Slashdot Mirror
Two Groups File Domestic Spying Lawsuits
An anonymous reader writes "The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU both recently filed lawsuits, in New York and Detroit respectively, claiming that President Bush's electronic eavsdropping program is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers. From the article: 'The Detroit [ACLU] lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs' ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.'
Now, I'm sure there's much to be debated about whether or not the ACLU should be taking this action and suing the NSA. Frankly, I'm not sure if this lawsuit is called for or not. It could just be a waste of a government agency's time but the courts will throw it out if that is the case. I'm pretty sure it's not--I'm pretty sure this will be heard in a court of law but the ACLU just won't get anywhere.
..."
Now, I've heard a lot of talk among people of the ACLU being a crazy leftist organization that's terribly out of touch with reality. But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.
No one can argue, this group pushes back so hard against the government even when it comes to something like domestic spying on a relatively small part of the population. They put forth such an effort that I'm sure if any member of the government is about to make a decision about our rights they are probably thinking, "If I do this, the ACLU is going to be all over me in the press
And that's why I love the ACLU. Because I can sit on my fat ass and not have to worry about the government getting carried away.
My work here is dung.
we will see you in court.
I'm no expert on the topic. I was wondering if anyone from Soviet Russia could help us out and let us know whether it was necessary for domestic intelligence agencies to gain a warrant before wiretapping Russian citizens. It just seems like a fun thing to know.
We're a long way from 1776, people.
Why wait until you have proof? Preemptive suing shall become all the rage.
On a more serious note, I'm glad they are so concerned with their client's (and there own) privacy to do this.
Demented But Determined.
Under the current climate if these people get close to actually changing things something will happen to stop them from actually having any real effect. I'm not saying they will disapear but I wouldn't be surprised is some legislation got rushed through that altered things so that their case became pointless.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
How dare these two groups jeopardize national security by selfishly claiming they have rights!
note: the preceding comment was intended to be facetious
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
That was fiction. Get out while you still can.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
"Bush's eavesdropping program was explicitly anticipated in 1978, and made illegal by FISA. There might not have been fax machines, or e-mail, or the Internet, but the NSA did the exact same thing with telegrams" -- Project Shamrock
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Here's a blog related to this ACLU Vs NSA lawsuit.
And from that blog, there's a great site with all the documents which raise concern. There's a lot of info on there if you're really serious about reading up on what resources the ACLU is using to run this case.
My work here is dung.
I disagree with barely any of Bush's spying, which is only that on US citizens without proper warrants. However, people are so upset about this, but haven't you guys ever read on Project Echelon? I'm sure you've been spied on sometime in your life by this.
the Political Inquirer
Do I have some misconception about your law, or is "filing a lawsuit" in this case referring to civil law (as opposed to criminal law)?
If so, why is this? As far as I can tell spying is considered a criminal offense. In this case, the juridical system should automatically start to investigate Georg W. Bush for charges of "illegal espionage against the american people". in other words: high treason.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
An interesting point (which the article missed) is that people like Christopher Hitchens, ex-critics who have yet who have yet been defending Bush and the "regime change/WMD quest/freedom spreading/think of the children/over there, not here" war are joining the suit.
--MarkusQ
Stop believing the media lie. It is not illegal, in fact, even president Clinton agreed that the president has such powers under constitutional law to do so. Both administrations, as well as independent review boards from both sides, all agree there is nothing illegal about this. The stupid left wing media just can't let it go, and americans are like sheep, they follow whereever the media leads.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
In other matters, such as the Second Amendment, they argue against civil liberties in opposition to the clear wording and intent ("..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."), by arguing it somehow doesn't recognize an individual right.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Clinton had the FBI physically search peopls homes and businesses without a warrant.
Source please.
I am sure that if they published the names of the people they evesdropped on, why they did it and what they heard, those folks would look a LOT worse in the court of public opinion than the NSA.
Like all those people McCarthy denounced or something?
May the Maths Be with you!
If you guessed Bush, 2004, and Gonzales, try again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Bush had the power to do spy on people legally, but for whatever reason, he did it illegally.
How are you supposed to trust ANYTHING the Bush Administration does after they admit to starting a war based on false pretenses? They defended the invasion of Iraq SO HARD that they would demonize their opponents and always would deny any wrongdoing was done, until it came out that it was all a lie. It is shameful.
It is unfortunate to say, but this Bush Administration is one of the most corrupt in history. Look at the Abramoff lobbying scandals, FEMA's failure with Katrina, the huge deficit and debt, the no-bid contracts for rebuilding Iraq, the $9 Billion that just went missing that was supposed to be spent on rebuilding Iraq, the lies about the reasons to invade Iraq, the torture of innocent prisoners, and the military contracts for inferior armor.
If President Clinton can be impeached for an affair, what makes Bush immune from impeachment for lying and spying?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This lawsuit has some really strange bedfellows.
First you have greenpeace which is afraid that its fellow members in ELF are bein listened in on.
Then you have Council on American-Islamic Relations who has said that terrorist suspects should have unlimited access to thier supporters back home.
There are plenty of worthwhile groups that looking into wiretapping and if it was legal, this lawsuit is not going to do anything. The only reason for the ACLU to do it is for the publicity; after all it is coming up to 1 year when they filed a suit saying that the US Government has no right to pick up and deport illegal aliens.
WH press secretary McClellan claimed the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches just as your post claims. However, what he was refering to was an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants. This resulted in McClellan saying today (of Gore) that, "I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds." Not only is your blanket statement wrong about the Clinton Administration engaging in similar activities as Bush Jr., but you are also incorrect in its scope. At the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed. However, your post fails to mention both and furthermore fails to mention that Clinton never circumvented FISA to search US Citizen's overseas phone calls. It's sad that you'd pedal the same misinformation that the White House feeds everyone instead of presenting the facts to educate your fellow Slashdotters. It's just as bad as Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, making the same false arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live" and Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." Chew on that.
""All the way" is Slashdot's server's IP log being requisitioned by the government whereby, shortly after, you and all your family members and friends are nowhere to be found."
How do you we know that hasn't already happened?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=protest+zones
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Just look at the last election -- numerous incidents of registration interference by both parties. You know, there are countries where this shit doesn't happen. Where gerrymandering and election fraud don't take place. Where the government doesn't spy on its citizens without warrants, or run concentration camps in foreign countries. Where the public doesn't calmly accept a war based on what were proven to be lies. Where people aren't subjected to theocratic "abstinence education". Where school boards are all trying to have the theory of evolution removed from classrooms and replaced with "creation science".
Yes, Americans are sheep. And you sir are a prime example.
http://gaypatriot.net/2006/01/16/law-school-dropou t-accuses-president-of-breaking-the-law
-john
Slashdot: you'll not find a more wretched collection of villainy and disreputable types...
Really, I'm getting tired of this crap.
What you quoted is not the same as the thing Bush did. While you can of course be of the opinion that it's also problematic, it's legally an entirely different matter.
So stop acting as if it were the same.
Really, I can't understand why some people are so desperate about defending this administrations conduct in this matter that they are resorting to simply lying.
At the time the statement you quoted above was made, physical searches did not, I repeat not violate FISA, because physical searches weren't covered by FISA at the time.
However, what Bush authorized, clearly is covered by FISA and illegal according to it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601170014
They claim that the White House (&NSA) is not following the law. The existing secret (FISA) courts and regulations allow for wiretapping without a warrent application for 72 hours. The wiretapping is done without any courts. The claim is that that wiretapping must follow existing law and regulations, and is not.
I see no claim to rights here...
Move along folks, nothing to see
Would a police state allow groups like The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to file such suits, much less exist?
What?
I always knew lawyers were terrorists.
- chrish
That's because all the focus was on having a blowjob.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Yet another "but Clinton..." argument. Okay, I'll bite. You realize that Clinton went through the FISA court (which was established for just these situations), right? The only time that President Clinton authorized a search without warrant was for physical searches, which at the time was not covered by FISA. After legislation was passed to allow FISA to issue warrants for physical searches so FISA was established as the gatekeeper for domestic wiretapping. Here's what Clinton said:
"My attitude was that once the Congress had spoken on it and given us the tools that we needed, we used it," he said. "We used the law. We either went there and asked for the approval or, if there was an emergency and we had to do it beforehand, then we filed within three days afterward and gave them a chance to second guess it, because I thought it was a good -- I think in the country you always have to try to balance these things out, so that's what we did."
And yes, within the rules of FISA in the case of an emergency you can initiate a wiretap as long as you bring FISA into the loop within 72 hours. So this entire comparison of "Clinton did it too" is ludicrous. He used the tool that was setup for these exact circumstances. The real question you Bush loyalists should ask yourselves is if there was already an established procedure for acquiring a wiretap (even after the fact), why was it necessary for Bush to bypass FISA and use his 'executive privilege'.
Al Gore gave a speech two days ago regarding the power grab. It's quite interesting. Although, IMHO, I think that Gore should have done this a long time ago, but maybe he thought that he would be lambasted as a "sore loser" (which is for another discussion, another day).
Back on-topic, I'm pleased to hear that these groups are filing this lawsuit. Since there doesn't appear to be any checks and balances in the US government anymore, somebody has to do it.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Not one single Democratic congressperson accepted money from Jack Abramoff. Do not conflate some groups with tenuous connections to Abramoff with Abramoff himself.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Now who's the one reciting talking points?
Repeat after me: Abramoff gave no money to Democrats. It is true that some of his clients, some Indian tribes -- indeed those bilked by Abramoff -- gave money to both Republicans and Democrats. One cannot directly link this money to Abramoff, however.... and in fact it would be foolish to do so.
Meanwhile, an FEC search of Abramoff's personal political donations show where his true loyalties exist.
As for the Clinton bit, please refer to what someone else has written further down in the threads. No need to repeat it here.
sorry, miswrote. should be: "the restriction on the government's ability to restrict the right to keep and bear arms"
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Thanks for posting that as I had not read the Media Matters articles. I'm sure that if there are any gaps in information, they can be filled in by using Google, searching CNN/NYT/WP sites and the texts of most laws can be found online as well.
One of the benefits of filing Civil Liberty cases is the possibility to get your Legal Fees paid for by the government. As the case with the ACLU, the more cases they file the more likely their are to receive legal fees. They are fund with donations as well.
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Comment removed based on user account deletion
for a guy whining about some other dude reciting dem talking points, you sure recite em yourself.
Amongst, the people that Abramoff paid off includes Democratic congresscritters as well as Republicans. (Including Dem leadership.)
not a single dem was paid off by abramoff. look at his own donations, not a single dem.
President Clinton claimed the right to perform warrantless phsical searches for "national security" reasons that included drug raids.
back when FISA didn't cover physical searches. this whole thing is about FISA, after all.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
I don't know the law either, this is all in response to your second paragraph.
