Slashdot Mirror
Cringely on Domestic Eavesdropping
krygny writes "In this week's The Pulpit, Robert X. Cringely presents some interesting factoids he uncovered in his research into the NSA's domestic surveillance. He makes no judgements but offers some interesting stuff you might not have already known." From the article: "Intercepting communications for purposes of maintaining national security is nothing new. From before Pearl Harbor through 1945, EVERY trans-Atlantic phone call, cable and indeed letter was intercepted in Bermuda by the Coordinator of Information (COI) in the White House and later by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Sir William Stephenson revealed this in his autobiography, A Man Called Intrepid. They literally tapped the undersea cables and shipped all post to Europe through Bermuda, where every single call was monitored, every cable printed out, and every letter opened. FDR and Churchill needed intelligence and they took the steps they needed to get it."
This is exactly why we have a little law called FISA. And FISA is why the domestic spying program is a problem, because under FISA the domestic spying program is illegal. FDR wasn't really subject to FISA because FISA was passed in 1978.
This still doesn't mean that it is right for communications within the US to be monitored. Just because one thing has been done a long time, does not make it right. Look at slavery for example.
Well, guess what, murder, genocide, and rape are nothing new either... that doesn't make them any less reprehensible.
McCarthy did the same thing with communism as Bush is doing with terrorism. I still can't believe Bush hasn't even *apolagized* for breaking our fundamental American rights. Just because doing so is unoriginal has no bearing on the fact of it being completely unethical conduct and grounds for legal action against his administration.
Oh well. I suppose we had a good enough run with freedom and personal liberty (something like... 30 or 40 years out of the thousands of years humans have been around?). Time for another Dark Ages. Hooray.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
And they both smoked tobacco!
...must work Sport Utility Vehicles into this somehow...
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
> From before Pearl Harbor
Soooo... how'd that work out?
This controversy gets a little old as people argue the various ethical merits of government wiretaps. The issue is not whether eavesdropping on communications is necessary, right, or wrong, but whether we want to live in a country where the executive charged with running it is not bound by the law. I'm sure the lawyers in the DOJ will put forth some very creative arguments, but I think it is clear to most people that this breaks both the letter and the spirit of the law. As this plays out, we will be well served to remember that congress writes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. When the president and his staff decide they need not adhere to the laws congress has authored, it is time to consider the meaning of 'high Crimes or Misdemeanors."
They literally tapped the undersea cables and shipped all post to Europe through Bermuda, where every single call was monitored, every cable printed out, and every letter opened.
Letters traveling through undersea cables? clever that...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Agree with me that Clinton was as bad a person for doing this as Bush is, and you'll show everyone that at least you're consistent.
Robert X. Cringely presents some interesting factoids he uncovered
I couldn't help but laugh when I learned, earlier today, that the word "factoid" technically refers to an untrue piece of information that is accepted as true due to repetition in the media.
In a profound stroke of irony, the incorrect definition of 'factoid' (a small piece of information) has become the prevailing one through repetition in the media.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
It's a dupe. Zonk already posted about OSS at 5:24.
+2 Stupid.
It's obvious that what the Bush administration did is against the law, so why are so many people are too apathetic to do anything about it?
The US opened, and censored, international mail during WWII. This was no secret. The US was very open about it; letters were resealed with the marking"Opened By Censor."
The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier: American Military Power in Britain
Duncan Cambell, Paladin 1986 - ISBN 0586086269
That has been going on sense Truman. Kennedy did it, Clinton did it, so did Nixon and Reagan.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When there is a congressional election. If democrats can take back the house, they could possibly impeach the president; no Republican controlled house would ever betray their parties president (especially after he was re(s)elected). The angle that I don't think has been stressed enough is how Bush acted. If he really thought that having to go through a court that has approved 18,742 wiretap warrants and denied 5 was such an unconstitutional restraint of his power, he should have spoken up when he started doing it. Bush is asking for huge increases in executive power during a war he started under false premises.
According to a recent Zogby poll, 52% of Americans approve of impeaching Bush if he wiretapped an American citizen without a judges approval.
This wiretapping scandal can only get bigger as more and more layers get exposed. It appears Bush may have been wiretapping Americans before 9/11.
Good luck figuring all that out, before something blows up when you least expected it.
