use of force by the congress, not a declaration of war.
The United States has not legally declared war since WWII. The congress authorized "the use of force" against IRAQ, but did not declare war.
It's the reason they couldn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason during the Vietnam war - there was NO LEGAL STATE OF WAR - it was a "use of military force".
If they did declare war, they would be bound by the Geneva Convention, which would mean George Bush would be prosecuted as a war criminal for the torture at Abu-Garaib.
No declaration of war means no expanded war powers either.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp
"under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.
What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn't that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.
Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war -- illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government -- the Constitution."
Yes. Let me repeat it again, bolded so you understand.
There is no terrorist threat.
By this I mean that the terrorist threat is such that little to no attention need be paid to it.
Your post, sir, is exactly right. But I just have one quesiton:
Since they have 72 hours to retroactively go to the courts, why not do that instead of totally bypassing the FISA court?
I mean, I don't like LOTS of processes (and laws) that I have to go through. But I have only one option to address that: lobby to change the process (or law). I don't have the option of bypassing it altogether.
And that is the issue here. I think most ppl will agree with your post. There are new demands being put on the intel community and they do need to act quickly and effectively. But where we differ is this: If they are hamstrung by process, then they need to change the process. Not sidestep it.
The FBI can get a warrant to have a bank open your safety deposit box and take all your stuff.
The FBI can get a warrant to take your girlfriend's stuff from your apartment.
In both cases, the people forced to release the items do not own the items.What you do not own, you do not have any legal right to sell/distribute/etc.
What you do own, you may sell/distribute/etc, within the limits of the law. I take it that these are NEW concepts to you.
Well, that's about it for this thread.
Sorry I confused you for someone with a basic grasp of the issues. It won't happen again.
Actually, I'm not overlooking it...I'm counting on all that to be worked out. If George Bush sneezed near a person of color, how many nanoseconds would pass before Schumer, Kennedy, Ried and the pack would have lawyers out and indictments made? How long before the legacy media would drum this up into a racial thing?
:)
THIS is my point; Bush isn't Nixon. Iraq isn't Vietnam. And the economy isn't the depression, but that's the viewpoint of the legacy media. I guess cheering for those that cuddle-up to tyrants and dictators is just a way of life for them.
See also: Jane Fonda sitting on anti-aircraft artillery used to shoot down our planes, Ed Asner claiming Stalin was the best leader, living or dead because "he kept such good order!". Numerous things dot the liberal landscape, and many of these tyrants still alive take up residence in France. (So, France and the left are friends)
Other cases include Pinochet, Amin, "Baby Doc", Castro, Noriega, Saddam, the No-Nukes movement (funded in part by the KGB)...the list goes on and on. Every time there's an obvious badguy, with blood on his hands, the left (and the legacy media) have to start the cozy. For these people, America is a land of awful and deadly tyrants, until a Democrat wins office and shows us how to lose a war. (FDR is the lone exception, this century/last.)
These people studied "Arbiet macht Frei"; Himmler's concept that "a lie, repeated often enough, becomes truth". They've studied from the best propagandists ever known. That's why Conservatives are all racist, bigots, homophobes, and baby killers. (And not true.)
Meanwhile Ted Kennedy was part of an all-male college organization, another senator was a member of the KKK, they put candidates up of African descent against other, so they can't win the primary, and they consider Rowe v. Wade a sacred thing. (Babykillers). Just as bad, the father of Al Gore voted against the civil rights act of 1964, which wouldn't have made it without Republican support.
I'm just so tired of the lies coming from the legacy media! The point is that this headline and all the discussion is just another dustup. Another in a long line of "this'll get them rascally-republibcans!" and then they get the BEEP-BEEP and drive into a mountainside.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
You and all your kind screaming about "illegal" wiretaps are all hypocrites.
The wiretaps haven't been found to be illegal. NO THEY HAVE NOT. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
Now, the facts as they are seem to indicate that the taps were illegal, but that's not my point.
My point is, if you've been screaming about "illegal" wiretaps, why is it that you've excluded the courts in your decision making?
Why is it that YOU het to determine what is illegal, and crow your head off about it, in absence of a court decision?
Isn't that what Bush is in trouble for here, failing to secure court approval?
So I guess it's ok to dismiss the legal process when it's Bush you're ranting against, but everyone else gets the protection of due process.
Like I said, hypocrites.
And for a teaser, read this
"Throughout his administration -- and especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- Bush has been aggressive in asserting executive powers. And part of his explanation for approving the spying program fits this pattern.
Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.
But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the past.
In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling, charges in the case were dismissed.
The 4th Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, said then-Justice Lewis F. Powell, a Nixon appointee, delivering the court's ruling, and such freedoms "cannot be properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted solely within the discretion of the executive branch."
He said Nixon's lawyer should have obtained a search warrant from a judge before the government tapped the telephones of the alleged plotters.
"We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the president's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a manner compatible with the 4th Amendment," Powell said.
But in the decision, Powell said the court was not ruling on the "president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
See that? Save your "The Supreme Court said..." because the decision you'll try to refer to wasn't specific to this case.
Yeah, the wiretaps were probably illegal. But you don't get to circumvent the court any more than Bush does.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Yeah? Kinda a dangerous thing to take on faith, isn't it? I'm aware of China's involvement, several levels of cloak-and-dagger going on, but how can you be so sure? Art Bell says so?
:)
I'm not badgering, and I'm trying not to insult at all. But I've seen a lot of Looney Tunes cartoons where the coyote holds up a dainty umbrella to stop a falling piano/safe/anvil, and that's what this sounds like, to me.
Was Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and all these others unable to purchase such an unbrella from ACME?
("A Company Making Everything")
There's terrorism going on in about 50 countries, OTHER than Isreal right now, ya know...Isreal's just one of the smaller dust-ups.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
>This is like an ex-cop who points out all the undercover cops to the drug dealers.
More like an ex-cop who knows the undercover cops are planting the evidence and then making arrests. If government officials are operating outside the legal framework established to keep government from becoming tyranny, it does not serve the people to keep that a secret. You seem to be of the opinion that anything the government does is acceptable and anything it wants to keep secret, should be secret. Not everyone accepts that. Not even everyone in government accepts that.
Additionally, the U.S. is in a legal state of war. There is no formal procedure or document required to create this condition and there never has been.
I have no idea where you get your information from. The last "legal state of war" the U.S. has been in was World War 2. As Congress never declared war, I'm afraid this assertion is patently false. Consequently, any wartime powers conferred on the executive are irrelevant and inapplicable.
Any other absurd right-wing talking points you want me to debunk?
"It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally"
Really? And it's not just as contemptuous to make up your mind about legality without case law to support you? (no, the 72 Nixon decision isn't conclusive and only partially applies because it didn't cover international suspects)
Or, does the fact that it's Bush make it ok for you to ignore the courts and make up your own mind?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Oh, Jeez.
The remark was clearly intended to describe how we have become, like the soviets were, a police state.
The only difference I ever saw between US Capitalism and Sovietism was in the US, the rich were powerful, and under the Soviets the powerful became rich.
All police states use the same techniques; I could have used the Nazis, instead, who used the same cry of "insanity" against those who spoke out against them, but I doubt the word "eugenics" would mean anything to a young person today.
Yes, the US has begun its intevitable trudge toward police-statism. I say inevitable because all empires when decline begins, use the same methods to try to keep control. Look to the British 100 years ago or to the Romans 1800 years ago if you want to see where we are headed.
I suspect you have a political agenda -- otherwise why try to refute my post? In that case, try these facts on for size:
Every elected president since the end of WWII except Carter has, in his first year, on the bad advice of the NSA and the intelligence community, has begun an adventurous and eventually disastrous war. Eisenhower invaded Guatemala; Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs; Johnson whipped the Dominican Republic into shape; Nixon found Cambodia inviting (and caused, indirectly, the genocide of the Kmer Rouge -- but that's another story); Ford was not elected; Carter was the sole exception, as I said; Reagan invaded Nicaragua; Bush One had Iraq; Clinton took a chance on Jugoslavia (Bechtel's VP of European operations died beside Trade Czar Ron Brown in the 199x crash approaching Sarajevo Airport), and Bush the Younger had Iraq, too.
So, if it is as it appears to be, how can you NOT call the US a police state? What other term so accurately describes unbridled federal executive power coupled with misuse of invesitigative (police) agencies?
Since they have 72 hours to retroactively go to the courts, why not do that instead of totally bypassing the FISA court?
A good question... and the answer probably revolves mostly around the change in context (relative to the "traditional" use of FISA). A war footing, even one that's as hard to clearly frame as the one we now find ourselves in, makes this stuff more like war-fighting than ongoing preventative FISA-ish watching of foreign intel contacts in the US. That being said, it would be better, indeed, to keep everyone happy by evolving a process that leaves the right sort of paper trail without having to turn judges into intelligence analysts looking at the raw material collected (in huge amounts), daily, as the NSA and their bretheren wade through jillions of communications.
they need to change the process. Not sidestep it.