Because nothing he did would "undermine" the US government, this is not treason. Treason is defined as doing something against your government. If he had advocated the NSA to crack .mil sites, in order to know what his commanders were thinking, then tried to attempt a coup, in order to change our system of government, yes treason. However, "spying" on Americans is not treason. (This is not a political debate, this is a symantics one). If you wanted to wiretap your neighborhood, you won't be guilty of treason any more then he is. Now, again, if your motive is to take down the governement, I spoke too soon.
Take it or leave it, this isn't treason worthy. Does that mean I agree with it? No, FISA was set up for a reason. But by the same nature, I wouldn't want to see him brought up on false charges any more then I would any other person.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
Being that I have known quite a few people who have interned for Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the linked alarmist article has very little evidence to support its claims. I encourage people to read every word and then look for comprehensive proof in the cited sources. Furthermore, it's hard to believe that CAIR, after having regular meetings with some of the top-most senators/representatives in the nation would be called "Islamofascist" or a "terrorist" organization by any stretch of the imagination.
First of all, this case will be thrown out for lack of standing. The ACLU is arguing that a hypothetical harm may have occurred. There's no evidence that Hitchens, Diamond, or anyone else was actually subject to an intercept - and furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation. No doubt the Pakistanis, Saudis, Iranians, etc, don't give two shits about who they wiretap - any conversations taking place in such a regime are very likely to have been tapped on the other end.
The other reason why this whole affair is deeply idiotic is that everyone's going off half-cocked over a series of hypothetical situations. Nobody outside the NSA, a few members of Congress, and some in the Administration know the true depth and scale of this program. What Russell Tice described sounds much more like Echelon, which has been in operation for somewhere around a decade. What we have been told is that this program only applies in scenarios where one end of the communication is foreign. So long as that is true, it falls under the Executive's wartime authorities under the Constitution. Remember, Congress was briefed on this program. Congress has the right to terminate the program by simply cutting the NSA's budget and the Administration couldn't do much to stop them.
Here's the other big problem: the Fourth Amendment prevents "unreasonable" searched and seizures without "probable cause." Exactly what is "unreasonable" about these intercepts - if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation - regardless if the other end is in Kandahar or Kansas.
We're facing an enemy that has already planted sleeper cells within the United States and has the avowed objective of killing as many Americans as they can. After 9/11 there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we didn't "put the dots together" - and now once the government finally tries to do just that, there's even more wailing and gnashing of teeth. The 9/11 Commission Report specifically singled out FISA as being inefficient and simply too slow to provide actionable intelligence. The 72 hour exemption means that unless the FISA Court could provide a warrant within that time period, the government would have to stop at hour 73 even if that means losing valuable intelligence.
There's nothing wrong with a strong stand on civil liberties. However, civil libertarians aren't going to be taken seriously until they realize that there is a threat out there, and our law enforcement and military need tools that can prevent an attack like 9/11 - or something worse. They have to realize that for the majority of Americans, the idea that the government might intercept their conversations if they're talking to someone abroad suspected of being an al-Qaeda associate isn't a particularly big worry for them. Going about half-cocked and crying wolf over and over again isn't persuasive - if anything it's only going to cement the idea in many American's heads that groups like the ACLU are altogether unconcerned with protecting this nation against another terrorist attack.
"All the way" is Slashdot's server's IP log being requisitioned by the government
Who needs the government to do this?
Slashdot "moderator" Robert Rozeboom already censors posts by IP.
> > By looking at your last 20 posts from this Ip.
> > You can only see the final score to a post.
> > Admins can see the total number of moderations,
> > which is what we use for these bans.
I'll clarify what he is doing in case it isn't clear from those posts. Rozeboom may ban you from posting if the last 20 posts from your IP address "have been modded down 28 times". He will do that even if your last 20 posts have also been upmodded more than they have been downmodded. Or even if your posts have not been downmodded at all but if someone else has been downmodded from the same IP, such as will happen if you are sharing an IP through a LAN!
Being banned from Slashdot may not be as consequential as being locked up in the Guantanamo facility, but IMO the justice and the lack of transparency shares the same spirit.
This is not the spirit that made Slashdot popular in the first place.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
An article yesterday claimed that there was little gained from this widespread spying campaign. The overwhelmingly majority of these tips handed down from the NSA lead to innocent Americans.
The only thing that could possibly justify such an overreaching program is hard evidence that the program actually delivered information that prevented an attack. You would think that if such evidence existed the Bush administration would release it. However the most likely scenario is that no such evidence exists or it is so indirectly tied to the spying program there might be no real way to prove that this information alone actually resulted in a capture or arrest.
Also I mean real threats, not some whacko who is going to knock down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch. Also a case where you can say, "Yes without the information from the NSA program we would have never have known". So far many suspects have already been identified through man-on-the-ground intelligence.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
To be a honest, I can't really understand Clinton apologists defending his use of it, while simultaneously being loudly critical of our current President. Either you think that these wiretaps have a legitimate purpose and are part of the Presidents protected and inherent rights in the consititution, or you do not. To say that Echelon under Clinton was OK, but Bush oversteps his bounds is ridiculous for at least one reason. Which war was it that Clinton was fighting? He used the wiretapping to assist with Free Trade negogiations in a peacetime scenario. In todays scenario, we at least have some just cause, even if you don't like Carnivore and Echelon. Let's start with some intellectual honesty please.
Of course a police state would allow that.
And they'd even support it coming before the court system.
That way, their hand picked judges could officially rule that the government had not exceeded its limits in protecting the population.
Then everyone could be happy that justice was served, the law upheld and those traitorous anti-state whiners were publicly shown how wrong they were.
> Why does the story use the words "claiming"? It is illegal based on every law there is, the only problem is that citizens can't walk into the white house and arrest the President for violating Constitutional Rights. Congress, as it stands, is a GOP majority who will not press for an independant investigation nor will our President be impeached. What this lawsuit is doing is declaring his acts illegal through the final word of a court. If this works, and I'm hoping it does, then the media and general public can pressure punishment based on criminal charges.
I suspect the courts will dismiss the suit because the plaintiffs won't be able to demonstrate "standing" to sue. Until someone comes up with evidence that some specific person has been spied upon without a warrant, we're probably screwed.
The DoJ could investigate, but their decision makers were appointed by the person that needs to be invistigated. (Some may have CYA at stake, too.)
So I suspect we're left with Congress. As you say, it's run by the GOP right now, but some of the GOPers are showing a bit of independence now that the DeLay arm-twisting machine has fallen apart. Also, every member of the House and IIRC 1/3 of the members of the Senate have their asses on the line in November, so they've got to keep an eye on what their constituents feel about the situation.
Also, some legislators may feel a personal stake in it, since it's a power struggle between their branch of government and the executive branch. After all, it's a law from Congress that's being ignored.
So there's a slight chance that Congress will do something about it. Especially if we rubes back home raise enough hell about it. Probably not impeach, but if they show signs of moving in that direction then Gonzales might appoint a special prosecutor in hope of keeping Congress from taking direct action.
We can always hope.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why would you ever expect intellectual honesty from Slashdot groupthinkers?
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
I have long agreed with Jonah Goldberg on many things but his take on this is spot-on...
0 601131109.asp
"It reminds me of the ongoing case of the vapors contracted by much of the media and by other critics of President Bush's program of spying on "certain Americans." That's how Dan Abrams of MSNBC, for one, refers to a handful of people who are allegedly on al Qaeda's speed dial and have been in contact with terrorists overseas: "certain Americans."
"Gosh," the average viewer might say, "I'm a certain American!"
If one paid only casual attention to the news these days, one would get the sense that Bush has a big stack of phone books in the Oval Office, and he and Dick Cheney spend their days thumbing through them to find "certain Americans" to wiretap.
"Joe Smith?" says Cheney, rubbing his hands together as if over a fine meal. "Man, he's gotta qualify as a certain American. Let's listen to his conversation with his wife."
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
Now I'm beginning to think this is just the latest in anti-Bush hype. The New York Times, which launched this "scandal," remains at journalistic DEFCON 1, releasing a stream of articles, editorials, and Op-Ed articles as if the nation were up in arms over what some hotter heads believe to be an impeachable offense. (A writer for Newsweek.com raises the possibility that the NSA wiretapping is a prelude to right-wing death squads in the U.S.) James Risen, the reporter who uncovered the spying program and has a book on the "secret history" of Bush's antiterrorism efforts, sounds like he's already cleared space on his mantle for his Pulitzer, Profile in Courage, and Nobel prizes."
The rest of the article - and it is a great one - is availible here...
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg20
No I don't. I have yet to see the ACLU put up a vigorous defense of the 2nd Amendment. Not only is the 2nd a civil liberty, it is a civil right. If the ACLU cared about the 2nd as much as they do the first, I wouldn't have to fear the armed criminal or have to fight for my right to self defense against state governments that usurp the federal constitution.
On a side note, anyone else notice that one of the petitioners is the grandchild of the Rosenbergs? Is this more about "getting" the current Administration or your civil rights? Should I trust someone with a committed political axe to grind to be the defender of my civil rights?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It did not fall under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because, at the time, there were no stipulations for physical searches only electronic. Secondly, Ames himself chose not to pursue having any evidence thrown out based on the issue of warrents as you seem to be claiming. Here is the Criminal Complaint form from Ames' Case. I'm going to highlight some important areas:
"Paragraph 11: As a result of information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, searches authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, trash covers, and other investigation which is detailed herein, I believe AMES has traveled abroad to meet surreptitiously with KGB/SVRR."
So they had what was necessary to aquire the evidence.
Here is a link to and specifically Section 2.5:
"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."
They had probable cause which allowed them to go warrentless. The next three instances, again pulled from the Ames Criminal Complaint form referenced above, we see that FISA was used throughout the investigation.
"Paragraph 18: Based on information acquired in an electronic surveillance of AMES' personal computer and software within his residence, which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on or about October 9, 1993, along with other information obtained through electronic surveillance and other means, I believe "B" refers to Bogota, Colombia. From electronically stored documents located in AMES' personal computer, "North" has been identified as a signal site used by the SVRR to contact AMES, and "Pipe" is a dead drop used by the SVRR to pass messages, instructions, and cash to AMES. In this message, AMES indicated he could not be contacted from the 13th through l9th of September. I have been advised by CIA officials and learned through electronic surveillance that AMES traveled to Turkey on official business on or about September 13 and returned to the U.S. on or about September 17, 1993.
Paragraph 28: Based on several factors, including but not limited to the following, I believe AMES signaled his assent to the November meeting in Bogota by placing a chalk mark at the mailbox, "SS Smile", on or about October 13, 1993:
a. First, on or about October 12, 1993, FBI Special Agents monitored, by means of electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a discussion between AMES and his wife ROSARIO AMES, substantially as follows:
Paragraph 48: Based on information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, I believe AMES also owns two condominium apartments and a farm in Colombia. The condominiums are in Bogota and Cartagena; the farm is referred to as the "Guajira.""