The difference between us is I realize that both of us are rather fond of democracy; I (and other conservatives) just happen to realize Democracy takes some defending even if it means a few calls to known terrorists are tapped. Thus has it always been and always will be.
The sad thing is that you (or people very like you) are what drove me far away from Democrats and straight into the willing arms of the conservatives. At least I feel like I can work on getting important things like gay rights more highly thought of in conservative circles. Someone who claims that someone who protects Democracy is "The Enemy" is I've found someone who has reach the point where there is no reasoning with them. Yes, that's right - it's easier to get a southern baptist to accept gay people than it is to get a blowhard peace loving Democrat to accept that some times when foreign powers are actively trying to hurt U.S. interests that things need to get done.
And the number of people like me is growing, as witnessed by the 60% approval ratings for wiretapping actions that Bush enjoys.
The response will probably be something like "I intend to move out of the country if things get worse, blah blah blah blah blah". I honestly think that would be best for you as you are not going to be happy with the way the country is swinging. Where you will move to is a bigger question as the world swings to a rise in islamic fanaticism before it reduces in the distant future you are going to see some odd shit go down across the globe as other nations start to panic. I do not think U.S. actions are anywhere close to the worst case scenario for what can go terribly wrong when governments freak out.
I'm sure if the domestic eavesdropping were a narrowly targeted program, the Bush administration would have gotten warrants from the secret courts and there would be no issue. However, the NSA is likely monitoring a huge range of communications and then mining the data for potential "hits" using voice analysis or some other automated technique. Warrants to monitor specific lines or people don't really make sense unless the "hits" pan out. The 1978 FISA law is out of date given present day monitoring capabilities. The proper thing to do would have been to try to get that law updated, but in doing so, they would have had to reveal their strategy. Mind you, I am not supporting what the administration is doing at all. But I bet that's the story Alberto Gonzales will be telling the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The country you grew up hearing about in school... dead if it ever existed.
The principles it was founded on... undermined.
The word from all forms of media, public and private... propoganda.
The truth... Too crazy to be believed.
The reality... It's always 1984.
The more modern use it that of a small interesting fact:
Factoid has since developed a second meaning, that of a brief, somewhat interesting fact, that might better have been called a factette.
I have not seen a use in recent memory of facts that were not true - though indeed very trivial facts. Modern use tends more towards the "it's true, but really doens't matter much to most people".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 was caught by wiretapping.
FISA is not the be-all and end-all of Surveillaince law, any more than Jim Crow, the law of the land, was consistent with the Constitution. Yes up to and including Plessy vs. Ferguson and a Supreme Court decision affirming the legality of segregation.
FISA was written in 1978, before throw-away cell phones and the idea that terrorism would ever be a threat to Americans. We are at war with a stateless enemy that exists in every nation of the globe and is sworn to our destruction.
Given that, does GWB have the authority under the Consititution to establish basically a giant version of "Snort" on US telco switches and filter out comms to/from Al Qaeda?
My guess is probably. The Constititution and FISA are both notably silent on data mining on telco traffic to/from foreign nations. Though it's worth noting that Bill Clinton and Al Gore asserted JUST such an authority with Echelon back in the 1990s (using the Canadians and Brits to surveill us while we surveilled them and the Aussies and everyone shared). Not to mention Al Gore's defense of the Clipper Chip and Carnivore.
There likely needs to be better oversight (sure any technology can be abused) but adhering to FISA rigidly is like not trusting this new-fangled fingerprint business, or DNA testing. As it is this tech gives us LOTS of leads we'd otherwise never get. Your computer can be used to invade people's privacy, I don't see Slashdot readers deciding to abjure technology and go live in a mud hut somewhere.
Point being that with changes in technology and society the understanding of the Constitution changes. We don't live in the 1890's and don't have LEGAL and Supreme Court approved Segregation. I assume that the Supremes will hold that the President DOES have the authority to check out who's in contact with Al Qaeda without a FISA warrant, and like property qualifications for officeholding and voting FISA itself will go away.