That's definitely where the semantics comes in. No doubt the administration will continue to argue that "the process" in question (because of the defense-related security issues at play in what amounts to a hot conflict) mean that the NSA's work is being done, now, under a different process authorized by Congress in the wake of 9/11. Many people will intelligently argue for against several variations on that theme, but no one can argue that the two legislative bodies' senior intel committee members don't know about this sort of thing. That the NYT decided to hang onto what they wanted to report for a year, timing their "news" to go with a book release under their publication, and that the "whistleblower" is a guy who had his credentials yanked for pyschological problems... I think that puts a little bit of the media stink, here, in perspective.
Yes, the administration should go about crafting a more clearly defined way of dealing with what is a new (in terms of the thinking behind FISA, originally) problem. But in the meantime, you've got actual, real people with actual shoe bombs (and much, much worse) looking for some high-profile action. And when that happens, all the NYT will talk about is how little the administration did to use intelligence to stop it. *sigh*
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You are such a coward that you disgust me. You will destroy everything that made this country great, the very Constitution that men fought and died for, because you're so scared of Osama Bin Laden. Read the words of a true American and a patriot in an editorial he wrote for the Miami Herald. Then maybe you can understand what it is to be an American:
AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat - - and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying "Happy Holidays' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to "protect us."
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, "What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?"
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the "war on terror" -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we st
And is government a particularly good way to stop such terrorism? Maybe a vigilant citizenry would be more effective.
The news media claims Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. Barring an admission from him, this can not be seen as credible.
The Bush government claimed to have proof of WMDs in Iraq. Which turned out to be wrong.
No-bid contracts have always gone to companies that those in power liked for whatever reason -- procurement issues like this happen in even the smallest towns in America, a fact glanced over by the news media.
And when it is discovered, those in power deserve to be whacked for corruption. That goes for both small town mayor and president.
I suppose you expected Bush to run into flooded New Orleans and rescue people himself. What was it he should have personally done?
Select someone with real experience in managing rescue services as head of FEMA in the first place. Instead of someone whose only qualification was to be an old buddy.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I disagree. Only the Congress can declare war: WikiPedia. The War Powers Act places limits on what the Prez can/cannot do.
I'm not disputing the state we're in; I'm just saying that there is a legal process by which the nation can be drawn into a war.
When I left the position at NSA, I was required to sign an agreement that I would not discuss the tasks/environment/etc. for the next 70 years. ... That agreement, which was a requirement...
A requirement for what? Leaving? What recourse would they have if you refused? I'm not trolling; i'm serious.
This is like an ex-cop who points out all the undercover cops to the drug dealers.
I'm not sure this analogy fits here. Maybe if the narcs are going around breaking the law and trampling on innocent peoples' civil rights, and the drug dealers only find out about the narcs because the ex-cop goes public with that information. Or something like that. Analogies usually suck.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Umm, they're tinfoil hats. Tin has way more protective power than aluminum...
Ocean is land, covered with water.
Mr Tice is to be commended for speaking out.
It all reminds me of Nixon's misuse of the FBI and the CIA to spy on US citizens and groups which disagreed with him.
I don't argue with the need for intelligence collection and surveillance of those who would wish to do our country harm. But there are laws that clearly say that the NSA is not to eavesdrop on domestic communications, and that exceptions to this are to be authorized, after the fact if necessary, by a secret court.
Mr Bush chose to believe that the law did not apply to him in this case. That's for a court to decide. I, personally, feel that he's way off base, and about as arrogant as he is wrong.
Those in power are tempted to misuse the tools available to them. People like Mr. Tice are what prevents this country from turning into a totalitarian regime. We need to remember that Mr. Tice is no different from you or me. Would you have the guts it takes to throw away your job and career to blow the whistle on something you knew was wrong?
Actually no- it can't be. FoxNews, again, tells the whole story.
Fox News is a joke. It would actually be funny if there were not right-wing nuts who believed that it was "fair and balanced."
Face it: Fox News was created to put out "news" with a right-wing slant because they saw a market there. They watched that drugged blowhard Rush Limbaugh pull in the ratings with his distortions, fabrications, and lies -- and realized that they could target that market, too. That people actually fall for it is really sad.
Kinda a dangerous thing to take on faith, isn't it?
Not really. I'm statistically more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than by terrorism. I do take care to make sure I'm not holding up any metal objects during a storm, but I don't sit inside all day fearing a storm may kill me.
Similarly, I will (and hope the government will) take basic precautions to protect myself from terrorism, but I won't change the way (and the government shouldn't change the way) I live because of it. There simply isn't enough risk to justify me (or the government) doing so. The government can protect me at a reasonable level w/o infringing on my rights.
See, it's not God or FOSS advocates that forbid warrantless wire-taps in this country, it's OUR CONSTITUTION. You know, the quiet little document that clearly defines the boundries of the President's authority?
Is there a reason why you think that the President is not bound by his oath to uphold that document?
Could you help me understand why the administration chose not to seek warrants from the rubber-stamp FISA court? They've approved over 19,000 warrants and denied less than a dozen. The tapping can even begin immediately, with 72 hours to acquire the warrant retroactively, so there's no timing risk associated.
And tell me, why is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment not such a problem for you? Do you not think the Constitution is the highest legal authority in the country? That's what they taught us in school, right?
Or is it just okay for the President to break the law now? Because it was a big deal for the last guy...
No one has any problem with them tapping suspect communications, but many people think that should be done legally. What do you think?
They could have gotten warrants for those taps, but chose not to. Why?
"I don't believe government has a right to video tape. I do believe, though, that anyone else is free to." -- very well said
This is very similar to how I respond about flag burning laws and free speech.
You should be free (as in liberty), from GOVERNMENT persecution, to burn flags as a form of free speech. However, this doesn't protect you from an a**kicking from a given individual.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Ummm, did I miss something or did Congress declare war?
Get up!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Also known as the 4th amendment.
I got a smart homes junk mail catalog the other day. They had a product $1,500 for an 80GB DVR with 4 video cameras, said it would record 4 weeks of video. Alot of their products were webenabled as well. Just wait until those products come down in price and the average household has 4-8 cameras storing video on a webenabled 160-300 GB DVR. I can promise you that there will be an effort by groups in the government to covertly download that video.
Congress recently passed HR 3402 which was signed into law by President Bush on January 5, 2006. This law makes it federal crime to say anything annonymously that the government considers to be annoying or abusive using any 'telecommunications' device, which now includes the internet. The legal presumption in making annonymous comments illegal is that you forgo your right to privacy when using any telecommunications device. Therefore, the government now has a DUTY to spy on americans using telephones, radio, or the internet to be sure that they are properly identifying themselves in every communication and that their comments are not annoying or abusive.
"You know what? You are right. Maybe I am a little biased against Bush. I think you are biased for Bush, and giving him a pass on an obvious mistake."
Why, because I rail against the rampant hypocrisy of the other posters here on Slashdot?
Find a pro-Bush post. Do it. I'm waiting.
You won't, because I'm not, so stop using that tired tactic.
Isn't it just possible that I DESPISE people who rely on overstatement to make their cases, especially when it's not necessary.
Or maybe I'm just Pro-due process. Did you ever think of that? ANd then of cours, if you check a bit, I've stated in another post that I believe the wiretaps are illegal. So no pass there, how did you come to that erroneous conclusion?
"Well, since we are at a disagreement, and there is no established case law, surely you are in support of an impeachment to decide whether or not the President broke the law?"
I'm in favor of whatever the law deems appropriate. If that's impeachment, then fine, I don't want a criminal for a President.
But "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the President too, or at leats it's supposed to. Apparently the other's screaming "illegal wiretap" have decided it doesn't.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Really? While I suppose it's possible I was under the impression that gas stations in particular would be only too eager to get rid of CC sales all together - they eat into veery narrow margins.
Besides doesn't the legal tender text on your sawback indicate that they have to accept the bill as payment?
No longer do we hear our leaders cry "Give me liberty or give me death!". Instead we hear only the quiet, secretive mumbling of career bureaucrats speaking to too-often-reelected officials in the halls of Washington, D.C., trading rights for goods. In Congress, men concerned only with maintaining their small piece of turf in the political landscape are fast becoming the creators of a new era, an era of suppression.
How long before these men too fall under the unrelenting purview of the intelligence machine? Or have they fallen already without our knowledge? How many have been compromised by information gathered surreptitiously and illegally? "Vote against this bill and your mistresses will be revealed." "Leave this unchanged or you will lose your Maryland home." "We know what your son did and we have the proof. Do what we want or he will go to jail." The mind boggles at the possibilities. Does anyone doubt this happening now?