As you can see, FISA was involved and the case itself never came down to contesting the gathering the evidence. So you see, everything was in order and our government was able to find a spy on our soil without gross violations of our Constitutional rights.
What media lie? Please enlighten me about which of the following parts of the FISA wiretapping rules are optional, as Bush and you seem to believe?
A) Notify congress after its use.
B) Request a retroactive warrant from the FISA court within 72 hours of its use.
Bush announced that the NSA was beholden to no law and would do neither. In 2002 he publically complained that FISA court moved "too slow" and that he would continue to authorize the NSA to perform wiretaps without warrants. (despite the fact that the Republican congress had just pumped up the number of judges in the USA PATRIOT act, and could do so again at any time to make sure there were enough rubberstampers appointed by Bush in the room to keep the warrants coming at any pace desired)
As for part A, so far, a few congress people had been told in person, however no notification of the entire Congress was ever performed, and most of those left out of the loop agree that this does not meet the standard required by the FISA act.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Google 'color of authority'.
Blar.
It's really very simple. The ACLU did actually take a stand against ECHELON at the time. They setup a website to collect information on ECHELON in August of 1999 - http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/15059prs1999111 6.html
... Well ... it's lawsuit time. The ACLU is about as partizan as you can get.
/. But it doesn't make this any less true.
But did they file suit against Clinton? Heck no, Clinton was a Democrat president. The ACLU is a partizan organization and will not go after Clinton.
And now that a very small subset of the eavesdropping that Clinton's Administration instituted with Echelon is being done by a GOP administration
Don't believe me? They even took down all the info at www.echelonwatch.org because now that the ACLU is sueing the W administration, it must cover up the fact that something MUCH worse was going on in the Clinton Administration. You can still check out the info at www.echelonwatch.org by using the wayback machine at http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
So yes, if you tend to be to the left of the aisle, you love the ACLU, but if you are a centrist or lean to the right, the ACLU can be seen for what it really is - The legal arm of the DNC.
I have no doubt I'll be modded down because of the extreme left leanings of
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
"Either you think that these wiretaps have a legitimate purpose and are part of the Presidents protected and inherent rights in the consititution, or you do not."
It comes down to checks and balances. There have been no reports of Clinton using his executive powers to initiate any wiretaps that weren't routed through FISA (when the scope of the search was covered under FISA). In that case power is balanced between the executive and judicial branches. Like I said in the parent post, even after FISA's reach was extended to include physical searches (in legislation passed by congress under Clinton) Bush decided that he didn't need to go through it. The President does have executive powers to improvise in some situations, but in this case there was an established procedure for obtaining a warrant.
We have a 3 branches of government for a reason. Their powers are supposed to balance each other out. If the executive branch suddenly decides that it doesn't need to follow the rules that it agreed upon with the legislative branch (that routes requests through the judicial branch) it tips the balance of power.
Ok, I am fully aware that this will become flame bait, but here goes!
/.ers spouting about this and that privacy right have never taken the time to read the 4th Amendment or The Patriot Act completely.
Disclaimer: I dislike the current administration as much as anyone else, but...
I feel reasonably confident in stating that most
Personally, I have to admit that I didn't read them until yesterday. If you do want to read them, plan quite a bit of time because they are very long and dry reading.
In any case, I was quite suprised by some of the content. You might be too, or not, give it a try!
2cent
LOL Im a Troll....well I will just say that after all the scandals in this country, I am a confirmed INDEPENDENT.
And believe me, I would say the exact same things if this happened under a Democratic Presidential Administration.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
http://ad.hominem.attacks.make.your.argument.appea r.stupid.com/
Find your friends!
Its funny how my post was modified as a Troll, yet this post is Insightful?
I don't understand how this rating system works, apparently.
Again, I am a confirmed Independent.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Well it is obvious that the bush administration doesn't have to play by the same rules (constitution), while citizens like you and me a bound to those laws.
Lets step back and look at what is being done. Wiretaps with out a warrant. Who is authorizing this? Fisa court. Fisa is not new it's been around for years however it's existence wasn't highly publicized First off Fisa is unconstitional. How can anyone be above the constitution?
I believe his source was the comments the White House press secretary made on the subject. I for one believe it. The White House would never lie to us. Never. Not even a little.
Okay, maybe a little. There was that whole Iraq war thing, and the CIA leak, and the torture of POWs, and the environmental regulations, and the medicare reforms, and the tax cuts . . . .
But that's irrelivant! Bush is Jesus Jr! USA! USA! USA! USA!
Oh wait, they didn't.
Fortunately through control of the media and the establishment of a culture of vapid consumerism, the fourth check and balance against a corrupt and dictatorial government -- the people and their ability to revolt -- has largely been rendered useless anyway. That's how they can get away with not starting impeachment proceedings the very day it's announced that the president has been blatantly breaking the law and repeatedly performing unconstitutional actions -- most of us are too preoccupied with our own lives to even think about it. We're not the scrappy America of 200 years ago. We're not even the scrappy America of 50 years ago. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get a Starbucks before work...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The ACLU should pick a better battle, because the "spying" on citizens issue goes back as far as biblical times and was used by kings and other powers-to-be to prevent overthrows. So believing that the right-wing or the left-wing has an exclusive on spying in america is a moot argument. This is simply more Left-side-Right-side of the isle mentality that is giving all of America a black eye..
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
I'm sure there's more, of course, but I'll limit the list to your one post for now. If you'd like an extended version, I suggest starting with your thoughts on torture, secret prisons, and indefinite imprisonment without trial.
> He was impeached for LYING TO A GRAND JURY.
About a blowjob.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
If they do decide to do something... then they'd better not talk about it on the phone!
Expect Freedom.
So... it's OK to authorize the warrantless search of an American citizen, as long as you think he's a spy, but it's not OK to wiretap a call to a known Al Quaeda phone number in Iran?
You have to look at the history of the FISA laws. FISA was born from Supreme Court decisions in the 70s. The decisions bascially said that warrantless domestic surveillence was not constitutional, but warrantless taps of foreign powers/agents was fine. The FISA law setup the FISA court and warrant process for domestic electronic surveillance as it related to national security (note: non-domestic activities are generally all allowed under the Constitution). The Clinton Administration realized that the FISA law did not address physical searches. They felt that domestic physical searches should be permitted similar to electronic surveillance. However at that time the FISA law had no mechanism for physical searches, so they simply could not get a FISA warrant. It wasn't possible. The FISA court did not have the authority to do that in 1993. The only options the Clinton Administration had was to either get a traditional warrant, which would have tipped Ames off to the investigation and blown the whole thing, or not get a warrant and deal with it after the fact, which is what they did.
The Clinton Administration supported changing the FISA law to include physical searches and require FISA warrants for domestic national security searches. I see no such respect of the law from the Bush Administration. The mechanisms are all in place for what they want to do, and they are simply being ignored. This is unacceptable.
"It is not illegal, in fact, even president Clinton agreed that the president has such powers under constitutional law to do so."
President != federal court. It is not for the executive to decide the legallity of something. Read your Constitution.
"Both administrations, as well as independent review boards from both sides, all agree there is nothing illegal about this."
Independent review board != federal court
"The stupid left wing media just can't let it go, and americans are like sheep, they follow whereever the media leads."
Where were you at the start of the Iraq war, or do you only complain when it's not leading your way?
And while reading your Constitution, note that the phrase "unless somebody else somewhere got away with it before" appears nowhere in the document.
Sigh. We seem to have a troll lurking here.
You know you're a Bush sycophant when you try to drag Bill Clinton -- who has been a private citizen for a few days short of five years -- into the flame war.
Did Clinton abuse the executive in similar ways? Maybe. But to his credit, he was never as bald-faced or as free-wheeling about presidential fiat as his successor.
PATRIOT, "extraordinary rendition", the deadly fiasco in Iraq, the WMDs.. shall I go on?
Look past the partisan bickering for once.
We're looking more and more like China, the world's largest Red State, every day: fewer rights for the individual, a wider gap between rich and poor, and a docile populace that values economic security (or, more accurately, the ability to consume) over real freedom. You would see that this is where America is heading, if you were paying attention.
Bitch about the ACLU's leanings if you want, but give them credit for standing up for your freedom from random surveillance.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
This has nothing to do with Bush. Indeed, if Clinton was still in power and doing it, liberals would be yelling harder. We've never, ever, shrunk from treating people who claim to be on our side with tougher standards than we treat our open opponents, and we've lost a fair few elections because of that.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is called 'The Big Lie'. Repeat it often enough, and people will believe it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I guess that depends on what your definition of paid off is. No matter what howling mad Dean says numerous Dems accepted pay off from Ambramoff. Check into Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana for just two of many.
Both parties were very happy to accept money, it was just that from 2000 to 2004 of the millions of dollars given republicans received $127,000 more.
"...and furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a situation. No doubt the Pakistanis, Saudis, Iranians, etc, don't give two shits about who they wiretap - any conversations taking place in such a regime are very likely to have been tapped on the other end."
I agree there is little reason to expect privacy from foreign governments, but foreign governments cannot come to my home and take me away for trial in their courts. Furthermore, I would hope that if for some strange reason the US saw fit to prosecute me, that such evidence obtained by foreign countries in circumvention of our laws would be inamissable.
"The other reason why this whole affair is deeply idiotic is that everyone's going off half-cocked over a series of hypothetical situations. Nobody outside the NSA, a few members of Congress, and some in the Administration know the true depth and scale of this program."
"Idiotic?" "Unsettling," perhaps, but not idiotic. Given the advertised behavior of the current administration, it would be reasonable to conclude that depth and scale of this program might be extensive and worthwhile of investigation. There doesn't appear to be an ongoing criminal investigation, so it would be reasonable for a concerned citizen to pursue a civil one via the courts.
"Here's the other big problem: the Fourth Amendment prevents 'unreasonable' searched and seizures without 'probable cause.' Exactly what is 'unreasonable' about these intercepts - if someone is talking with a known al-Qaeada associate in a suspected terror cell, it would seem altogether reasonable that the government should be able to listen in on that conversation - regardless if the other end is in Kandahar or Kansas."
I agree with your statement regarding contacting suspected terror suspects, but the program canvases phone calls--there is nothing to identify individuals who are suspected of participating in crime. For example, I've made some phone calls to my wife when she was travelling in Malaysia. Should the government be able to monitor those, simply because they are to a foreign country--even a predominately Muslim one? I don't agree with that.
"We're facing an enemy that has already planted sleeper cells within the United States and has the avowed objective of killing as many Americans as they can. After 9/11 there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how we didn't 'put the dots together' - and now once the government finally tries to do just that, there's even more wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Is the topic of discussion putting dots together--or gathering more dots? Being currently employeed by Uncle Sam, I'd agree that we the representatives of the people could do a lot more to put the dots together, but I'm not sure that asking for more dots is the right thing to do--given that we can't handle the ones we have currently. Furthermore, determining FISA should do a better job is one thing, circumventing it is another.