I see where people might be mad about this. I think the issue of it being illegal is debatable, underhanded, without a doubt, but maybe not totally illegal. I'm not positive why they did this in the way that they did. My only conclusion would be that there are far too many phone taps to realistically get warrants for all of them. I don't believe that the Executive branch wouldn't simply break the law for no real reason. Putting themselves at risk like that just doesn't make sense unless there is a benefit. Regardless, I would rather have them listen to every phone call I make and feel safer than have to live worrying where the next bomb will go off at. The end of this article shows a very good reason why this is important. http://www.desertsunonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20051227/OPINION01/512270304/1004&vm=r
This is another very good article on why they were tapping. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=48446&vm=r I think we need to weigh which is more important to us, the possibility of being listened to, or our lives?
Someone save me from this sanity.
William Stephenson's 'A man called Intrepid' has been alledgedly shown to contain some fanciful writing (google for it) so if Bob Cringely is using that as his source, can we believe all his claims?
There are plenty who argue that neither knew about the attack, which would mean that those planning such things are probably smart enough to be discrete about it, which would mean that such surveillance is utterly worthless.
There are claims that Churchill knew about the attack, because older Japanese diplomatic codes had already been broken and enough could be extracted from messages to know the generalities even if not the specifics. (The newer diplomatic codes used were apparently derived from the ones that had been broken, to the point where partial decryption was possible.) If that is the case, then basic signals intelligence between key figures would seem to be more valuable than general monitoring.
Regardless of which of the popular theories you subscribe to, there is one common aspect - the kind of spying being practiced against American citizens is useless, whether or not other forms of signal intelligence has any value.
(Actually, existing sigint practices in general seem pretty crappy. We've had numerous false alarms, where the threat level has been raised but no evidence of any attack ha ever emerged. On the other hand, actual attacks in very recent times - such as those in London - were missed entirely.)
It does nothing to raise confidence levels when you realize that several top US Government officials have been arrested on spying charges in the US... ENTIRELY through a mix of blind luck, observation and routine detective footwork. If the US monitoring program can't even monitor national secrets and foreign agents, then it's not much use as a monitoring service.
Well, either that or it's not being used to monitor "threats" of that kind at all, which raises the question of what it IS monitoring. Nixon's crusade against the Democrats had far more to do with keeping himself in absolute power than with keeping the country safe, and Hoover was notorious for finding out the dirty secrets of anyone who could threaten his personal powerbase. Not to be cynical (reader: "you expect me to believe that?") but a comparison of results versus approach would seem to indicate that this program isn't as much for the benefit of national security as we're being told.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Bush sorely needs intelligence too.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
Just found this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/20/1145 26.shtml
Someone save me from this sanity.
So there are all these instances where leaders we hold in great esteem arranged pervasive wiretaps, but what was the actual value of those taps? What information did the yield that was really that worthwhile?
And how does that valuation fit into the current "legal" system involving FISA as opposed to the illegal system that skips FISA?
This article is a good history lesson, but it doesn't succeed in supporting unchecked spying? Checks and balances are the foundation of our society, and to destroy them is undeniably to chip away at that society.
These these kind of curtailments of liberties during wartime have a long history in America. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR not only spied domestically but put an entire ethnic group in "jail" clearly violating equal protection(which is still on the books today as precedent). Truman and LBJ both certainly pressed the limits of presidential power during their wars.
The trend on this list is of (great) American liberals. Bush does not fit this mold imo, from various perspectives. Also importantly, the War on Terror is a much different type on conflict than the wars these Presidents faced. The enemy is borderless, uniformless, with unknown numbers, etc. This type of war is virtually endless, whether we are in Iraq or out of Iraq.
Finally, the Bush admistration via the Solicitor General has told the Supreme Court in has no jursdiction over certain detainees. Past administrations have never been so bold (though they were political bullies).
Please realize this is not just a renegotiation of long-standing liberties, but also renegotiation of the checks and balances between the Executive and the Judiciary (and Congress).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_Executive
How do you expect intelligence agencies to gather intelligence?
Within the bounds of the law...
I agree that the president should be able to wiretap, but that he should have to go through a court to do so. The issue is not whether the president should be able to wiretap in times of war, the issue is that Bush broke the existing law (that was very lenient and gave him 72 hours to retroactively seek a warrant if the need was so pressing). Judging from the court's record, I would say that the cases that Bush did not get approval for would be cases that even the rubber-stamp FISA court found would find unwarranted.
If Bush is given the power to wiretap without a warrant, do you trust him to only use it against terrorists?? Why did Bush wait until he got caught to complain about having to get warrants?