You can also call it "Six Degrees of Separation" or "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" if you're into that. I'd be willing to bet that no one posting here has spoken on the phone to an member of the leadership of al-Qaeda. However I would imagine that a significant number of us have spoken on the phone to someone who has spoken on the phone to someone who has spoken on the phone to someone who has spoken on the phone to someone who has spoken on the phone to someone who has spoken on the phone to a member of the leadership of al-Qaeda. The whole idea of a web of connections makes us all suspects.
Now lets go to the next step. How many of you have talked on the phone with someone who has done a Google search containing the term "al-Qaeda?" Or sent an email containing the words "lets do it." If you have, you must be threat to the security of the country.
Support SETI@home
I thought the president said the wars in Iraq ("Mission Accomplished") and Afganistan (control handed over to new government) are over.
Or, do concepts count for emergency powers?
hmmm... war on poverty, war on drugs, war on illiteracy, war on terror
Although you have an interesting argument, the wars are over.
Neither the Taliban or Sadam is in charge anymore. As for other presidents, Roosevelt didn't authorize spying on citizens AFTER WWII (he was dead), Johnson didn't authorize spying on citizens AFTER the Vietnam war (he wasn't the president when the war ended).
I'm curious, how long should a president have war power AFTER a war is over?
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
So you believe that every thing is peachy, spying is a-ok, we have more freedoms than ever, and we don't operate even closely to the Soviets in their policy to control their people?
You sir, are the imbecile.
Do recall that Fox argued in a court case that lying during a telecast is protected speech. The judge, finding no law that restricts lying by a news program, found in their favor. It makes you wonder why Fox would need to argue that lying is protected.
I can't believe there are people that take Hannity, Drudge, Limbaugh as gospel. On the same token, read Kos sometime and see how out of touch those people are.
There is still disagreement over whether or not the War Powers Act is constitutional; it's never been tested, and Congress has made matters worse by never actually declaring war on anyone since WWII.
Clear, Dark Skies
And that list of "wars" was priceless. I haven't laughed at such an overt display of embellishment and distortion in a long time.
I can't remember who said the following "We[US]'ve been in every war hot and cold for the last 50 years", but it is true. It's not a distortion.
You might find this list of wars laughable for some reason, but they were no joking matter to the great many people who died in them. Of course, not very many of the dead were US soldiers or citizens.
Some of these wars were in some way justifiable. First Iraq war, Kosovo. But some would be farcical if people wern't getting killed. Bay of Pigs, Cambodia, Nicaragua and obviously the second Iraq war.
May the Maths Be with you!
Yes. It seems, in retrospect, the evidence was wrong. It is also speculation reported as news when we are told he lied about them in order to go into Iraq for one or more of the following: Christian Holy War, oil, racism against Middle-Easterners, finish what his father started, or being a Republican.
No-bid contracts happen all the time. They are always given to favored companies -- this is not corruption in the legal sense. It is standard fair. What is illegal is also standard fair and has nothing to do with Haliburton or no-bid contracts -- mainly $1 million towels, etc.
So, during Katrina's aftermatch in New Orleans, Bush should have built a time machine, gone back in time, and chosen someone to head FEMA who would violate the law by entering New rleans before a state of emergency was declared?
"Impeachment is just bringing up charges, it does not imply guilt. It's like a trial."
I know, what made you think I didn't? I simply suggested that the law handle it, what gave you the idea that I was ignorant of the definiton of impeachment?
"So, if we want to legally determine whether POTUS is guilty, we've got to impeach him."
Tell that to the posters who have already decided that the wiretaps were "illegal". That was my point. There has been no decision of legality, yet you can find at least a dozen posts (easily) that use the phrase "illegal wiretaps".
I think you need to re-read my post, you seem to have completely missed the point.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
There you go. 90% of that is speculation, but reported and gobbled up by the masses as news.
Another good post. Thanks for your reply.
Now...onto the comment. The problem I have is that we are NOT at war. While you can say it and imply it as much as you want, we are neither technically nor legally at war. Congress must declare war. And while you may have a good point about sidestepping things during wartime (I agree) -- we, simply, aren't in that mode at this point. Others will surely disagree and to them I only say this: if it's so obvious that we are at war, then why hasn't Congress declared?
If congress had, instead, declared war (officially) then I can assure you, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they didn't. So now, we must all play by the rules. And those rules require going in front of the FISA w/ probable cause in order to spy on Americans.
I just don't see a scenario that give anyone the right to sidestep the process. I've thought about it and thought about it and I just don't see it. If we are at war, I can see why we would need to sidestep it. If we aren't at war, then there is no reason to sidestep. It seems fairly cut and dry.
And as far as the media comment, I don't really care. What really matters is that it DID / Did NOT happen. And from what everyone says, this most definitely happened. Does it really matter how or when we found out?
"Actually, I'm not overlooking it...I'm counting on all that to be worked out."
That was the only relevant part of your response to the discussion of warrantless searches, which I'm still trying to understand. You agree that warrants should be required? Or does "worked out" mean that some legal explanation for warrantless searches will be found and accepted?
The rest was us vs. them style ranting. Both Republicans and Democrats do it, and it's bad. However true your facts may be, the point that the other guys are worse does nothing to help America.
BOTH SIDES HAVE BAD APPLES - instead of arguing that theirs are worse, how about we purge bad apples from both sides. How about we agree on what we can, and argue the merits and benefits on other things - instead of arguing the other side sucks.
Please go watch John Stewart (from the Daily Show) and Carlson Tucker (from Crossfire):
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831
Um, lets remember that in the good 'ol USA, we elect representatives, NOT leaders.
We elect people to represent us, NOT to lead us. We elect a president to lead the armed forces. We do NOT elect a president to lead the populace.
Maybe the reason these guys obtain so much power is because they have convinced so many that they are leaders.
"we hold our leaders to greater standards than we hold ourselves". To rephrase, we hold our REPRESENTATIVES to greater standards than we hold ourselves. When I received my DD-214, the president stopped being MY leader.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
you are a fucking idiot and it is now my personal goal to expose your lack of depth and understanding every time you post anything on here...
if you're thinking 'bring it on' then good, b/c I am...
also, consider this an invitation for you to do the same to me...b/c i know you don't have anything to bring, except stupid bumper-sticker and t-shirt level logic...
btw, I hate Bush as much as you do, you're just a fucking idiot in the way you express it. You don't know the details, you're inarticulate, and worst of all you get up-modded for it on here...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Awesome reply, I really appreciate it. Someone mod this guy up.
I guess I'm sorry if I came across as just shrugging my shoulders, but this is exactly what I wanted to happen. Once we clarify the issue of privacy - and why it is disappearing - we can have good discussion about what to do about it. Frankly, I didn't have any good ideas but I was pretty damn sure we needed to clear the air first. So that's what I tried to do and now you've provided some excellent suggestions on ways to secure privacy.
1 - I agree that this is problem. Are you imagining a kind of point-of-transfer model? As in, whenver a company takes your personaly info they have to say - at that time - this is what we're doing? When can we refuse? Credit card companies shouldn't be obligated to provide service if we don't allow them to track what we do, but at the same time I'd be ticked if Home Deopt woudln't sell me something (or charged a diff price) for me refusing to give my home phone out.
2 - I agree with this with the standard "except in times of crisis". Lincoln suspended habeous corpus. If he hadn't, the nation might not have survived. Would your proposed ammendment include such an exception?
Finally, what about an ammendment to include a right to privacy - with definition - in the constitution? I think the right doesn't exist currently (despite what some say) and would like to see it ammended to include the right. What do you think?
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
"Not using every means to track that stuff would be a dereliction"
Why is it not dereliction to arrest these individuals when you know who they are? If we know who they are, why are we tapping their phones instead of picking them up?
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Would you care to explain precisely how this NYT report caused the loss of actionable intelligence?
Are you seriously suggesting that terrorist groups didn't know that the US used wiretaps?
The concern is not the wiretaps, but the lack of warrants. I really don't think Osama cares very much about whether the warrants are legal and illegal, and it's not like the NSA's existence was a secret.
Never forget that the first action that allowed Hitler to take dictatorial powers "above the law" was the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933 that was blamed on Communist terrorists, but perpetrated by the Nazi party. History has a way of repeating itself.
The Reichstag Fire Decree read: "Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [ habeas corpus ], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." Sound familiar?
-Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither. -Ben Franklin
It has been an awfully long time, but I was a "radio communications analyst" back in the late 70's and early 80's. Though I wore an Air Force uniform and collected my paycheck from them, everybody in my units were tasked by, and reported directly to, NSA. My first 3+ years were spent doing real-time work in the far east and the last 6 months at Fort Meade at NSA HQ. I can assure you that all of us were aware of the fact that intercepting communications involving any "United States Persons" were strictly forbidden. If we did so inadvertently, we were required to destroy all such records and file a report detailing the circumstances, though not the content.