"However, civil libertarians aren't going to be taken seriously until they realize that there is a threat out there, and our law enforcement and military need tools that can prevent an attack like 9/11 - or something worse. They have to realize that for the majority of Americans, the idea that the government might intercept their conversations if they're talking to someone abroad suspected of being an al-Qaeda associate isn't a particularly big worry for them. Going about half-cocked and crying wolf over and over again isn't persuasive - if anything it's only going to cement the idea in many American's heads that groups like the ACLU are altogether unconcerned with protecting this nation against another terrorist attack."
This I largely agree with in facts, but not implications. Yes, the executive branch needs legal tools--but do they need ones beyond what existed previously? To what extent do they need confidential ones? Yes, the American public is largely unconcerned with this issue--of course, they are al
Those are two different issues. The first issue is that it is forcing a religion upon other people who are there to discuss/watch the government meeting.
Government property can be used for religious functions. Although why you would want to when there are lots of churches around doesn't make sense. It just cannot be used for religious displays. Many local governments just ban all religious usage of governmental property rather than face the lawsuits should there ever be a conflict of scheduling.
It's not about "hurt". It's about whether the government is seen as favouring one religion over another.
So Clinton realized that he could never get a warrant, so he authorized the search and seizure of an American citizen without a warrant. OK... I got that.
But how is it a lack of respect for the law to wire tap phone calls that are being made to known terrorists?
It's not. It's perfectly legal, and if one President has the authority, then they all have the authority until Congress changes the law.
Do you know for a fact that the phone calls of American citizens were tapped without warrant?
No, you don't.
How many of the tapped phone conversations were from non-citizens residing in the United States?
You don't know.
Can you state that a phone call was tapped without warrant that had absolutely no connection with domestic or foreign terrorism?
No, you can't.
Until you can answer these questions with fact, then the argument is moot.
... elipses...
OTOH, a much more recent case, while not decided on this basis, includes this unequivocal opinion:
-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990)
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"What's with "owning a gun" such a high civil liberty?"
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government has no repsonsibility to protect private citizens.
Read that again.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS.
Don't believe me? Read about it here.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050329.html
None of the other rights matter if you can't protect your life.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I find it intensely interesting that people will defend the warrantless search and seizure of an American citizen by the Clinton administration, yet will villify the recording of phone conversations of people who have known links to terrorist organizations.
Ames was a CIA agent. When you sign up to be a CIA agent, you give them permission to search your home any time they want. If a cop shows up at your door without a warrant, and you say "please come in and search the place," it's a legal search. It's basically the same thing when you sign up for the CIA.
And have you been keeping up with the news? The American citizens with "known links to terrorist organizations" who have been spied on without warrants, in violation of the constitution, have mostly been found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. The leads that the NSA gave to the FBI were almost all a waste of the FBI's time.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Please show me where in the Constitution it says I CAN'T perform my religious rites during government business?
I believe it says Congress shall pass no law restricting the practice of religion or establishing a state religion.
That is ALL it says. It says CONGRESS won't - not an individual citizen.
So if I get up and pray to OHMYGOD before I talk in a public meeting, how is that either the government establishing a state religion OR limiting me in the practice of my worship of the great OMIGOD? Well - if the ACLU, et al. has it's way - my worship of OHMYGOD can't occur in that state meeting - so by legislating from the bench on behalf of the ACLU - the government actually is VIOLATING the Constitution. Unless you believe (mistakenly) that because the courts did it instead of Congress - it's constitutional then..
OHBYGOD - How can you read it this way???
Have you compiled your kernel today??
The FISA court itself has ruled that the President's consitutional authority to protect and defend the United States explicitly trumps their restrictions when dealing with Agents of a Foreign Power or Organization. Period. End of Story. That ruling was in 2002, but Clinton, Carter and Reagen all used the same justification and the same authority.
It's simply because of who used it this time that the people are up in arms.
Wow. That's the weakest argument I've ever seen. "We don't know if it even happened, so let's not debate the legality!"
In any case, I'm sure you'll support the Congressional hearings so that we can get the information you need to debate the legality of this program.
The FISA court does not have jurisdiction with respect to Constitutional authority, so I'm baffled. Are you referring to the FISA Appeals Court perhaps? In any case, primary sources are much appreciated.
The FISA law allows warrantless searches of "Agents of Foreign Powers", but not when they are also "US Persons". The actual law.
Hummm, whose side am I on over this? ACLU, or terrorists? Tough choice.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The Wire taps are ONLY on International phone calls, If tapping someone's phone who is calling Pakistan, is going to make me safer, DO IT. If they are innocent, then they have nothing to worry about.
This is how freedom dies. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
I'm sure you won't mind if I personally listen in on all your conversations to make sure you're not a terrorist. If you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right?
Are we really concerned that a government screener is going to learn about our toilet habits by listening to a phone call then use that information to embarrass us?
No, we're concerned that the government sees clear to ignore laws that it feels are inconvenient.
Remember this is ONLY international phone calls.
I don't care if whoever it is is calling Osama bin Laden directly on his Friends and Family line. They need to get a goddamned warrant, or stop pretending that this is a nation of laws.
The ACLU needs to be disolved..
You need your head examined.
"People are upset because Bush deliberately broke the law,"
Well, to be perfectly accurate, they're upset because they believe he broke the law. They're wrong.
There is currently no case law in this area that could be considered definitive, meaning that he may have broken the law, and he may not have. The courts haven't decided yet.
So if people are genuinely upset "because he broke the law", that stems from their ignorance and they should be corrected.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
True. Just your guns will be carried away as the ACLU works to eviscerate the Second Amendment.
And your country be carried away, as the ACLU does everything possible to prevent enforcement of the US Border against illegal immigrants.
But it's your ass to sit on -- until you lose that too!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Check into Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana for just two of many
show me that both of them took money directly from abramoff. go on, show me.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Well, we have an admission from the President himself, but based on previous testimony, his reliability might be called into question.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
However, yes, it's amazing how the Right has gotten people to cheerlead them.
Look, I used to think both political parties were run by greedy old bastards who cared alot more about pleasing their lobbists than their constitutants, and both parties had 75% good ideas and 25% pure stupidity. Congress is, like Mark Twain said, statistically the most criminal class in America, but they're the only government we have.
My opinion of the Democrats has not changed, except I've added 'craven' and 'spineless'.
My opinion of the Republicans? Unless they immediately do something to stop this madman in the White House, and do something to clean up this K Street bribery scandal of their own making, and I mean within two months, not by the time the elections roll around, I will never vote for anyone who runs on the Republican ticket ever again. I don't care if it's my own mother running against Hitler, and she's tied with him. I'll vote for Mickey Goddamn Mouse before I'll vote for the party running this country full-speed into the ground.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
President Clinton claimed the right to perform warrantless phsical searches for "national security" reasons that included drug raids.
False. What Clinton did was have HUD put clauses into the leases that allowed warrantless searches in some housing projects. It had nothing to do with FISA or national security, and no 'inherent authority' was claimed. This action was challenged by the ACLU and ruled unconstitutional.
From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-051 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed
... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
Written by a friggen associate attorney general of the United States under the Clinton Administration :
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
"At the time the statement you quoted above was made, physical searches did not, I repeat not violate FISA, because physical searches weren't covered by FISA at the time."
So, Clinton was in office before 1978, because that's when FISA was instituted.
The rest of your post is lies too, specifically this part
"However, what Bush authorized, clearly is covered by FISA and illegal according to it."
Lie. What Bush did IS NOT specifically covered under FISA, which is why this happened in the first place. The confusion about what FISA covers allowed Bush to authorize something that fell in a grey area, and the exact case law hasn't been hashed out yet.
I can see why you posted AC. If I was making things up like you are, I would post AC too.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"But it doesn't take a lawyer to look at the FISA statute and conclude that there is a case to be made."
Sure. At the same time, there is case law already that excludes the type of survelance that Bush did. From what is currently available, the actions are closer to being legal than not.
That, more than anything, is why I would like this case decided. I would like a court to very definitively tell the Government that it messed up.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
The main problem is that there's two issues butting heads here. One is the president's 'inherent authority' and the other is the President's duty to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed" as outlined in Article II. The President has explicily ignored a law of this nation. That goes against the Constitution and his oath of office and is unacceptable. If there was a problem with the FISA law, the Bush Administration should have raised it with Congress instead of willfully ignoring the law.
The point is, the people screeching about civil rights violations sat silent when the same types of violations were ocurring under the Clinton administration.
I agree with everything you said, but that wasn't the point.
The point is the people claiming to be outraged by Bush's behavior are liars and hypocrites.
If they weren't, then there should be an easily verifiable record of public denunciation of Clinton's surveilance activities.
If there is, then those people get to crow about Bush all they want. If there isn't, then somebody needs to explain why they were silent before and suddenly vocal now.
And by "they" I mean public officials. I couldn't care less what the crowd thinks about this.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"and America was founded by hardcore BRITISH slaveowners."
If you're going to play the "assign blame" game, make sure you put it in the right place.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Why? Well, you see, if they keep it honest and only include the people who got bribed, they still have some Republicans who were honest. If they start including layers of indirection to suck in Democrats, they will suck in some...and probably suck in all Republicans.
1) Making campaign contributions to people who support your position is not illegal. The Democrats who got money from casinos already voted against gambling. Some of them were from frickin Nevada, and any elected official from Nevada instantly and automatically votes against any gambling located any place except Nevada for economic reasons. Pretending that was any sort of bribe is completely dishonest.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I believe this is the third time I have posted this correction:
... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
From the Clinton Administration's Lawyers:
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the
One thing that should be taken into account: the military is made up of people. Sure, there are a lot of sheep, hardasses, and other such members. But there are good people too.
There are also a lot of people who are, frankly, pissed off at the government. Pissed off that they've been taken from a duty that was supposedly in-country only, and shipped off to fight in a war elsewhere. Pissed off that when their stint was over, they're still stuck in another country, getting shot at, watching friends die, and fighting in that war. The are seperated from their wives, children, and family.
They're pissed off, and... trained in the use of weapons ranging from machine-guns to sniper-rifles to demolitions.
Personally, I don't think it will be a civilian that takes the first big mark against the government. I think it will be one of their own poorly-treated military personnel.
Absolutely! Please, please, please let their be Congressional hearings on this matter. If the laws need to be changed, let Congress do it, not judges.
... elipses...
No intelligent person wants to hear the hate mongering and ignorance festering that is the christian religions.
Someone needs to mod the parent down. That's just flaming, plain and simple. And I'd like to think Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Donald Knuth (suck on that one, computer geeks), Gödel, Cantor, nearly every U.S. president (there has to be at least one that you agree is/was intelligent), W. D. Phillips, and the list goes on and on. I chose those whom most people on Slashdot would undoubtedly consider intelligent men. Additionally, each lived during the 20th century, so they could have easily rejected Christianity without persecution.