My good man, I voted for Gore, and reluctantly voted for Kerry; not only that, I am more than slightly pissed off at Nader and everyone who voted for him. I'm also completely aware that the GOP even donated money to Nader's campaign to take more votes away from Gore.
Well, everyone who voted for Nader, in my opinion, has some blame to share in the Iraqi civilian deaths, now numbered at 30,000.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
So, how did they justify it back then, when the USA wasn't at war yet?
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
"It feels a little creepy to me knowing that our telephone systems can be accessed at will by "rent-a-tap" outfits, and that the technology has advanced to the point where such intercepts can apparently be done from a properly-authorized PC."
If he knew that the entire wiretapping operation is run by an ISRAELI company (which of course is almost certainly a Mossad front), he would probably be even more creeped out.
Quote from an article from a couple years ago on the subject:
One company reported to be under investigation is Comverse Infosys, a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm. Comverse provides almost all the wiretapping equipment and software for U.S. law enforcement.
Custom computers and software made by Comverse are tied into the U.S. phone network in order to intercept, record and store wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.
The penetration of Comverse reportedly allowed criminals to wiretap law enforcement communications in reverse and foil authorized wiretaps with advance warning. One major drug bust operation planned by the Los Angeles police was foiled by what now appear to be reverse wiretaps placed on law enforcement phones by the criminal spy ring.
Another article based on FOX News Carl Cameron's report on this issue:
AMDOCS
What Israel has done in return was to set up government subsidized
telecommunications companies which operate here in the United States. One of these companies is Amdocs, which provides billing and directory assistance for 90% of the phone companies in the USA. Amdocs' main computer center for billing is actually in Israel and allows those with access to do what intelligence agencies call "traffic analysis"; a picture of someone's activities based on a pattern of who they are calling and when.
COMVERSE INFOSYS
Another Israeli telecom company is Comverse Infosys, which subcontracts the installation of the automatic tapping equipment now built into every phone system in America. Comverse maintains its own connections to all this phone tapping equipment, insisting that it is for maintenance purposes only.
PROTECTING ISRAELI DRUG RUNNING IN UNITED STATES THROUGH THIS NETWORK AS WELL
However, Converse has been named as the most likely source for leaked information regarding telephone calls by law enforcement that derailed several investigations into not only espionage, but drug running as well.
ODIGO, ANOTHER ISRAELI OWNED COMPANY
Yet another Israeli telecom company is Odigo, which provides the core message passing system for all the "Instant Message" services. Two hours before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, Odigo employees received a warning. Odigo has an office 2 blocks from the former location of the World Trade Towers.
More:
Amdocs Ltd.
"CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Here's how the system works. Most directory assistance calls, and virtually all call records and billing in the U.S. are done for the phone companies by Amdocs Ltd., an Israeli-based private elecommunications company. Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it. In recent years, the FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing. But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the super secret national security agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what's called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands - in Israel, in particular.
Investigators don't believe calls are being listened to, but the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdoc
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Nope, that's the one keeping Bush from being elected to a third term.
i on.amendmentxxii.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The constitution of the United States allows for the President to create exective orders, which are laws that carry the same weight as laws passed by congress. I don't think there's any explicit constraint that the content of executive orders be supported by the constitution, although the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional later on.
needed? nice try. it's wanted
Many Americans support the President. Many are afraid. Many afraid people make it possible for the government to greatly increase its power. Many people want this. If the government is breaking laws, it is because there is a war on! Serious new measures must be taken! This is what makes me afraid.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
Answer to your first question: YES, McCarthy and Hitler were exactly at the same level of scum. The difference between them being that Hitler was more successful in his goals, at least for some time.
The fact that McCarthy trampled on the civil liberties of a lot of people (just like Hitler did) is not changed by the fact that some of his targets were really communists.
The fact that McCarthy destroyed the life of a lot of people in the process is not changed, either.
Every single witch-hunting season brings exactly the same, ultimately: don't like the way your neighbor parks his car near your driveway? He is a witch/jew/communist/terrorist... go deliver word of that to the authorities. Normally, no proof is needed before the poor guy loses his job/car/house/liberty/life, ie, before real damage is done to him.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Hoover routinely bugged anyone he felt like starting in the 50s. This allowed him to gain enough information to blackmail anyone he needed to in the Federal Government. He had privately split the difference between wiretapping and bugging and decided he had carte blanc.