This was all codified in an "executive order" which was, ironically, signed by Richard Nixon. My best googling efforts have come up dry, but I'll bet someone here can find it. The definition of "United States persons" is easier to find and essentially means: a U.S. citizen located anywhere or anyone who is currently located in the U.S., regardless of citizenship. Our reporting requirements were strictly defined by exacting criteria and little was left to chance or personal judgement.
The whistle blower sounds like the real deal to me.
> We live in a world where Gitmo is not only tolerated,
Gitmo is more than tolerated by the sane people because we understand the difference between moonbat delusion and reality. For instance, we begin with the basic questions:
1. Are terrorists covered by the Geneva Conventions?
Answer: No. They are not uniformed soldiers serving under the flag of a signatory nation state of the Geneva Convention and are thus not entitled to any of it's protections. The fact we nevertheless treat our prisoners according to humane standards is a reflection of our Western Civilivation's values. Compare and contrast to their treatment of our captured soldiers/civilians/hostages/etc.
2. Should terrorists be covered by the Geneva Conventions?
Answer: No. Unless they at least make a minimal effort to act like a regular army with ranks, uniforms, etc. AND announce a policy to reciprocate with humane treatment for our POWs Otherwise it would make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions. They were a fairly successful attempt at defining some rules of warfare to minimize the horrors of war, and make surrender an option that was actually preferrable to death in an unwinnable situation. But the essential part of the Geneva Convention is that it was a mutual bargain, i.e. we all agreed that we would treat soldiers taken in battle humanely. However we also agreed that soldiers taken OUT of uniform, i.e. irregulars, spies, insurgents and such were OUTSIDE the scope of the Treaty.
If it was perfectly OK (from a legal p.o.v.) for the Germans to execute the French Resistance without mercy, explain why Al Queda deserves better treatement. I double dog dare you. During the initial invasion of Afganistan the Taliban was the defacto government, so if there were any uniformed Taliban soldiers, they should probably get POW status. But please, anyone, explain the legal or moral argument for these idiots blowing up stuff in Iraq getting anything more than a fast and nasty interrogation followed by a bullet in the brain.
3. Given the above, what DO we do with captured warriors from the legions of death?
Answer: The US legal system is currently insane. Executing them would be both legal and moral but a loss politically (our moonbats would raise the roof) so we keep em in US custody but off US soil until we can figure out a better solution. Hence Gitmo.
4. Given that we are at War with Al Qaeda(sp?) by both their declaration and as close to a real declaration of War as our modern Congress is ever likely to grant, ours; what should be the extent of our efforts to root out and destroy our sworn enemies?
Answer: Pretty much whatever it takes, so long as it isn't a permanent change. Which is why I support any extension of the Patriot Act so long as it isn't made permanent. The way to win a war, and win it with a minimal casualty count, is to get serious and play for keeps. Compare and contrast to WWII. Ok, in hindsight it was overkill to intern the Japanese Americans. But it shows the extent we were willing to go then. So far todays "Hate Bush" is about our spooks capturing phone lists and laptop computers and then tapping every phone number that turned up an fanning out from there even if one of those numbers called into the US or the circuit routed through the US. Big fat hairy deal.
This leak needs to end one of two ways. Either this asshat has some real dirt, of such that unambigious nature that Bush should be impeached or he needs to be tried, convicted and executed for treason. Any middle ground sends a bad message that we aren't serious about protecting sensitive national security assets.
Democrat delenda est
All right, you sniveling little geeks, I'll show you Trolling. God forbid that /. users would ever read a diverging opinion.
Dark Reflection
Nothing requires anyone to accept anything in exchange for anything, though.
Normally, at gas stations, you pump first, so you owe them the money, so they'd have to take whatever legal tender you wanted to use (Unless they said otherwise in advance.), but his example rather read like that wasn't true, that he was paying in advance, at which point they can legally require payment in his own urine produced while reciting the alphabet backwards and standing on his head.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The War on (some) Terror is no more a "war" than the War on Poverty or the War on (some) Drugs.
Better that hundreds of innocent people should be tortured than one guilty person go free, eh? Especially morons who want to take down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. It never ceases to amaze me how many people repeat the insipid argument that the drafters of the Geneva Conventions could not have foreseen non-state threats. Does the "Black Hand" ring a bell? Any assassinated royalty leading to wars? Any monarchies falling to internal coups, linked perhaps to international conspiracies?Terrorism is not new, Europe has dealt with its modern incarnation for decades. Britain dealt with the IRA without invading Boston.
In World War II, Germany did treat allied POWs better than eastern front POWs, because of a concern about how German POWs would be treated. The important issue that you're missing here, though, is that humane treatment of prisoners is morally correct.
Because of that sentence in that section, it entirely depends on whether the authorization to use military force in Iraq constituted a declaration of war, and for 2001 to 2003, it entirely depends on whether, in the document's words, the "authorization to use military force against the persons or nations or organizations who were involved in the September 11 attacks and the people or nations that harbored them."
The 2001 authorization, should it be interpeted as a declaration of war, would last until every person involved in the 9-11 attacks are captured, and Bin Laden, and maybe one or two others, are still out there, so soon enough it would be like we have "declared war," from Bush's lawyers' point of view, on one person, which has happened before, when we declared war on the leader of a Mexican revolution one or two centuries ago.
No, rather than just the 19 that hi-jacked the planes, because it says organizations, we are after the entirety of Al-Qaeda, and that "declaration of war" will last until every member of that organization is either caught, killed, or dead. It will last until every nation that has harbored Al-Quaeda members has surrendered. It will last until every organization that harbored Al-Quaeda is defunct, their membered killed, or their members dead. It is the sheer broadness of this that leads me to believe that this is a war we cannot win.
Furthermore, according to the Rules of Construction outlined in Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, "person" includes societies, organizations, companies, firms, and partnerships. A society is a group of people who share similar beliefs. Would you not say terrorists, are, then, a society? If Bush wanted to stretch this for all it's worth in the world, when he says we are in the middle of the War on Terrorism, does he really, honestly, believe we are really in the middle of a War on Terrorism?
The media, or at least the visual media, has not mentioned this provision of FISA, but once, to my knowledge, in the entire time since this scandal came to light, when MSNBC quoted Bush's lawyers and Alberto Gonzales explaining that Bush has had the authority to do this because they interpret the authorization as a declaration of war. This took two paragraphs. The other times it has been dumbed down, in saying the president says he can do it because of an article of the Constitution invested in him the power of commander-in-chief, which doesn't tell anything at all. They're trying to dumb it down for you, but hopefully, since this is news for nerds, this post will make it up to the top.
I sent a letter to my congressman, Jim Cooper, on this on the 22nd of December and received no reply. I expect you all to send letters to your congressmen and women, too. Here is the letter I sent, explaining the same as above, but with more references to statues, bills, and resolutions:
Dear Mr. Cooper,
When the Authorization for Use of Military Force, S.J. Resolution 23, was passed in September 2001, I was greatly disturbed by the phrasing of Section 2, Subsection a, because of its usage of the word "persons." Title 1 Section 1 of the United States legal code defines "person" to include "societies," which, although I think legally undefined, is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as, in that context, "A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture," or "An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest."
Under this notion, President Bush could be said to be able to continue this military authorization until all necessary and appropriate force has been taken against the society o
Section 8 - Powers of Congress ... ...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
If we know who they are, why are we tapping their phones instead of picking them up?
Because finding out who they're talking to, what the larger group is planning, and following the money/support trail back to the source is very, very valuable. You take out one foot soldier, you have not only not stopped that person's several buddies, you've tipped your hand as to how/when you found out about the cell or network of cells they're a part of, and probably driven them into deeper cover.
If the people monitoring a particular bad guy have reason to think that person is about to directly act, they arrest them. Just like Spain after they lost all those people in the train bombs. The Spanish intel people knew who the bombers' associates were, and were watching them very closely... and you'll recall that when they had followed up all the leads they could, they moved in on all of them at once. They arrested some, but others blew themselves up in their apartment rather than be arrested. But if they arrested them one at a time as they uncovered them, they'd end up ultimately missing out on a lot of the rest of them.