The Gov't wanted in because of reports of abuse, but primarilly because those freaks didn't want to pay their taxes.
Blar.
It is well known by now that the modern interpretation of the Constitution deems any warrantless search of US citizens unreasonable, and therefore illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. Concerns about the implications this may have for intelligence gathering have been addressed by FISA. So far, the only defense of the domestic spying program has hinged on the President's ability to interpret the Constitution as he pleases - clearly an indefensible position.
Given that the President has confessed to the act (if not the crime) of warrantless domestic spying, the only thing left to do is apply the due process set forth in the Constitution and let Justice be served. A lawsuit is a fine thing to have, but it doesn't address the issue that concerns so many US citizens. A message needs to be sent to this administration (and all future administrations) that they are not above the law and specifically that warrantless domestic spying will not be tolerated.
Unfortunately for us, it is understandably difficult to impeach a president from your own party. This particular congress has been especially lax in its duty to keep the president in check. The only realistic way to achieve Justice would be to start voting in congresspeople with the backbone to stand up for their constituents against a misguided administration.
We don't need a lawsuit; we need Justice.
The Constitution neither prohibits nor gurarantees the right to perform religious rituals during government business.
So why do we expunge religion from governmental business? Because religions are divisive, and even if every faith represented in the room was able to do their ritual...there would still be drama and problems. If there was time left in the scheduled meeting for the actual work.
Suppose I am a devout satanist. A Minority religion in the USA. I'm sure that followers of the Majority religions in the USA would be horribly offended that I worship what they fear. There would be drama.
Now, it need not be this extreme. Hell, the Christ-worshippers are forever clashing.
Would it be OK for a Catholic to get up and start one of their canned prayers? The Non-Denomonationalists would be offended.
Blar.
First, you are quoting one Clinton administration lawyer.. and you keep emphasising that as if I'm going to say "Oh, a Clinton guy says that? Oh. It's okay then.." I'm sorry but that simply won't work. I don't accept arguments based on standing.. only on the merits of the argument.
Further, as I outlined elsewhere, all of those judicial rulings do not exempt the President from "[taking] care that the laws are faithfully executed". If the President thinks a law is unconstitutionally restricting him, it's his duty to petition the Court, not ignore the law. The problem here is that the Bush Administration did not seek any recourse to this percieved conflict between the law and the 'inherent authority', as the Clinton Administration did after the Ames incident.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-ch eck/
Others have posted ACTUAL COURT DECISIONS that make the legality of Bush's actions unclear.
All you've done is espouse your opinion, without one iota of case law to back you up.
So post the relvant part of FISA, the one you think think makes Bush's actions illegal.
Then watch how fast a decent lawyer shows you how ambiguous it is, and why it's a dumb idea to make assertations like you have.
The frustrating thing about this discussion is that when people like me ask people like you to allow the court to make definitive case law, and avoid jumping to conclusions, the people like you respond with stuff like this
"The FISA law has not been faithfully executed. Bush has violated his oath of office and the Constitution."
Why are you bothering to post if you won't even listen to (more) informed debate?
Why are YOU so certain of the legality of his actions when LEGAL PROFESSIONALS can't agree?
What make you an authority in this area? Nothing, so stop acting like you are and start listening.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
If you are acting as an agent of the government... then the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment? If you want to go on government property and pray that is fine, but if you are acting as an agent of the government then you cannot promote one religion over another.
Hey, look at that, we agree on something. An interesting question is why Bush didn't address this conflict in the laws/authorities 4 years ago when this program was started.
have fun
Occurs to me that congress cannot pass a law (at least not a constitutional law) restricting the powers granted to that branch by the constitution; of any other branch of government (the executive branch in this case) without a Constitutional ammendment. Seems to me that the FISA restricts the Presidents authority and responsibility for National Security, and Caommander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. I suppose this same "rule" might apply to posse comatatis.
;-)
So... I would assume the only challenge the ACLU (Detroit Muslim branch) might have, since they certainly will not have any evidence that anyone specific was violated, is that Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority, a pretty tough sell in the context of 9/11.
In addition, the Supreme Court has always leaned in the direction of the president on issues of National Security, in the overwhelming number of cases.
The result seems likely that Congress will get slapped down, and the FISA will be invalidated at least in the context of 9/11 kinds of asymmetric threats. I cannnot imagine that Bush will lose at the Supreme Court.
Last of all there certainly no criminal issue here, this is most certainly a constitutional issue. The criminal portion of the statute was intended to ensure that no rougue "agents" of the federal government; at far lower levels than the president acting in an executive capacity, used their access to information to violate the FISA statute.
It has been a long forgone (decades old) conclusion that NSA has been monitoring (LOOK UP ECHELON IN GOOGLE) international phone calls, and that they had the capability to go far beyond that. Why is it a surprise that at some point (9/11) they would decide to use the capability?
'Those who fail to learn from the past, are destined to relive it'
mdw
Aldrich Ames spy case is not an example of illegal warrantless wiretaps or searches by the Clinton Administration.
From parent post:
Or freedom from racism - unless you're a non-white-male.
All right - white American males complaining that they have been the victim of institutional racism, from either their employer or their government (or their landlord, etc.), are so delusional and so far from understanding what minorities and women face every day that I am forced to completely discount the rest of what they have to say. STFU. And I'm a white American male who actually grew up somewhere where I was* a minority.
*Miami-Dade County, Florida: White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000: 20.7%
You may find this information interesting. http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-ch eck/
I am quoteing a associate A.G. His opinion might be construed to be more informed then yours. Of course, your opinion does not overrule judicial precedence (what you refer to as standing), no matter how self-important you think you are. Four cases are explicitly cited, including bare bones legal language saying that the court takes it for granted that the president has the authority to wiretap for foreign intellgence reasons. The president (in another fact you have not awknowledged) does not ignore the law, in fact the one ruling on this explictly states that FISA recongizes that the President's authority is complete and seperate from the FISA authorization or the FISA courts.
If anybody has any doubt as to why this "scandal" has been dismissed by everybody except the fringe Bush-haters who think everything is a scandal, look no further than this post. The fact that the President has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches like this means that there is no conflict here. This is quite simple, and its a little sad that I have to point it out.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Except you'd be yelling "Hooray" instead of "Throw the bum out". The Liberals have always been two-faced. To be fair, so are the Conservatives except that their faces are reversed.
The sad fact is, both Clinton and Bush have treated the Constitution like toilet paper, and they're both in the wrong.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
There is NEVER a time when it is just to skip due process when it comes to matters of privacy, civil rights, property, life or liberty. Let me repeat that, "NEVER!" For those of you who do not understand why this is so, let me simply state that all such special circumstances can be faked, subverted, corrupted or worse, used as a seed of new legislation that radically strips due process from government proceedures that are there to protect your privacy, civil rights, property, life and liberty. Put simply, once you give the goons the tools, they will use it for whatever the hell they feel like. I really don't understand why people argue through partisanship so blindly. Partisan politics subvert the checks and balances of the U.S. system of government and end up operating like rich, powerful, political mafias. My personal opinion is that the parties should be completely abolished. We would be much better off if we had to evaluate the merits of individuals than blindly accepting anyone with our personal brand. Moreso, because with only two brands, our freedom of choice is pretty limited.
Democracy? Hah! By the people, for the people? Hah!
Not until we create laws against powerful partisan politics. Today, it is "For the ultra-rich Republicans, by the ultra-rich Republicans and oh, yea, lets throw a few peanuts to the millions who think they are one of us..."
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
If you think this scandal has been 'dismissed', you're off your rocker. Congressional hearings are going to be held. Whether it'll go anywhere after that, who knows.
In any case, the idea that the President has 'inherent authority' would be a justification for ruling the FISA law unconstitutional, unless you feel that the 'inherent authority' allows the President to break the law. Current federal law says that the death penalty can be issued, but only by a jury. Do you feel the President has the 'inherent authority' to issue death sentences on US Citizens for national security reasons?
I want to be clear here.. authority aside, are you arguing that the domestic warrantless surveillance conducted by the NSA under order of the President does not violate the FISA law?
Yep. FISA does not apply in intellgence gathering situations where one or more of the participants are a agent of a foreign power. Everyone from Carter on has claimed this. A USSC review will put the matter to bed once and for all.
Something I find surprising is that most of the people I talk to who are adamant 2nd ammendment supporters are also strong supporters of the Bush administration and the domestic spying program. Obviously the Republican party is the party that fights gun control; but it seems to me that some of the "from my cold dead hands" folks are really not very analytical about things.
I'm sure that's true of the other side also; but it's just odd that somebody who feels their gun is their last line of defense against a corrupt government would so easily and quickly give up rights for which their gun was their stated last line of defense. Apparently those rights aren't as important as they like to say they are, or they would be more inclined to defend them.
The truth, it seems, is that they will probably never use their guns until somebody comes to actually take them away. All other rights they'll happily give up when somebody whispers the word "terrorist."
For all of the certainty and equanimity NRA hardcore types display, they seem quite fearful of the bogeyman.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Would a police state allow groups like The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU to file such suits, much less exist?
Yes, of course it would, if it wanted to keep intact the illusion that it was not, in fact, a police state. The central issue is not what the government does, but how it keeps the people believing they are free (and therefore happy) while doing whatever it feels like. Generally, I think you would find that the more corrupt a government is, the more paranoid it is about being discovered to be corrupt and therefore the more like a police state it will become. A very smart government would do this subversively, manipulating the press and attempting to ensure that the illusion of prosperity and freedom are maintained.
That being said, it seems reasonably clear that the U.S. Government goes through periods of enlightenment where the checks and balances work well and the citizens are truly the focal point of the country and it also goes through periods where radical partisan politics corrupts the checks and balances and trample over the rights of citizens for it's own ends. These periods look suspiciously like a mafia controlled government, subverting systems designed to protect essential assets in order to steal them, subverting essential systems in order to steal from others (such as other countries), etc...
I leave it as an exercise for you to determine which of these (or what blend of these) periods of American history we occupy presently.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
Look, let's just cut the crap.
The Pres. took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S.A.
By his own admission, he is currently breaking the law.
The President does not respect the Constitution, and by extension, he doesn't respect the People of this great nation.
We need to get these radicals out of power. If ever there was a case for impeachment, now is that time.
A well armed citizenry is the best defence against despotism.
In Haiti, 90% of the population participated in rallies outside the presidential palace. Nothing happened. If they all had pistols...
We had the "million man march" Nothing happened.
We had "Bunker Hill" Something happened!
Politicians are sensitive to the wishes of armed citizens.
They are less sensitive to unarmed subjects.
They do not want to be sensitive to anything. I trust my neighbors with weapons. I believe in the essential goodness of free men. It is lack of freedom that causes evil.