He did it by screaming Communist all the time.
If you want to search this info, use Google for obvious reasons. Interesting to note that on Sept 10 2001 Ashcroft was about to begin his war on porn.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
It's pretty hard to take someone seriously when he writes on a topic he couldn't even be bothered getting interested in. Why is there so much apathy? probably because of attitudes like Cringeley's "Oh well, it always happens. I'm bored. Change the channel, Marge."
... and then they built the supercollider.
If this was all true I wouldn't be able to tell you that XXXXXX XXXXXXXX killed JFK. They would censor it. Or that GWB plans to XXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXX X XXXX XXX XXXX XX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX right before he XXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXX. This whole eavsdropping thing is overrated.
During WWII, US and British officials indeed opened letters and snooped into communications on a large scale. But the crucial difference is that they had the legal authority to do it, granted through the proper constitutional channels. Censorship regulations allowed government officials to open letters and read cable messages; there 1200 British censors in a hotel in Bermuda monitoring transatlantic communications.
Even within the USA, censors listened in to cable communications; they also opened millions of letters and labelled them as such. Regulation of communication went as far as banning all messages ordering the delivery of flowers, because such messages were seen as offering too many possibilties for secret communication. Indeed it was illegal to send any cable message that the censors would not be able to easily understand.
The current NSA listening operation is a very different matter. It is clearly illegal act, as the president has no authority to grant himself additional powers, certainly not if there are already laws that regulate these. There is no point in the illegality, as the regulations are flexible enough, and no purpose, for FBI agents have stated that little useful information is coming from it. It is just an exercise in the unbridled authoritarianism that characterizes this White House.
In the mind of George W. Bush, the US constitution has apparently been replaced by one simple line: Because of the war I have declared, I am allowed to do whatever I want.
Irrelevant. You can get warrants to monitor terrorists. So why the need to go with warrantless spying? And there is now news of the Bush administration trying to use Google and other search engines to spy on people's porn habits. And what's more American than porn?
... and then they built the supercollider.
You mean like my wife spying on me?
Oh, you mean _american_.... Because we're all citizens of the USA now...
B
Churchill inspectin his SUV. Unfortunately he doesnt smoke while doing it.
(This book was one of the first published after the Ultra secret, Colossus, Bletchley Park etc were declassified 30 years after WW2. It's a good read, full of fascinating information. For instance, did you know that Rommel's success was largely due to the U.S. State Department? It may still be one of the better single-volume histories of Allied intelligence during WW2. However it is not—how shall I put it?—a book that a good historian would use as a primary source.)
The book does say what Mr. Cringely says it does, but it's alarming to see him describe it as an autobiography.
Hahahahaha...... wow you're stupid. Does it not occur to you that if someone is a known terrorist, you can get a judge's approval to wiretap them ?? In fact, I suspect something's wrong with that poll's methodolgy, since the number should be higher than 64%.
Everyone supports spying on terrorists. But almost no one supports spying on innocent citizens, and 52% of people think spying on innocent citizens is bad enough to kick the president out of office.
Seriously, learn how to read.
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
sorry for the poor spelling/grammer ... I'm a little hung over.
The letter openers did detect some Nazi spies in America. (There were no Nazi spies operating in Britain during the WW2; the Twenty Committee (20 = XX = double cross) turned every single one of them.)
And the number of people like me is growing, as witnessed by the 60% approval ratings for wiretapping actions that Bush enjoys.
Why is it that no poll can look like this: What do you think about the wiretapping?
Every time I debate this with people, they always talk about the fact that it's "known" terrorists on the other end so its excusable. I don't care if its your grandma on the other end. If an American at home is on the other end, why is it so imssposible for the administration to just get a warrant?! FISA grants almost every single request. FISA acts quickly, even in the middle of the night. FISA will even let you get the warrant after the fact! So...
Why won't the administration submit requests to FISA?
if he started coveting his neighbour's ass you better believe he'd get smacked down.
You mean, like Clinton?