For what it's worth, by the way, you've actually identified exactly why it's important to have "black" facilities where they can stash someone like that... so that his associates don't hear through the grapevine that Ahmed is being held in lockup somewhere when they do have no choice but to arrest him. Most of them (the cells) are getting too smart for that now, though - they assume anyone not in touch has been apprehended, and then they have to regroup. But if, for a few days, say, they can work with what that person knows before his team is aware he's been picked up, the whole team may go down. The problem (back to your original question) is that sometimes it takes longer to run down all of that person's communications, contacts, financial records, travel, etc... and before the analysts have learned the big picture, his cell is aware he's busted. So, they let them move around and talk (the more the better), and work on getting the bigger picture. It's exactly the same way they deal with organized crime, pedophile rings, etc... except, in this case, some of the contacts are making calls from Pakistan or Indonesia, etc., and the NSA is in the perfect position to connect the dots.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That's brilliant! Now... to figure out how to say "Grant all control of the country to me forever" with the acronym of "GODBLESSAMERICA". The paper the bill will be written on will have to also have a waving U.S. flag. And maybe a bald eagle. Or a bald eagle CARRYING a waving flag. And the Statue of Liberty in there somewhere too.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
So, we are conducting the "war on terror" using the same time proven tactics as the "war on drugs".
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
I vote for the Democrat Party all the time, but I cannot condone this guy's behavior.
How do you know he's a democrat? Also, he's not a politician.
His actions have left us more vulnerable to terrorists around the world since they now know how we are tapping them.
See subject.
Is it any wonder there are many of us who are leaving the Democrat Party for the stronger on defense Republican Party.
Good riddance?
I didn't like it when George Bush barely defeated Gore in 2000, but Bush really stuck it to the terrorists when he invaded Afghanistan and liberated Iraq after those animals attacked us on September 11th.
First off, GWB didn't defeat Gore in 2000. That fact is well known among anyone willing to look at the facts, and a highly partisan SCOTUS decision landed him the job he still has to this day.
The worst thing we could ever bring to the terrorists is a living breathing working Democracy. And we've done it, look at Iraq; it's well on its way to thriving after being saved from the Islamofacist grip of Saddam Hussein.
Your use of the phrase "islamofacist" (sic) betrays the fact that you are, at best, a dittohead and obviously a troll. Instead of actually regurgitating what pundits say, try using your head once a year or so. To label Saddam an islamofascist is incredidly misinformed, and once again it shows that you are not an independent thinker. While I hardly think Saddam was anywhere close to good, the fact was that he was a highly secular leader and the *REAL* islamic fundamentalists hate him. Iraq is more a theocracy now than it was when we invaded in March 03.
Fellow Democrats
While your use of the phrase "fellow democrats" is HIGHLY dubious, let's examine what you've said in your post:
Democrats are weak on defense (straw man argument)
Bush really "gave it to the terrorists" after Sept 11. How? By doing a half assed invasion of Afghanistan and launching an illegal war in Iraq? By holding people without charges or legal counsel? By *spying* on Americans, in direct violation of the constitution? By his neverending attempts to expand executive powers under the guise of protection and war-time authority? Yeah, he's really giving it to the terrorists... If by "it" you mean our freedoms.
If you are a democrat I am the reincarnation of Charlemagne.
I know we are supposed to vote like our fathers, but our fathers never had to consider living in a world where death could come at any minute from the hands of animals wuch as the ones threatening us today.
Yes, because never before in the history of mankind have you had to worry about somone else causing your death. Before 9/11, we all got postcards telling us when and how we will die.
You use an awfully broad brush, and the overall quality of your painting suffers as a result.
No wonder you posted AC, I wouldn't want my name associated with that kind of drivel either.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
"as long as they are using it for national security"
The question is, how do you maintain that it is only used for this purpose?
This is one of the reasons for the limitations of power in the constitution.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
"You're equating impeachment with criminality, which are not nearly the same thing."
I get it. You simply misunderstood my post.
I was using the OTHER definiton of impeachment, the one that reads
"Main Entry: 1impeach
Pronunciation: im-'pEch
Function: transitive verb
3 : to remove from office especially for misconduct"
If prez is criminal then impeach his ass. The usage is fine, even if you're not familiar with it.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
But... along with the total lack of validation any of his stated reasons for STARTING A WAR, other people (like Richard Clark) say that Bush was talking about taking a poke at Iraq just after 9/11. Bush started a war that plunged us into near isolation in the world against a country that in actuality posed no threat to us! I don't know of a more dumbass move that a president can make than that. When Bush started to rattle the sabre at Saddam, Saddam let the inspectors back in. I was all for this. Clinton could not manage to keep the inspectors there. But -- when the status quo was what Bush's father had setup (inspections to keep Saddam under control) George W could not leave well enought alone and had to start a war. People seem to keep saying that the alternative to war was do nothing. Well, we (and the rest of the world) were sure as hell not doing nothing. The inspectors were on the ground and telling us that we needed to let the inspections complete. What the hell with Bush's hurry?
All the evidence points to Bush just wanting (for whatever reason you want from the list you stated above) to attack. His agenda is not transparent. Our government was setup with checks and balances. If Bush wants to have a hidden agenda, that is his choice but our constitution was built to provide adequate oversight. The thought of him spying on all of us without anyone looking over his shoulders gives me the willies.
We must have court orders for wiretaps, period.
"Saying I think this guy did something illegal,"
is completely inconsistent with "innocent until proven guilty". How you fail to see that, or why you won't admit it, is pretty hard for me to understand.
YOU have no idea whether the taps were legal. In the absence of such a decision, he is INNOCENT until proven otherwise. It's called due process.
Do you understand now?
"what would you suggest we can do about it, if not apply public pressure"
Public pressure is not discarding the Constitution. You don't get to make up your mind about guilt or innocence until he's had his day(s) in court. Calling the wiretaps "illegal" is a determination that you DO NOT get to make. that's a really nice try at rationalization, but you know very well you can apply public pressure without making determinations of guilt or innocence.
Stop relying on lazy thinking.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
The Fourth Ammendment applies to police search and seizures for criminal prosecution. It does not apply to military and/or national security intelligence. Constitutionally, intelligence gathering does not require a warrant.
That's an either an intentional lie or a warm blanket of rationalization. There is no such distinction. The 10 Amendments comprising the BoR were attached to the Constitution specifically to quell concern over federal government powers, not state and local police forces.
Intelligence gathering is not illegal, despite the full-on media assault to the contrary.
Intelligence gathering is not illegal, but unwarranted searches by government agents are, per the Constitiution.
What really scares me is that a lot of Republicans spew the same exact crap as you.
Saddam an "Islamofascist"? Iraq attacked the US? Iraq is thriving? Wow. The mind just boggles at what caused such a distortion of facts. Note that Islamofascist means absolutely nothing, and is just a clever word play to scare the masses, like Axis of Evil before. No one, not even Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rove is claiming anymore that Iraq was behind 9/11. And no one in his right mind can claim that Iraq is on its way to "thriving". It is possible that it will, but a lot of things have to happen (none of which are automatic) before Iraq "thrives".
You know what scares me the most about the US right now? It really isn't so much that Bush is a nitwit. He'll be gone in 3 years. It is that about 50% of the population of the US believes in things that are blatantly wrong, believes them simply because they were told so by the right people and finally is willing to use massive force based on incredibly bad information.
It is my very strong suspicion that historians will pinpoint GWB presidency as the turning point when the US lost its superpower mojo. Bad decisions on this scale will not go unpunished.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The fact is that they actually had gotten actionable intelligence from it.
The idea that there were wiretaps was certainly known, but the methods and technologies being used in this case were not. Details in the book actually point to this being more of an effort to get information about where calls and emails were coming from and to as opposed to the actual content of the calls and emails.
As for warrants and FISA, read up on some analysis of the program by people over at volokh.com and you'll see that it's not simply "They HAD to get a warrant." cut and dry in this situation.
We were also getting information from Osama's sat phone until there was a news report about that one too.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
this
But hey, who cares if they blow us up, eh?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Please stop trying to perpetuate the lie that Valerie Wilson was not undercover. Politics aside, you do a disservice to the country when you spread false information intended only to defame a former agent who was simply doing her job. Her job was classified information - that's what Patrick Fitzgerald found, and it is notable that the only people who are claiming she wasn't are right wing pundits. The Bush Administration is not even making this argument; it doesn't hold water. The FBI interviewed the Wilsons' neighbors and relatives and nobody knew of her work for the CIA. The New York Times also investigated this question and found that nobody knew of her status; they found that she was a NOC -- "non-official cover," meaning she was without diplomatic protection if she got into trouble. A lot of people spew crap about her driving to CIA headquarters; former CIA agents have said that such people are totally ignorant of how the CIA operates; that many people who go to CIA HQ are nevertheless undercover. Some claim that she had to live outside of the country for several years to be considered undercover -- that is a legalistic nitpick (it is only relevant to whether a particular law was broken, not to whether national security was undermined) and it is false anyway; it is likely that she left the country (not to live but to operate undercover) during the requisite time period. Some general claims to have met Joe Wilson in the green room at FOX dozens of times turns out to only have been there at the same time as him once, for fifteen minutes, hardly time to get into Wilson's wife's covert employment. This general supposedly holds on to this information for weeks, then tells an obscure right wing radio show after the libby indictment (why didn't he present his evidence to the FBI or to Fitzgerald?) The general, it turns out, once wrote an article about distorting information in order to win a "mindwar" against one's enemies. There are several other pundits with similar stories and they all fall apart under scrutiny. This is a smear campaign. The CIA considered her undercover or they never would have asked the Justice Dept to investigate in the first place.