USSID (The U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive) States the following:
"Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
So which one is right? USSID CLEARLY states that a warrant is not required in some cases, and goes on to outline them. I would like the court to make those distinctions clear, and it hasn't yet.
Why do you insist on acting like you have some greater understanding of the law, when I've posted an excerpt FROM THE LAW that CLEARLY invalidates your assertion?
"There's very little ambiguity in the FISA law."
Perhaps if you're on a withchunt, but for those of us who like our laws to actually be defined, you couldn't be further from the truth.
You're wrong. Get over it and start accepting that you got your spin from a bad source.
Again, you're just talking and not listening.
Is it just possible that you didn't have all the facts, or are you going to continue to claim something is true when I've demonstrated it to be false?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
No, this issue isn't as large as it should be because many people are ignorant about the law. Not to mention willing to sacrific rights for the appearance of safety. The president can conduct warrantless searches on foreigners as much as he wants. There are much different standards for citizens. Many groups want to confuse the two.
Let's face it-if this happened in the Clinton era republicans would be investigating impeachment options seriously and rightly so. What is protecting Bush is the republican congress and his "reality distortion field".
On a more practical level this surveillance is dangerous because it prevents the FBI from doing its job effectively by burying it in worthless intel. This is confirmed by members of the FBI.
"An interesting question is why Bush didn't address this conflict in the laws/authorities 4 years ago when this program was started."
Maybe on a psychological level. But he didn't address this "conflict" because he didn't see any. He thinks he is right. Therefore there is no significant debate on the issue.
The problem that bothers me about the current Bush is his unwillingness to entertain differences of opinion on many issues. Every President has certain issues on which they are unwilling to compromise. But it seems Bush has many. Couple this with the fact that he believes changing opinions is a sign of weakness....
on television while she was in Baghdad. Behind her was a blue backdrop with the phrase "The Rule of Law" printed repeatedly against it. It strikes me that we lose credibility when we go around promoting, sometimes even forcing, the "Rule of Law" on other peoples, then turn around to our own and say that the President has Carte Blanche to break the law whenever the country is under "threat" and therefore isn't really breaking the law at all. What definition is there for threat? I have to be honest, I was born and grew up during the Cold War, and even after I never felt that we weren't under some "threat". You can certainly argue that the threat has increased in the last few years; but I still think you need some kind of clarification of what threats make this legal and which threats don't. Otherwise you lack credibility to people around the world, and to people at home.
Finally, even if we give GWB the benefit of the doubt and believe that he's a good man doing what he thinks is best to protect us, that doesn't excuse breaking the rules. After all, you don't make rules for good guys, you make them because you know that given time, there WILL be a bad guy who gets the office, and he needs to be restrained by law. If you say the good guy can trump the rule of law simply because he's the President and he's acting in the best interests of the country, then you have also said that the bad guy can do so for the same reasons. And let's face it, we as a populace have not done a very good job of actually assessing whether or not our President is acting in the best interests of the nation. We've been too busy watching Bill O'Reilly duke it out with Keith Olberman. That, after all, is easier and more entertaining.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
First of all, we're talking about thousands of incidents here, not 36. We won't know the full number until this matter is properly investigated, which won't happen while Bush stooges like Gonzales are covering for him. He acts more like Bush's press secretary than an attorney-general.
Second, FISA allowed Bush to do the warrantless tap and then get approval retroactively, within three days (yes, I know, that's a pretty huge civil liberties violation in itself). Despite this, Bush neglected to do so.
Anyone who had even the most nebulous ties to Al-Queda could have been wiretapped without a warrant legally. Do you imagine any court would have denied Bush this ability? Yet he didn't even try to follow the very explicit law and just completely ignored it.
Now why would he do this? I'll tell you why. Because he was wiretapping domestic opponents for purely personal political gain. He knew those searches would never be approved because they had no merit, and he didn't want the rest of us to know what he was up to.
This should concern you, as should his declarations that he can break the law whenever he feels like it during the duration of this "war on terror", which, in his mind, will last approximately forever.
You might also be concerned over his assertion of "commander-in-chief" powers over the civilian population. That is, if you haven't forgotten every lesson about tyrants your founders taught you.
"Clinton is nothing but a red herring in this regard"
Really, then explain this
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Hey, look at that, an executive order authorizing... WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. Discussing past examples of similar situations isn't a "red herring", it's informed debate.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"A well armed citizenry is the best defence against despotism."
No it isn't. Despotism generally comes from within and is often welcomed relatively peacefully. A citizenry committed to "democratic" ideals is the best defense. Once it gets to the armed citizenry there is often little difference between despot and citizen.
Thanks for the advice, I will be sure keep it in mind :)
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
But how is it a lack of respect for the law to wire tap phone calls that are being made to known terrorists?
Any phone calls being made by known terrorists would easily past the FISA court and could be done with a warrant. The only reason to illegally skip the FISA court is if they knew that they couldn't meet that standard of proof. They knew what they were doing was so wrong they didn't even attempt to get it into the PATRIOT Act which was barely scrutinized and passed overwhelmingly.
Do you know for a fact that the phone calls of American citizens were tapped without warrant?
The President has admitted that this and his only defense is bizzarre interpretations of the authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan and the principle that the president can do anything he wants if its in the name of national security. We know it happened, unless you're calling Bush a liar. We don't know what the scale was, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands. FBI agents have said there were thousands of tips from this program with not a single one panning out. (Definately not a case of known terrorists' phones being tapped) We don't know who was tapped. There's the strong possibility that reporters phones were tapped, possibly political opponents of the Bush adminstration. We just don't know, but we know that it was bad enough that they knew they couldn't get it passed a court that had never rejected a single warrant application until after this program had begun.
People addicted to substances will spend any money they get, no matter who hands it to them.
If the goverment hands out money to drug addicts (which is not the case anywhere, but I will humour your uninformed diatribe) then at least I would know I will not be mugged by the drug addicts since they would have access to the drugs they need. You were rusing so heavily to your idiotic conclussions that failed to see any benefits that alleged policy would have.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Quote:"The ACLU should pick a better battle, because the "spying" on citizens issue goes back as far as biblical times and was used by kings and other powers-to-be to prevent overthrows."
Which of course is exactly why the Founding Fathers, who explicitly defend the rights of men to overthrow any government which fails to serve the people, created both the constitution and the bill of rights- to protect the ability of the citizen to in fact overthrow a government which abused or disdained the rights of individuals.
Two quotes form founding fathers to ponder: First, Patrick Henry: "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Next, Thomas Jefferson: "What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Man, read a little or something-Jeez...
"What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the constant beeping of my bullshit detector..."
Liberals never tire of playing rope-a-dope. Well, it'd BE rope-a-dope, if they weren't doing it to themselves. Maybe there's another word for it.
How many times will we have to hear how George Bush has scheduled the world's destruction, only to learn the assertion is fabricated?
Remember how:
- Rove was going to be taken down, and Bush impeached over revealing a covert CIA agent? [Who wasn't covert, and hadn't been for 6 years]
- How the Conservatives were "cracking up", by wanting to withdraw Harriet Myers, yet it was actually a strengthening of the party's convictions (See also: Sam Alito)?
- About 20 lawsuits against Halliburton, Clinton's favorite tool and the only non-French company that makes CITIES, came to nothing?
- Rush Limbaugh was going to be jailed for taking prescription drugs, but the court found there was no evidence whatsoever, and the prosecutor was trying to take a fishing expedition?
- How tax cuts would "bankrupt the country", but it's growing at the safest, strongest rate without being in a boom? [Also done by JFK, Ronald Regan, George Bush 41- NOT done by Jimmy Carter who *raised* taxes, and we were miserable.]
- How almost every democratic congress-geezer moans about low military morale, but people are re-enlisting in numbers rivaled only by the second world war?
- How "no WMDs" were in Iraq, but the New York Times reported (5/22/04) that Bush was harming the Iraqis by hauling out 500T of yellowcake uranium, and 2T of enriched uranium from the streets of Baghdad?
- How Bush "went AWOL" from his Air National Guard duties in the vietnam era, but the papers were using Microsoft's font face?
- How we're supposed to believe that people are starving from the "worst economy", but $2B is surplus in the food stamp account? [Unemployment is at ~5%, probably as low as it can get]
- How Iraq will be "another Vietnam" but after 3 years less people have died there than the DoD admits to losing, if they'd stayed home? [~1200/year normally, should be 3600, but we've only lost 2200 or so]
- How Conservatives are always railed about "tax cuts for the rich", and every time it boosts the economy? ["The rich" own companies. Ever get a job from a single mother living in the projects? There IS a connection.]
How is it that people voting Democratic can keep believing the headlines and getting excited, and it's all for nothing, over and over again?
The allegations and the headlines they generate are rarely the same; it's what's called media bias. The wiretaps were on international phone traffic involving phone numbers attributed to terrorists or terrorist-support groups. It's been done before, and by some of the people claiming it's illegal (like Al Gore). Who doesn't WANT this?
Mark my words, and remember this at the ballot box: nothing will come of this. Get off the treadmill; think for yourself, research for yourself.
Fer cryin' out loud: you're on the internet!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Speak to liberals, and they are the people most furious at Hilary Clinton's attempts to wade into the sex and violence in games debate. We expect that bullshit from the enemy, not people who claim to represent us.
Nope, just conservatives. The difference between liberals and conservatives on issues of hypocracy is this: when we, liberals, see people supposedly representing us doing things we consider wrong, we criticise them: we don't care about appearing to be united, we condemn abuses of human rights no matter who is committing them. You right-wing bastards, on the other hand, condemn liberals, but never, ever, criticise your own. You talk incessantly about how liberals represent "big government", but when your own governments create draconian laws and treat the constitution and rule of law as toilet paper, you'll do everything you can to pretend it's justified, condemning liberals every time as unamerican, and every time trying to compare minor misdeeds by so-called liberals that were condemned at the time by the vast majority of liberals, to major misdeeds by your own side you refuse completely to condemn.Liberals often lose elections because we care about being perfect more than we care about being united.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Huh?
By pointing out that someone is a hypocrite, I am now joining whatever side opposes that person? That doesn't make sense. By pointing out that "affirmative action" is hypocritical, does this mean I have joined forces with the KKK? I think not.
(yes, this post is redundant, and I am willing to sacrifice karma)
... elipses...
"The USSID allows for warrantless surveillance of US persons outside the United States, as you rightly point out. However the program in question is a domestic surveillance program."
I'm going to highlight this, but I'll let you figure out where you screwed up. My guess is you're so blinded by your bias and bigotry that you won't be able to.
"Therefore, according to the excerpt you posted, the approval of the FISA court is necessary."
Funny how you ask if I read my excerpt when it's pretty clear you didn't bother to. If the FISA courts approval is required then explain this part
"OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States "
Well? Did YOU read my post? It's pretty clear you didn't bother with that part or you woudln't have said this
"Also please point out any ambiguity in the FISA law, as you are so sure that it exists."