You know, you americans desperately need a two-phase presidential elections. In a nutshell, they work like this:
First, you organize the vote normally. This is phase one. If any of the candidates gets over 50% of votes, he gets elected, and that's that. If none does, you organize a new vote, with the only two candidates being the two people who got the most votes in phase one. This is phase two; whoever wins it gets the presidency.
This way, if you don't want Bush in office, you can safely vote anyone but him; you don't need to concentrate your votes behind some "bad but better than Bush" candidate. If more than half of people votes for Bush, he gets elected anyway, no matter how tactical you try to be with your vote; and if less than half votes for him, it doesn't matter how the other votes gets distributed, you'll get a second vote phase anyway. At second phase, you can then choose to vote for Bush's opponent if you think he's better than Bush.
That's the system we use here in Finland, to avoid the kinds of problems you are having.
Of course, this would break the two-party system and turn it into a multiparty system, so it is unlikely to happen.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Wiretapping also works: the Al Qaeda cell in Italy that was planning to outdo 9-11 was caught by wiretapping.
I did some quick Googling, and couldn't find answers to an importantquestion about the wiretapping you seem to be holding up as justification for the current situation in the US: was the Italian wiretapping legal or illegal?. Maybe the Italian police got a warrant. Maybe Italian law doesn't require a warrant. Does anyone know?
The trend on this list is of (great) American liberals. Bush does not fit this mold imo, from various perspectives. Also importantly, the War on Terror is a much different type on conflict than the wars these Presidents faced. The enemy is borderless, uniformless, with unknown numbers, etc. This type of war is virtually endless, whether we are in Iraq or out of Iraq.
This is exactly why I am worried! Against my will, some of my liberty has been given up in the name of security. But its not even temporary!
Look, Bush might be an evil doer in disguise who just tricked us into givng up our rights. Or, he might be an idiot that someone else is controlling and tricked us out of our rights. He could even be an smart, honest, good man (who happens to seem like an idiot) who has our best interests at heart and is stopping dozens of terrorists attacks so we can sleep at night.
But even if it is the latter of those possibilities, Bush won't be in power forever. Someone else could eventually come along that fits the first two descriptions. Thanks to the situation that has arisen and shows no signs of being put in check, any future leader can swopp in and use these powers for whatever he wants. Especially, since we have an enemy that is borderless, uniformless, with unknown numbers, etc. Our leaders could have these temporary powers indefinitely, as long as it suits them.
So, even if Bush *is* the good little boy scout, he still needs judical oversight, evenif its for the sake of the future, not now.
From Article II (the presidency) of the US Constitution, the sections that define presidential authority:
Here are the parts related to Executive Orders:
"He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;" . . . "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."
In other words, he can recommend stuff to the legislature for consideration. Make orders to insure the laws are executed faithfully. And order his underlings to accomplish that task.
The only possible strech for this to be a law is if you believe this government is a dictatorship, in which case the legislature and the judiciary are his underlings and he can order them to do what he wants, with the power of the military behind him. Is this what you want?
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Read FISA itself: 50 USC 1809. The part that says "not authorized by statute".
6 wp.pdf
In other words, you'd be right, unless it's authorized somewhere else. Which the administration believes it is. And considering they went through all kinds of legal review, and modified the program at least once to address some legal concerns, flatly calling the surveillance "illegal" is wrong.
Read the full argument here (it's 42 pages long - that's lots of evidence to support the case that the surveillance is legal):
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa1190
The best you can say is that this is a pissing contest between lawyers.
It's one thing for governmenet computers to capture conversations, it's quite another to have a human listen to them. The main difference here is that the current administration has authorized the NSA to listen to those conversation without judicial oversight. No other administration has done this before.
If people were meant to go around nude, they would be born that way!
While I did not vote for Nader ever, I am appalled by your attitude.
Here is some food for thought: If every fool who "reluctantly voted for Kerry" actually read up on third party candidates and voted for said candidates, we might not have Bush in Office. We might still have Bush in office. Regardless, a strong message would be sent to DC saying "We're not relunctantly voting for your candidates anymore, so you'll have to start presenting some real candidates."
My question is: Would the Bush Administration correctly interpret the information that they receive from illegal wiretaps? I'm curious, because they had a document entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" and another document entitled "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?" that warned that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/m ain509294.shtml
So, if we record all conversations of every American, who will interpret them? If we gather every email and letter that goes across the sea, who will interpret them? At some point it's like Carnivore, where it's overload of information.