She also was working under cover of a front company, which was exposed -- meaning all the agents she worked with were compromised. Also compromised was whatever operation she was working on - of course we don't know details, but we do know it had to do with reducing the proliferation of WMD. Precisely what Bush was supposedly protecting us from when he started a preventive war in Iraq. On top of the immediate effects look at the longer term picture -- how is the agency supposed to recruit more NOCs and others to do undercover work when they know their cover could be compromised at the political whim of whoever is in office?
Please put your politics aside and look at this clearly. This is not a left wing, right wing issue. If the Clinton Admin had exposed a CIA agent to get petty revenge on an opponent of the admin, the impeachment hearings would have been over in minutes. Democrats would have joined Republicans condemning him for severely undermining U.S. national security, and the case against him would have been a slam dunk. Apart from whether it was illegal according to a certain interpretation of the law, and apart from what party one belongs to, the fact is, exposure of undercover agents by their bosses in the administration should not happen. Period.
Because Merriam-Webster is where I got the definition from, and since thhat's a dictionary, and you're some guy on a web board who assumed he was right and isn't, I'll ignore you.
"Impeachment by the Congress defined very clearly, you can't substitute any old meaning in there when you're talking about a specific legal action."
And there's your mistake, I wasn't talking about the legal action. YOU assumed I was, and then tried to correct me.
If you thought I WAS talking about the legal definition, and not the vernacular, you should have ASKED first instead of assuming you knew what I meant.
Seriously, what's with the attitude? You were wrong, get over it.
Stop tryin to be such a fucking know-it-all, or at least make sure you're correct before you correct someone else.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER, look it up.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"Are you serious? You do realize "innocent until proven guilty" refers to a person's innocence/guilt in the eyes of the law, right?"
Well since the thread has been about the legality of Bush's actions, what did you think I meant, and why are you discussing anything else?
His actions aren't illegal, and you have no court decision that says otherwise.
If you were discussing something else tha the law, I wasn't, so don't.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
That's an interesting take on this, but it's very flawed.
Distilled, your point seems to be that laws don't prevent people from breaking laws, they just create consequences for acting illegally.
Well, okay. Here's the thing though--there is supposed to be a diametric difference in how criminals and law enforcement behave. The former are tasked with breaking laws, and the latter tasked with enforcing them. If the latter also break the laws willingly because the negative consequences are acceptible to them, then the phrase "rule of law" is meaningless.
There is FISA to handle that, but it wasn't used in these cases for whatever reason (the reason doesn't matter).
FISA is a LAW specifically addressing the need to conduct foreign intelligence in domestic jurisdictions. Are you arguing that it doesn't matter if this law is followed? This is the nonsense that confuses me.
If someone is caught plotting terror attacks by one of these intercepts, that falls under the Executive branch's foreign intellegence/war powers, and it is fair game.
US citizens in domestic jurisdictions have habius corpus rights to criminal prosecution for that type of crime too. There are precedents for this, and that pretty much nullifies your points regarding criminal prosecution.
Your rights are just fine.
I wish that was reassuring. It's not.
"No, because it's so startlingly and blatantly obvious that Bush broke the law when he ordered/authorized these wiretaps."
Then you would help me out and direct me to a court case that says so. And if you're going to refer to the 72 Nixon case, be sure to read the section that talks about this
"The president claims two sources of legal authority: Congress' post-Sept. 11, 2001, resolution authorizing him to use force to repel terrorist threats, and his inherent constitutional power over military and foreign policy matters.
The standards that the court set for future cases in its 1972 ruling don't resolve either of those claims. The court did not anticipate a law such as the use-of-force resolution, although the justices rejected a similar argument by the Nixon administration that the existing wiretap law allowed the president to order surveillance for national security.
As for the constitutional issue, Powell's opinion specified that the court was considering only the president's authority over domestic security, and was expressing no view about foreign intelligence"
See that part? See how it says the issues in this case may not apply to the previous Nixon decision?
Or did you not know that? Or do you not care?
Why have you made up your mind, and ignored due process? Are you secretly a Constitutional schaolr, and even if you are SO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO I QUOTED. Your opinion holds no more weight.
I want the court to make up its mind. Why? Because that's what it does. Because there are arguments here that I want to see made. Because I want to HEAR what everyone has to say before I make up MY mind.
Apparently you do it a different way.
"Yours are a good example."
Cute, but point it out smart guy. Being trite is pretty fun, but what have you proved apart from a quick wit? Point out the pro Bush parts, and I'll print them and eat them.
But "disagree with the lynch mob" doesn't equal "pro-murderer" and "disagree with you" doesn't equal "pro-Bush". Why you insist on thinking that way is an interesting question.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I think that one misunderstands the concept of a right to privacy. IANAL, though... This is not about protecting ownership of information, but about protecting the public and the lives of private persons from the undue encroachment of the law.
Once again, IANAL. Any legal opinions in this post are to be deemed useless from a practical point of view....
The concept of the right to privacy is based in several areas of the US Constitution. These include the right to be secure in one's person, posessions, and papers against unreasonable search and siezure, and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The question of the NSA wiretaps represent a potential encroachment the first ground.
Now, the general approach used in search and siezure issues is one of balancing legitimate expectations of privacy with the interests of law enforcement or other parties. While warrants are generally required, there are notable exceptions. For example, I don't think that people consider the possibility that bags may be searched at an airport to be unreasonable.
Also the standard for searching a backpack or a purse at a public high school is lower than it is to search one's house, and the US Supreme Court in these cases has established the idea that a search on school grounds must be based on "reasonable suspicion" and that the search must be appropriately scoped.
The courts have generally held that evesdropping on telephone conversations are subject to the same requirements that any other search.
So the question is whether the search of telephone conversations by the NSA violates constitutional rights, i.e. whether they are per se illegal. In this area there is clear guidance not only from the Courts but also from Congress as well. While the courts have provided for a fairly comprehensive framework for such surveillance, this is somewhat complicated and not all searches require a warrant. Congress furthermore has passed the FISA which creates a special court for secretly hearing search warrant requests, and also allows for warrantless surveillance for limited times in the event of an emergency. These wiretaps do not appear to fit within the FISA framework.
Nor does the Bush Administration suggest that they are. Instead they look to the Authorization to Use Military Force for the justification to do this. This act states:
"That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate 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." (Emphasis Mine)
In other words, the Bush Administration asserts that the AUMF provides him with the power to engage militarily against any persons, nations, or organizations he chooses solely on the justification that he states that they were behind the terrorist attacks of 2001. This authorization was cited in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and the Supreme Court declined to suggest that it was a blank check allowing for unfettered presidential power against US citizens. Similarly, this authorization has been used in Padilla v. Hanft arguing that the government has the right to detain a US citizen on home soil indefinitely and without trial. Finally they cite this act of Congress in asserting the legality of the NSA wiretaps.
If the AUMF is to be read in the way that the Bush Administration continuously asserts, then my opinion is that it would lead to a United States ruled under a dictatorial system of martial law, where neither Congress nor the Courts could effectively reign in the Executive. Whether or not one believes in Bush's good intentions, one must necessarily consider that we cannot expect that we will always have wise and just leaders. Our Constitution as ammended
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
> Really.... I thought it was to stop them from using weapons of mass destruction on us...
> no, wait, that was all a lie.
Good grief, you don't actually believe that drivel do you? So why do you expect me to debate it? The War had many reasons, all of them good ones:
1. Finally getting rid of Saddam. He was a perpetual pain in the butt and everyone knew he was only going to get worse over time. When all was said and done, Saddam just 'needed killin'.' Too bad our knuckle draggin, raping, killing, torturing machines in full body armor couldn't bring themselves to just put a bullet in his sorry ass when they drug him from his hole. Yup, we don't give a shit about human rights but we saved that piece of human filth.
2. WMD. Everybody thought he had em. There was zero doubt that he HAD them in the past. The UN inspectors believed he was holding out. Every intelligence agency on the planet believed he had some and was hellbent on increasing his inventory.
3. Afganistan just wasn't big enough or hard enough to defeat to send the message we wanted to send to the world. Somebody else just had to get thrown against the wall and if you were looking for a poster child for whipping boy, Saddam is yer guy and Iraq was the perfect country to make an 'example' of.
4. But the big one was the Drain the Swamp stategy. Iraq was and is ideally suited for remaking into a Republic at peace with itself and its neighbors. Give em a role model of what their own country could be without the Mullas and dictators running the place into the toilet. This one wasn't the one pushed in the mainstream media for reasons so blindingly obvious I won't bother stating them here, but all of us in the VRWC got the memo a year before the first shot was fired, guess you aren't on the mailing list.