Can the attorney general authorize warrantless searches? In what cases in the answer yes, and in what cases is it no?
Well? GIVE ME CASES, not your opinion.
And you STILL haven't posted the law that you think makes this illegal. Posting the whole FISA document is nice, but it shouldn't be too hard for somone as well read as yourself to point me to COURT CASES that support your point.
Face it, you opepen your mouth without all the facts, and now you can't take it back. Learn from the experience and try not to jump to conclusions when you're ingnorant.
We're done.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
You misspelt "ignoring congressional refusal of presidential powers" and accidentally substituted the word "known" for the word "suspected". HTH.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
But no one is allowed to use that meeting to push their religion.They are violating the separation of church and state. They are not allowed to do that.Yeah. Right. It's great you have an opinion. But I really don't care what your opinion is. The law is different.No. It is a violation of the separation of church and state. They can practice whatever religion they want, but they cannot use a governmental meeting to push it on others.Yeah, great, whatever.
Okay, you have an opinion that isn't based on any laws. That's fine. Who the fuck brought up "bigotry"? How stupid are you?
You aren't worth discussing this with. You're just too fucking stupid.
Funny, I never heard any liberal complaints, either about Clinton's bombing of Iraq, or his history of sexual harrassment. All those complaints were from the conservatives.
Bullshit! The Liberals don't say a thing when their guy is doing it. They scream bloody murder, but only against Republicans.
It seems to me that quite a few "right-wing bastards" are getting fed up with Bush. I'm hearing plenty of screams from both sides, and justifiably so.
No, actually Liberals lose elections because they've alienated the centrist voters years ago. The conservatives are in the process of doing the same, but the libs have a big head start.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Abramoff wasn't investigated for the money he was giving to congresspeople. Abramoff was investigated for defrauding Indian tribes and getting them to donate vast sums of money to congresspeople. So, saying that Abramoff didn't personally cut the check is disingenous at best.
Let's see, we have overseas interception of international calls and we scream "DOMESTIC SPYING!!!"
Before we had physical searches of US property and the excuse is "well, FISA didn't cover that"?!?!?
Could we try for just a little bit of consistency here?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
As to the legality of Bush's program:
source
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Maybe things are done differently nowadays in Jesusland, but in Canada one of the best things we've imported from the US is this concept called "innocent until proven guilty." This means wiretaps must be backed up by at least some evidence, not merely presumed guilt. Increase the ability of the police to work secretly if need be; but balance it through increased accountability and oversight, not less. By wiretapping without even notifying FISC, the spies were cutting out legal oversight altogether, a dangerous challenge to the notion of rule of law and government by Constitution.
Moreover, the damage done by these wiretaps goes beyond the erosion of privacy (an erosion which impacts all American citizens, by the way, not just 'evildoers.') To justify the violations, President Bush has essentially argued that his role as Commander in Chief during a time of war gives him the authority to override the legal limits on the behavior of his administration. Considering the fact that the War of Terror can last indefinitely, this line of reasoning translates roughly into "L'etate, c'est moi"
Procrastination Man strikes again!
You act as if this hasn't been going on for about 60 years. Truman put it in place - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschelon . Reports of threats to Freedom are greatly exagerated. Listen in on my conversations? I hope you have some strong coffee and don't operate heavy machinery.
No, we're concerned that the government sees clear to ignore laws that it feels are inconvenient.
No, this issue has been reviewed many times by the Justice Department for compliance with the laws. They believe it is in compliance. The only reason this is an issue is because the NY Times didn't want to publish the story about the stunning elections and record low violence in Iraq on the front page where it belonged that Friday. The spy story was on ice for over a year while the reporter wrote a book on the subject making his source (i.e. the criminal that leaked the information) livid. It was political propaganda.
I don't care if whoever it is is calling Osama bin Laden directly on his Friends and Family line. They need to get a goddamned warrant, or stop pretending that this is a nation of laws.
They need warrants as it pertains to law in this country. Stop pretending that the Constitution applies to non citizens outside of the country. We the people, not we the world. Besides, I have been told by many legal dudes that when it comes to national security it will be found to be legal.
The ACLU is simply an arm of the Democratic party to shove their agenda through that they can't get through via legislature. Most of their cases are simply fund raisers for them exploiting the 1973 law on civil rights cases. Win, loose or draw they make money. If they were disolved tomorrow it is very unlikely you (or nearly everyone in the country) would ever miss them. Your tax bill would likely go down, however.
First - I said "stand up in a public meeting" I suppose I need to clarify that I was talking about John Q Public. Place me at a City Council meeting where I'm talking to elected officials. So I'm not an "agent of the government" in this scenario, yet that is what is being demanded!
Let's talk about a REAL common scenario. My city council has a program where different denominations come in to open City council meetings with a prayer. One week it's "Congregationalists" while the next it's "Catholics" followed by a Rabi. There is nothing un-constitutional here.
Lastly - you guys read the Constitution as if it is a restrictive document for the citizens. It is only restrictive of the government meaning that ALL other things not explicity prohibited are allowed! That means that anything OTHER than establishing a state religion or impairing the practice of religion by the citizenry is allowable unless modified by legislative action!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
You didn't get a single other item correct, but you got that one spot on.
Most of the discussion of inherent presidential authority occurred before FISA. FISA was implemented in order to reign in the abuse of government surveillance which had taken place for decades.
If the president has an inherent authority to violate FISA, then the FISA court itself is unconstitutional and should be disbanded. Methinks that is not the case and will not happen.
Here's some good reading for those interested in this topic:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf
There was no purpose for the Bush administration to bypass the FISA court. Clinton had some justification, since the FISA court did not oversee physical searches, but Bush had no justification whatsoever. He had the option of obtaining warrants up to 72 hours after the fact. He claims this wasn't fast enough. This is a very difficult story to believe.
Very good document. Thank you.
You are correct... I did mistakenly use "known" when I should have used "suspected." Thank you for correcting me.
The difference between a suspected terrorist and a known terrorist can only be truly known after surveillance... or after bombs tear down a few buildings, train stations, embassies, etc.
... elipses...
Wiretapping is not the issue. The issue is that there is a system set up to oversee such activities, and the Bush administration bypassed it. Why could they not get the warrants? The FISA court has rejected only four cases since it was created in the late seventies. It's not hard. That's why the ACLU brought the suit. Bush is breaking the law.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I spent an hour marking up a long, complete set of rebuttals when I realized it's not worth it. No matter what I say, you'll split hairs, call my sources dubious, and/or call me names. If you believe in all you say and hate Bush as much as you do, there no amount of text I can put here that's going to change your mind. More sources you're used to listening to, oppose the handful that I listen to, and that's enough for you.
Let's face it, you're programmed. And when the next election doesn't turn out the way you wanted, remember this issue.
If you're only willing to listen to the legacy media, and not what's being said about_the_legacy_media, you'll never see the bias that has you all a-twitter right now. You won't listen to Limbaugh for a week, you'll say you did. You won't research my claims, you're too busy. You'll just keep the tv tuned to CNN, listen to the same sources, and one day your eyes will open.
You probably think there's no connection between NYT/CNN/NBC/CBS/etc even though they use the same words in their stories. But do me a favor: check out that link in the NYT, May 22, 2004 and see if there isn't reason to start asking questions. This isn't the first time they've claimed one thing and previously reported another.
(BTW: "*cough*bullshit*cough*" is only funny as a sight joke, not in text.)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Posted above http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174281&cid =14499204
Don't lie to the guy. Point out the obvious...that a few mods thought it was cool to call Americans "sheep" and modded that putz up just for that. Mod points have almost nothing to do with your debating skills. People get modded up or down on the basis of whether the modder agrees with them or not. It's pure politics aka pure bullshit.
You are distorting the issue.
Every president has asserted the right to conduct secret surveillance within the United States. Before FISA, this was done without warrants. FISA was implemented in order to stop the abuse of warrantless searches. FISA explicitly requires warrants in the event of surveillance of a United States citizen. This applies even when the person on the other end of the line is an agent of a foreign power.
The whole point of FISA was the creation of a secret court which allows the government to perform secret surveillance which is necessary for national security.
Congress has the power to enact laws, and these laws regulate executive authority. If the executive branch believed the FISA law was unconstitutional, it should have sued in federal court to have it overturned. Instead, the Bush administration decided to break the law.
Clinton didn't break the law. He executed the "inherent authority" which has been asserted by many presidents, before the FISA law applied to physical searches. Bush is advocating an inherent presidential authority which could only have existed before it was constrained by Congressional action.
You are incorrect.
_ Surveillance_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence
"The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is: only for foreign intelligence information [2a] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [3] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[4]"
The same can be said of any criminal offence, and indeed that is a well used excuse by police state governments . I would suggest that if you wish to live under the rule of such a government you would kindly move to one of the currently available ones, rather than helping change the government I'm living under. Thanks.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Here is the link to the statement you cited:
1 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-05
Basically, his argument is that the Bush administration operated in areas which FISA doesn't cover. There's no way for us to know whether that is correct or not, since the surveillance is all classified, but it is highly dubious to say the least.
Not true at all. Congressman Bob Barr (one of the House managers for Clinton's impeachment trial) and conservative bloviator Grover Norquist are both on the bandwagon to kick Bush in the keister over his illegal surveillance.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=
Bob Barr said this:
And have you been keeping up with the news? The American citizens with "known links to terrorist organizations" who have been spied on without warrants, in violation of the constitution, have mostly been found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. The leads that the NSA gave to the FBI were almost all a waste of the FBI's time.
The 'success rate' is even more dismal when you consider that doesn't count the Citizens that the NSA decided did not warrant further investigation. We may never know how many fall into that category.
You act as if this hasn't been going on for about 60 years.
I don't care if it's been going on since the Pleistocene.
No, this issue has been reviewed many times by the Justice Department for compliance with the laws. They believe it is in compliance.
I believe the Justice Department is wrong on this issue. We shall see.
They need warrants as it pertains to law in this country. Stop pretending that the Constitution applies to non citizens outside of the country.
Who are those non-citizens calling in this country then?
Besides, I have been told by many legal dudes that when it comes to national security it will be found to be legal.
Legal dudes, eh?
The ACLU is simply an arm of the Democratic party to shove their agenda through that they can't get through via legislature.
Oh please.
I meant "former Republican Congressman Bob Barr". My bad.
No, this issue has been reviewed many times by the Justice Department for compliance with the laws.
Also, you realize the Justice Department is a Cabinet department, ie, it's part of the executive branch, not the judicial?
Seems the Bush Administration doesn't see things that way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive_th
In effect, the Bush Administration asserts that any legislation related to foreign policy or national defense is advisory in nature, and that the president is free to ignore it if he deems it necessary in the execution of his duties as commander-in-chief.