The issue isn't that we didn't have information to stop 9/11 without illegal wiretaps, it's that we have retards interpreting those documents (Yes Dubya, I'm looking in your direction!)...
I don't understand the NEED for MORE intelligence. How about the need for GOOD intelligence interpreted by people that actually can read?
Just a thought...
You may laugh, but consider this; The Netherlands, the pesky little country I'm from actually has secret treaties with the US. These supercede our own constitution.
Do you have any citation for that? I'm Dutch and I've never heard of anything like this. In any case it sounds like it would be quite unconstitutional:
Please don't perpetuate urban legends without providing proof.
That WAR was a fight for OUR Freedom. By OUR i mean poor citizens like you and me.
This WAR, that BushCo has started is for Freedom of Corporates: Freedom from laws that prevent them from spoiliing pristine Alaskan land, freedom from prosecution when accused of price gouging, freedom from action when accused of war-profiteering...
This war does NOT deserve surrendering our rights to win it, Because this war has no defined end. It will continue until the time corporates have rolled back ALL the safety net laws passed since 1929 crash.
And USA turns into a beacon of corporate irresponsibility and freedom from prosecution.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Though, based upon your comment, I think we would disagree about both Iraq and Bush's motives/honesty, I think your comments regarding abridging the rights of Americans in the name of fighting the terrorist threat are right on. Bravo.
Perhaps the Right and the Left aren't so far apart these days as commentators would have America believe. Of course, dull talk about "everyone getting along" doesn't exactly garner ratings.
Kythe
Be careful what you wish for. If we had two-phase presidential elections Clinton might have lost in 1992.
Sorry, I couldn't let this pass. There are two reasons that Clinton's troubles were entirely deserved:
1) He was not hauled into court because he got a blowjob from an intern. He was hauled into court as part of a sexual harassment suit. If you accept recent leftist/feminist dogma, there is almost nothing in public life that needs to be rooted out as vigorously as piggish men who hit on women that work for them. As Camille Paglia said, "All feminists who sincerely support sexual harassment guidelines should indeed defend Paula Jones, since Bill Clinton's alleged behavior broke every rule. She was on the job at the time, and he was her ultimate boss; he illegally used state troopers for a private escapade; and he began his approach by coercively mentioning a friendship with her immediate boss. Feminist leaders would have tarred and feathered any Republican who carried on like this." Bill Clinton's perjury denied her the day in court that she deserved.
2) A President who takes such foolish risks exposes himself to blackmail. As an adulterer, Clinton couldn't have gotten a high enough security clearance even to be a janitor in the White House. If Monica had been a Mossad agent instead of a slutty bimbo, Clinton might have been dancing to Israel's tune for most of his second term.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
MMmmmm just one word of caution: for the last presidential election (which are two-round like you described in France), the 2 candidates to make it to the second round were Chirac and the far right Jean-Marie Le Pen (National Front), because the left's votes got spread over a lot of candidates, from Communists to Greens to several flavours of Socialists...
The outcome of that first round was a big surprise, and disapointment, to all the lefties. All moderates, from left or right, were left with no other choice than to vote or Chirac, who carried the second round with around 80%.
So, using the first round to vote for the candidate you like best, and waiting for the second to "vote useful" and make a compromise for your least-hated candidate, sometimes doesn't work.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
You know, you americans desperately need a two-phase presidential elections.
Rather, I'd say we need a different system. The two-phase system you mention is better, but still pretty badly flawed. It's pretty easy to construct scenarios that show how the system can elect a candidate who is very widely disliked. Not only that, but the approach requires two phases. Ranked voting methods like Instant Runoff or, even better, Condorcet, allow for a single-phase election that does a better job of selecting the most widely-preferred candidate.
Of course, this would break the two-party system and turn it into a multiparty system, so it is unlikely to happen.
Actually, two-phase elections do not break the two-party system. What prevents a two-party system in Finland (and many other coutries), is the parliamentary system with proportional representation.