Democrat delenda est
And most people would agree that searches of comunications being sent to or received from people with links to Al Qaeda are not unreasonable searches at all -- quite reasonable in fact.
"Privacy" is just the affirmative way of saying "Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures".
Listening to my phone conversations is a search. Being free of such listening without a court authorized warrant is privacy.
And this right is absolutely fundamental.
The enemies of Democracy are
Thankfully, most Americans understand that if they have no affiliation with terrorist groups, they have nothing to worry about.
Yeah, right.
I know a nice housewife who converted to Islam a few months before 9/11.
She participates in a number of Islamic political discussion web sites and mailing lists - where she is a voice of reason, explaining to Muslums how various actions look to Americans and giving them helpful suggestions. Especially this includes how to make it clear to us if they really are opposed to terrorism.
On a couple occasions a radical jihadist mailing list has arbitrarily added her to their distribution list and not removed her despite repeated requests.
The NSA says is doing traffic analysis. That means looking at who talks to whom and when - without looking at the contents of the transmissions.
Think about how the bogus jihadist mailing list subscription and her attempts to get off it makes her look. Bunch of email from a terrorist organization, lots this mail followed in short order my of email from her to them...
(Her solution: After they fail to remove her after a couple attempts, complain to the FBI, attaching the offending email. B-) But the NSA won't hear about that. So unless her mail to the FBI shows up in the traffic analysis and is analyzed correctly (or incorrectly in a way that makes her look to the NSA like an FBI informant or a double-agent) she'll still look like a jihadi, won't she?)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I am now going to begin every phone conversation with: "I am a radical Islamic movement of one, and I hereby declare Jihad on Richard Cheney's testicles!!!", And end it wiht the observation: "Science has now proved that all politicians, whether democrat or republican, are hopelessly addicted to sucking filthy goat cock!" (I'm betting it won't be half as funny when I'm being tortured at gitmo, but still, it's funny enough to be almost worth it...)
"What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the constant beeping of my bullshit detector..."
Back in the day.... (when the sun was young and the Soviet empire was still around) this was called "NSA Food" and was attached in signatures to email and USENET postings. Typically it would reference things like kremvax, kgbvax, uranium, trigger, afganistan, etc.
Sorry- reposting this as myself because posting it anonymously seemed...well, cowardly. The biggest failure of the current (and probably last eight or so- maybe more) administration of the US is the failure to understand the most basic precepts of the constitution. Namely, that the rights of the individual are paramount, and that trust should be placed foremost in the individual and only ceded to the state grudgingly and in a limited fashion. In other words, Bush, his cronies, and most of the last centuries administrations have seemed to operate on the theory that they inherently know more than the average joe. Point of fact, they have done everything possible to keep it that way, from denying transparency due to "national security" and "official secrets" (which of course are known by the enemy 99% of the time and are almost never secrets to anyone but the general public) to rigging the educational system to produce a general lack of critical thinking and self-determination skills. (Read the writings of our first secretary of education on the need to produce "not enteprenuers, but workers") This is in direct contrast to the ideas of the founding fathers, who implied a great trust in the individual coupled with a grave distrust of goverments, secrets, and those who would accumulate personal power at the expense of the public. To put it another way- Instead of the state being the servant of the people, these fools have begun to believe the state is the master of the people- and it seems it may be just about time to rudely disabuse them of the notion. I just hope enough people wake up in time to do so, or the process will be long, bloody, and painful. Then again, didn't someone once say "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots"? Oh, yeah, one more thing: Science has proven that all politicians are addicted to sucking dirty goat cock. Just sayin'.
"What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the constant beeping of my bullshit detector..."
Agreed, it's not a position I would want to be in either. And I certainly understand your comments about a fighting non-nation armies (Al Q). It is quite different from "going to war with Germany". But it isn't so different from Vietnam. And we faced the same issues there. Cries of "illegal wars" and non-supervision of government activities (Cambodia). And after the fact, I think the nation agreed that Cambodia and the secret activities going on there -- were a "bad thing". So what is so different now that "secret activities" shouldn't be overseen?
I still go back to the same premise: given all this uncertainty, wouldn't you WANT some supervision as to how these investigational activities are being handled?
I understand the need for speed. But I also understand the need for control of the process. And we don't have to look very far back in history to see processes out of control. I just can't see how you can argue that going around the FISA court is acceptable in a time such as this. If we were at war (declared), perhaps I would agree. But this "ambiguous" wartime footing makes me think we need to be watching even closer than if we were at war.
THis is OT, of course, but I believe you might be thinking of H.L.Mencken's famous quotation, "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
You're quite right about the education system in the US, but I am not sure we are the worst in that respect; when I was in Asia -- Japan especially -- knowledge of one's country's histories was patchy at best and dead wrong at worst. At that time, the Japanese hadn't yet broken the news to their own citizens that they started WWII in the Pacific against China and Korea and that they abused civilians in those places greatly during that war.
The stupidest thing is that our leaders are working from wrong information -- supplied by our CIA and NSA. When I was a soldier in Viet Nam, I learned the Chinese were the Viets long-time enemy in history AND legend. It was a common fear in the US at that time that had we stepped up the war enough to have had a chance to win it, the North Vietnamese (government) would have called on China for help. That was not so, for the above reason.
In fact, after we pulled out, China was the first country Ho's forces attacked. Then they cleaned out their other old enemy, the Cambods.
Dumb, dumb and dumb. To think I once was asked to work for the NSA....
> aren't all captured EPWs entitled to an Article V tribunal to determine their status?
Haven't read the whole thing, but I suspect that if we were being pendantic about it, that yes they are. But being realistic the first question would be "To which country do you claim to be a soldier fighting in a fashion that is compliant with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions?" At which point they either frown sullenly at their captors and are led away or they spout some nonsense and the named country adjectly denies the accusation within milliseconds. Not very useful in either case.
International law just hasn't caught up with terrorists yet, mostly because the "International Community" spends most of it's time appologizing for and coddling terrorists instead of fighting them. Until it does there really aren't any rules other than that of the jungle. They seem to prefer it this way. So be it then, no mercy given or received.
Democrat delenda est
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That sounds like a pretty clear right to privacy to me. It may apply only to the government, but apply it does.
Especially in the case of this domestic NSA surveillance -- certainly someone can come up with some different definition of "privacy" and say that the 4th amendment doesn't cover it, but that's a straw man. The 4th amendment specifically, and explicitly, prohibits this sort of government behavior.
Bush thinks he's Colonel Jessup (boy, am I glad they spelled it with two S's!) from "A Few Good Men".
Colonel Jessup didn't realize he'd done anything wrong, either. And Bush doesn't do that good of a Jack Nicholson inpersonation, anyways.
Just like the definition I quoted.
God you're a pompus twit.
Listen we all see what happened. You were going to try to knock me down because you thought the definition I quoted wasn't accepted, and when I proved it was, you were stuck.
Next time make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about and you won't have to resort to arguing about the context of the argument with the person who started the argument in the first place.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
[...] information on George W. illegally bypassing said court [...]
One of the issues currently in play is whether it IS illegal for the whitehouse to "bypass said court" - or even if congress CAN prescribe by law that the executive branch must ask such a court for permission to wiretap FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.
There's no question that the congress can prescribe how the executive branch does wiretapping for CRIMINAL JUSTICE purposes - (except that the constitution may completely prohibit warrantless wiretaps FOR THAT PURPOSE, so even congress couldn't authorize warrentless taps if the info goes to criminal cases).
(And - assuming the administration's claim is correct - one thing that's wrong about the Patriot Act is that it allows info obtained on the claimed-to-be-lower foreign-intellignence standard of suspicion to leak into law enforcement's operation, with its high requirements for suspicion and warrants.)
To say (as you do above) that the wiretapping in question is illegal is to take one party's side in an argument about a point of law. That point will only be settled when the Supreme Court rules on it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I hope you don't think that suggests that he should be let off the hook.
And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
This doesn't directly say, but it is strongly hinted at in some measure, i.e. the new Patriot Act information sharing that is now expressly allowed contributed to his down fall.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
You seem to wrongly assume that the FISA court is the only source of authority for surveillance, and that this was illegal. There are strong arguments on the other side, that the administration's actions were completely legal if seldom used Presidential powers. And keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts were informed that they were doing this.
You have the Supreme Courts views on this, and law on the 4th Amendment wrong:
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.
Your investigation into the FISA courts activity didn't quite get all of the interesting facts by stopping just a little too early:
Based on what you've presented so far, I don't think your views are well supported by the facts.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The evidence about WMDs was so flimsy that I find it difficult to believe that someone would start a war on that basis. Also, consider the shifting reasons for invading Iraq:
1) Supposed WMDs in Iraq
2) An alleged Al-Quaeda connection (sorry, can't remember if that was before or after WMDs were the official reason), also unproved
3) and finally, when the rest of the world did not buy 1) or 2), the argumentation shifted to humanitarian reasons (free the people in Iraq). Which is the one argument that has some merit, but bringing it only after other argumentations have failed looks like Bush was merely looking for a convenient excuse.