Considering that he also holds that the judiciary (i.e., the Supreme Court) has no authority to review presidential decisions related to foreign policy or national security, it should be interesting to see what happens if this ends up going to court.
On the other hand, if the President were aware of someone making a phone call from within the U.S. to Osama Bin Laden, and he had the ability to listen in, and intentionally chose NOT to, while he probably could still not be impeached, he could AND SHOULD be removed from office under the 25th ammendment (which provides for removal of a president who is incapable of performing his constitutional duties).
In any case, people need to understand that it is the role of the President and of the White House Counsel (Harriet Miers) to determine the scope of Presidential power and authority. The only time it stops being their role is when (as is being attempted) someone claiming actual damages brings their case to the Supreme Court for relief, in which case the Supreme Court has the final word on the correct interpretation within the narrow confines of the case being brought before it.
Personally... the issue I have (and I reserve judgement until more information comes out) is this:
Given that the phonecalls had at least one party with either ties to Al'Queda or was not a citizen. Also given that information that could be extremely time sensitive could be involved. I have no issue with the wiretaps themselves...
The issue I have is with the fact that the FISA court does allow for retro-active granting of warrants, and that Bush did not go and get the warrants afterwards, there's the issue I have. It may come out that the warrants were requested, and received, and then classified... if that's the case, I'm (for the most part) satisfied, if that is *not* the case, then we have a problem...
Nephilium
There is nothing un-constitutional here.
Riiiight. I'm sure they allow the local Wiccans or Pagans to come in and do their thing, or allow the local atheists to give a short speech on why religion sucks when they get their turn at the prayer lottery. Yep, I'm sure they give every APPROVED group a turn...and that's free enough for you, eh?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
You mean right wing media. The same right wing media that never asked even obvious questions when the neo-cons beat the drums of war. The same right wing media that is owned by wealthy right wing individuals like Rupert Murdoch and heavily influenced by zionists. The same right wing media that broadcasts nine right wing radio shows to every one that questions establishment. Left wingers in the mainstream media are mostly low level cub reporters and when they don't toe the editorial line, they end up consigned to human interest stories about waterskiing squirrels and other such nonsense.
It is categorically unconstitutional for the government to conduct warrantless searches and seizures. Regardless of what Congress does (short of amending the Constitution), that will always be the case. By legal precedent, wiretapping is covered under the Fourth Amendment, so the executive branch must have a warrant in order to conduct wiretapping.
The Constitution does not provide a detailed procedure for the issuance of warrants, but this has always (and properly, I believe) been placed in the hands of the judicial branch.
The Constitution only explicitly establishes one court, the Supreme Court. However, it allows other courts to be established. Guess who gets to do this?
The U.S. Constitution: Article III. - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Congress acted well within its authority in establishing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
It is the President who is violating the separation of powers by going around the courts. The President is allowed to wiretap whomever he wishes, provided he gets a warrant from any court that has the authority and jurisdiction to do so. The FISC is actually there to make this easier, for cases involving national security where it would be risky to go before an open court. By failing to obtain a warrant, not only is the President acting unconstitutionally (in violation of the Fourth Amendment), but the President is assuming a power not vested in him. Once a President does this with impunity, we will have finally been robbed of the last vestige of the separation of powers. Let's not allow that to happen this time.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
you think that wiretaps which would be a felony when done by private citizens aren't even "unreasonable" when done by the government.
It's unreasonable for the government to conduct surveillance of people communicating with terrorist organizations during wartime? Right..... I imagine that you must have an interesting view on that whole "government monopoly on force" issue too.
you haven't questioned the premise that the unwarranted wiretaps are listening to known al-Qaeda members, even though such wiretaps surely would not have been among the ~0.1% of warrants that FISA has denied.
I guess timeliness and rapid developments would never play a part. Of course, that assumes that under current circumstances it is necessary for the NSA to actually get warrants. Of course, informed legal opinion from liberals and conservatives concludes that the NSA surveillance program was likely legal, and within the President's powers.
.
Old problem, isn't it?
I forget, who was it that was filing lawsuits to try to prevent the US government from listening in on conversations of people talking to known terrorists?
.
.
And that was proposed when and where? (Or is this a case of that "...you falsely pretend to think so to score rhetorical points" thing you mention above?)
One final thing: military action and law enforcement are different legal realms. Confusing them leads to no end of consternation.
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 are spreading the legal equivalent of urban legends, many of which are also "well known".
President Clinton's former Associate Attorney General, John Schmidt, had this to say:
There is plenty of other commentary and reaction as well.
"warrantless domestic spying", eh? You do realize that this is isn't aimed at rival Presidential candidates, but at people in direct contact with terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States, right? I'm astonished you might think that to be a bad thing.
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
500 individuals that had some tie to evildoers
Actually, as I understand it, it goes something like this. The administration is only tapping those that have ties to known terrorists. How we're sure they are known terrorists is beyond me. If we've convicted them of being guilty, I assume it was in absentia since they're not in prison. Or, maybe we shoudl just trust the administrations opinion. After all, the administration did have their lawyers confirm that this wiretapping is legal. Of course, lawyers don't decide the law, judges do. But the amdinistration bypassed the judges by saying their lwyers felt they didn't need any judges...
So, now suppose that the administration thinks your mother is a terrorist. The administration feels its belief about your mother is enough to justify wiretapping your phone calls to your mom without having to convince a judge of probable cause. If they're SOOO sure, then the almost-never-deny-a-request FISA court wouuld certainly ok their requets -- even two weeks after they do the actual tapping! So, I can only assume the reason they need to bypass a FISA judge is that they're really doing something wrong.
Maybe. Depends on Congress. Sometimes they get rid of the issue by legislation. The Justice Department does have a good track record of being right, however.
Who are those non-citizens calling in this country then?
Other non-citizens usually. The question really is moot. You don't have a protected right to harm other people or do illegal things. Besides listening in is really not an issue anyhow. Standard police practice is knowing who is talking to whom. That tells you the real story.
Legal dudes, eh?
Yes, legal dudes. That is because this was a discussion that was not professional in manner. Therefore I don't want to mention who they are. Rest assured they are not legal wimps.
(aclu)...Oh please.
Live and read, then realize the truth. There are a lot of organizations that are old and doing whatever they can to make people think they are still relevent. The NAACP is another example (more white people donate to them than black people, according to them). Recently the AFL-CIO is in the news for this very issue as well. The ACLU is in that boat. So they look for pots of gold - the favorate 3G's - God, Gays and Girls are prime targets. That is why I say the intelligence thing is up their alley too, probably another civil rights case that they win even if they loose. As a bonus they get people to think they care about them instead of using them.
But of course. The department is composed of a lot of people that survive from administration to administration (they are called Civil Service, they were instituted over 100 years ago due to political whims in the Government for the very reason you cite (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_servant )). Simply the management changes. As I said before, regardless of who is in Congress or the WH, they have a very good track record of being right. In fact if you notice, a lot of Supreme Court justices through the years have worked there at some point. Some alumni have become law makers in Congress - Jamie Gorelick is a good example of that.
Says who?
"But why should we care even if we do wire tap such people?"
How do you know? How do we know that they are only tapping dangerous people? How do we know they won't use it against their political and ideological enemies? It has happened before, why not again? The fact that the country is so hysterical over terrorism makes the temptation for abuse that much greater; because people are less likely to question what is going on.
When they don't get a warrant from a court there is no oversight. We don't know who they are wiretapping and why. That's the issue. Though you may not believe me, I would say the same thing if Democrats did it (I'm registered Independent).
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Singing hymns is fine, at home, in church, with friends, etc.
Singing hymns in a government building, during a zoning meeting is not fine. And opposing it is not bigotry.
You are still an idiot.
Since your position is wrong, you are unable to tell what is correct from what is wrong.
As I've just illustrated with your comment on bigotry.
In order to learn something new, you must first lose the belief that you already know it.
You do realize that this is isn't aimed at rival Presidential candidates, but at people in direct contact with terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States, right?
If the program is so secret, how exactly do you know this?
I think that's the sticking point for many people: "Trust us, we're from the government" hasn't set well with most Americans since the days of king George. If you trust them, that's fine for you. But what about the many people (of both parties) who explicitly don't trust that the government (or more to the point, politicians) will just do the right thing with no need for oversight?
--MarkusQ
So, define it.That is exactly what I said. Why are repeating what I just said?Again, you're repeating what I just said. Why?And that is exactly what I've been saying.
So, you've just spend a whole paragraph saying what I've been saying.And you have, once again, stated exactly what I've already said.
Which makes you a moron. There is no bigotry in banning all religious activities at government functions.
Yet you tried to portray it as such.
Maybe "moron" isn't accurate. I'd say you're more of a retarded moron.
Have a nice life you fucking idiotic retarded moron.
Unless you're operating from some definition of "bigotry" that only exists in your own head.First off, there is no "religion of secularism".
Go ahead, tell me a pray from any secularist church. You can't?
Then post a picture to any secular holy symbol. You can't?
So, someone who is not currently praying or wearing any holy jewelery or clothing MUST be advocating secularism. At least, accourding to your "logic".
Yet those same people will go to actual religious churches and pray and so forth.
So
So, for the duration of that meeting, in that location, they abandon their Catholic faith and join the "religion of secularism".
As does anyone else who agrees to the separation of church and state.
But once they're out the door, they're Catholics again. But for a while, they were, unwittingly, Secularists!
Now, since you believe that, you are a retarded moron.
Agreeing not to discuss religion in no way, shape or form changes the religion the person belongs to or imposes any religion upon anyone else. Despite your claims to the contrary.
Bigotry is practiced by bigots.
By your definition, that Catholic is a bigot against Catholicism, just by not talking about his religion during that zoning meeting.
Yeah, that sounds like something a retarded moron like yourself would believe.
I said:
"By your definition, that Catholic is a bigot against Catholicism, just by not talking about his religion during that zoning meeting."
Yeah, a retarded moron like yourself would have trouble reading a simple sentence like that and have to add words and possible conditions that I never stated and that do not apply.
This is about wanting to start the meeting with a Catholic prayer and such.
Here, read your own post.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174281&thresh
This is the second time you've tried to restate your position. That is because I am kicking your retarded moron ass.
Explain how a Catholic man, who goes to Catholic church every Sunday, who believes the Catholic faith is the one true religion, who raised his children in the Catholic religion, who is proud that one of his sons became a Catholic priest and who hopes that his grandchildren will be raised Catholic is a BIGOT against the Catholic faith because he supports the separation of church and state.
You cannot do that because you are a retarded moron.
Instead, you will:
#1. attempt to substitute different words to change the meaning of what you posted.
#2. attempt to impose some other criteria.
#3. ignore the question and try to change the subject yet again.
Let me see, do you give the money to the majority parts or the minority party?
If you have a Dem president do you really pour your money into trying to get Repubs to create the legislation you want and then just have it vetoed by the pres? Just look at the years you listed.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Excellent.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com