No-bid contracts may not always be corruption in the legal sense, but they can still cause political fallout. Which is usually well deserved.
About New Orleans, the critical mistake was made long ago. Choosing a FEMA boss who knows his job in the first place might have led to an organization that could move quickly as soon as it was allowed to. The news during Katrina indicate that this was not the case.
During Katrina's aftermatch in New Orleans there was indeed not much Bush could have done, and that old mistake caught up with him.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Well said.
I see that dissent from popular opinon on Slashdot continues to be moderated down even when basicly correct.
Continue speaking truth to power.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You're wrong about the legal aspects of this. There is a strong argument that the President's actions were legal and consistent with his Constitutional powers.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Further down in the story you link to is this interesting nugget:
There seems to be a common thread between the groups in the two stories, but they don't appear to be exactly the same bunch.
I wonder if they were connected in any way to the 20 arrested in Spain trying to recruit Jihadis for Iraq (and who had connections to the attacks in Spain last year)?
Regarding allegations that the NSA's actions broke the law, I don't think you are getting as many facts and contrary views as are available.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I hope you don't think that suggests that he should be let off the hook.
No way -- let him rot in jail for 20 years. Good riddence.
i.e. the new Patriot Act information sharing that is now expressly allowed contributed to his down fall.
Yes, but that was under PATRIOT -- what the Administration is doing is outside of PATRIOT and was not authorized in the least by it. I have issues with some (not all) of the PATRIOT act as well, but that's not what we're talking about. The PATRIOT act even calls for judicial review in most instances (and it's the ones that are outside of that purview that I have issue with).
There are strong arguments on the other side, that the administration's actions were completely legal if seldom used Presidential powers.
Thanks for the links -- I'm already familiar with the arguments in the first, but the second was interesting. And while I agree, to a limited extent, that the wiretapping of foreign nationals is legal when it comes to international communications, it is not at all clear that doing so to domestic calls is allowable -- and it's been stated (although not confirmed AFAIK) that the NSA didn't merely tap international calls, but would spider-web out from the domestic end to other domestic taps -- and that's certainly not on stable legal ground. Neither link even tried to address that either.
And keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts were informed that they were doing this.
There's some question as to exactly what Congress was informed of -- several of the senators on the intelligence committee have said that they were not informed as to the nature or scope of the program, and that if they had been aware that they would not have approved of it. Additionally, the security on it was so tight that the senators could not consult with anyone else (staff, lawyers, etc) on it, which makes it questionable that they were able to make a properly informed decision as to its legality.
As for the courts -- what court was informed of it? Certainly not FISA.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.
Yes, and note that it's been 5645 requests over 4 years, compared to 13102 requests for the first 22 years. That's a dramatic upswing. And that's not even including the wiretaps we're discussing. That said, I can fully understand the reasons behind the increase -- we were attacked on our own soil after all. So it's entirely understandable.
That said, the FISA court is a freaking kangaroo court -- traditionally all they've done is rubber stamp the requests (which, honestly, I would expect). Heck, in 1980 they modified one request (the only pre-2000 modification) and granted additional powers that weren't requested. The current composition is made up entirely of Bush appointees, and while some of those are fairly recent, it's clear that he had a majority of the appointees in both 2003 and 2004. What that tells me is that the requests were so flimsy or outside the scope of national security that the court wouldn't just approve them. Heck, the court even publicly rebuked Ashcroft in 2002 over false information provided.
Instead of questioning the sudden restraint by FISA, I think it's more reasonable to question the warrants being requested. Particularly given that the court was doing this post-9/11 and with Bush appointed members.
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
That's untrue. The court denied a request in 1997. And the article in question is also wrong about the number of denials -- there were 4 requests denied
Finally, someone uncowardly. Thank you.
I read the blogs, and checked the authors' bios. They (all four) have a transparent bias which limits their credibility with me. At least it's transparent, though, which is better than some other sources--like talk radio and cable news.
Two legal blogs by blatantly partisan shills do not comprise compelling enough evidence to change my mind on this, sorry. If I wished to pursue the matter, I could find equally partisan shills for the counter-argument--which would probably have a similarly impotent affect on your opinion too, I suspect.
The notable but unsettling irony is that one of your bloggers is a customer of my company. We provide internet, so he's likely using the network I built to post his neocon BS. Oh well, such is life.
argue
v. argued, arguing, argues
v. tr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
I realize that "apologist" is not in everyone's everyday language - but I thought argue would be. Sorry for taking that leap without quoting the dictionary to you. I won't make that mistake again.
The rest of my argument is about as reasonable as this, albeit I admit I can't quote a dictionary to show you why your pathetic victimhood is self-imposed
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Two legal blogs by blatantly partisan shills do not comprise compelling enough evidence to change my mind on this, sorry.
You might want to look more closely since my recollection is that they are from opposite ends of the political specturm but reach similar views.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Hm. You may be right. I may actually have come to the wrong conclusion after a hasty read on the first blogger's bio. I can't tell positively, but I'll take your word for it. Thanks.
I remain skeptical regarding the topic at hand, however. It will be interesting to follow the story as it plays out in the coming months and years.
With waves of controversy (Brown, Plame, Delay, Abrhamoff, flagrant crony appointments, I could continue...) flowing out of our Republican controlled government, my trust in it is paper thin and weakening moment by moment.
With neo-cons and conservative republicans controlling the show any "fact-finding" will no doubt be like the 9/11 commission. More cover-up than truth.
For all the talk surrounding civil liberties and powers of government,
esp. the executive, arguing whether we are in a state of war or not,
whether our leadership has jeopardized the principals of upon which
our Country rests and pointing fingers as to who among us has become
the most brainwashed; no one is asserting that
both groups are in massive denial and and our political system has been totally corrupted beyond all credibility.
First, w/respect to this topic, I'm surprised that no mention of
D. Ellsberg has come up. Like Tise, a govt. employee who 'went public'
and effectively helped to end the war in S.E.Asia. Traitor or Hero?
Second, despite his actions, despite the dissent and the war's end,
what really changed beyond a new face and name? The game stayed the same.
Business and propaganda as usual. Cambodia labelled a genocide but no mention of
our sanctioning and funding of Timorese slaughter. Marcos and Pinochet
and Manuel were our men, just like Saddam. People who basically wanted
to be free from oppression/domination (read 'confessions
of an economic hitman') got labelled marxists and found themselves
disappeared all across South and Central America with the blessings and
training and weapons stamped 'made in the good 'ole U.S.A'.
This is the bigger picture that needs examining. Not what's happening here
in our country. Save that for last and start with what our country has
been doing to the rest of the world for the past 50 years. How the world
percieves us, the largest dealer of guns and drugs and fantasy.
This has become the legacy of the American Dream; the consolidation of power
and wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the rest of the world.
Re-writing history into a myth that tries to cleanse our blood-stained hands.
Packaging and selling that myth in the hopes that we will never come to realize
what we've been doing to ourselves.
As trite as it sounds we, the lumbering middle-class of every major
industrialized country (but mostly us in the U.S) are living in the
matrix. We are the batteries that fuel the machine. All our discussions
are moot because they ultimately center on just another set of controls.
Nothing that we do, short of disconnecting ourselves, will alter
our habits of consumption, or redress the conditions that most people can
hardly wrap their heads around.
This is the reality: A global ecology that is on the brink of extinction and
collapse. An over-populated world growing ever more dependent on energy and water resources
in decline. A world in which 2/3'rds are considered disposable and living in starvation
and destitution. A world where 1% owns nearly 1/2, 5% owns nearly 2/3'd of all
resouces controled and consumed (and sadly, it only takes a six-figure income to be
in the top 5%). This is reality. We do not see it in it's magnitude. We channel
surf around it, cross the street to avoid it. We go shopping. We have that luxury. For now.
There may be no "elite conspiracy", but make no mistake; the successes of the
"New World Order" and its IMF, WTO, NAFTA/CAFTA, G8, GATT spawn are all designed to
ensure that globalization and 'open markets' provide them with the lifeboats with which to flee
our leaking Titanic. That is their solution to the problems they've created.
A trans-national refuge that suffers neither taxation nor oversight, Or, from the
matrix analogy: a new program to keep the machine in power.
We can discuss American politics ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Call it what you will:
Pax Americana, the End of History, the Idea of Progress or Full Spectrum Domination.
Political and Social ideology w/out economic consideration is irrelevant. And it is the
economics, our economics, the nefarious, insidiousness of globalization, that is
being r
resist propaganda