Two-phase elections can encourage a two-party system (or a system of two alliances of parties), while appearing to allow third parties. The reason is that the system allows third-party voters to safely vote their true preference only as long as the third party is relatively weak. As a third party gains strength, however, and it threatens to knock out one of the "major" candidates, third party voters face the risk that their preferred candidate may make it to the second phase by knocking out the more similar (i.e. better) of the two major parties, but may not have the votes needed to actually win the second phase. Thus, they may decide they're better off voting for the major party most similar to theirs in the first phase, since they're more certain that that candidate can win, and that's better than allowing the other major party to win. IRV has the same problem.
Any voting system that encourages such "tactical" voting is flawed. Of course, the US isn't going to change its system, but if it were to change it, I would hope we'd change to the best available option, rather than one that is only slightly better.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Bruce Schneier has a good article explaining why you shouldn't be "bored"
c le/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html
http://www.schneier.com/essay-102.html
Al Gore does a good job covering the same ground (albeit a bit more verbosely) in his Martin Luther King day speech:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
"But the constitution trumps FISA. FISA can't take powers away from the president that he is granted under the constitution."
BUT this is not just a card or table top game.
This is about how the top leaders of the most powerful country in the world get to behave.
Even if you are right and those are the rules AND how they are intended to be interpreted, is that how things should be?
Anyway, please explain which part of the constitution allows the President to ignore/override FISA.
...or the terrorists win!
This line no sig
After 9/11, Bush said something similar.
He indicated that the government would need to mislead the press during the conduct of the war, and that the certain government actions would clash with public policy.
The difference is that in 1941, the press was behind the government. If Gore was president, we'd be selling weapons to Iran to placate them and never even hear about it.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Ah well. If I had a dime for every genius idea lost onto the pages of slashdot... Wait, no, as long as I'm asking, if I had sex for every...
Seriously though, good for you Fins. Might even join you over there.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
It'd be nice if Cringely put in something about the Rule of Law.
It means that no one, not even the President, is above the law. That means that if the President commits a crime, then he/she is held responsible for the crime, and punished like you would be if you'd broken the law. Without the rule of law, there would be widespread corruption in the political and legal systems, because those governing and enforcing the law would be the people in charge, and not the electorate.
There are systems in place to take over the country should the President find himself in jail for authorizing illegal spying.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
What are Finland's immigration policies? Just curious.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Connect the dots there. Encryption of e-mail has not come into use, but other measures are being adopted.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I find it amusing how the new school "conservatives" (I'm an old school conservative) are so gung-ho about strict interpretation of the constitution, and not "deriving" governmental authority on abstruse theories (commerce clause, anyone?) but they are willing to turn a blind eye to plain language when it suits them: A vaguely remember when conservatives were in favor of limiting government, especially the federal government, and most especially the executive branch. Seems like, what, maybe five years ago they just dropped that long standing pillar of conservative ideology, along with fiscal restraint and sound judgment. Now the "conservatives" are all about a nanny state on steroids that spends like a drunken sailor and treats the constitution like a "quaint" piece of litter from the past, to be ignored when it doesn't suit them.
I almost wonder if perhaps they never really were conservative in the first place, and just used us in a cynical grab for power.
--MarkusQ
We also rounded up people of a certain ethnicity and tossed them into camps for a few years.
I'd like to think that we learned some lessons from WWII. Just because we did it back then doesn't make it any more right to do it now.
how the ability to intercept communications equates to 1)real time monitoring, and 2) the capability to participate in the communication.
Certainly if you can do 1 and 2, you have achieved the intercept capability, but you don't need to go through that kind of expense and effort if you only need to know what was said.
This sounds a lot more like a really unusual form of cross-talk.
To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
That sounds like a lot of work for not much return. Why not use instant runoff voting?
To vote, just list the candidates on the ballot in order of your preference.
To count votes, count the #1 candidate on all ballots. If (s)he has a majority, (s)he's elected. Otherwise, remove the candidate with the fewest votes from all ballots, and recount the votes. Repeat until someone has a majority.
It is the equivalent of voting, then if no one has a majority dropping the candidate with the least support and voting again, until you get a majority. It sounds pretty much ideal to me, and a much better way of getting out of the two party system for unitary posts in government (e.g. the Presidency).
I don't know what you kids are worrying about. Are you afraid the 'Man' is going to find out that you're a stoner and come steal your stash? Come on, maybe if you put down the weed for a while, your consciousness would retract enough for you to realize that your collection of bongs, porn, pirated music, etc. isn't really that interesting. Yeah, I remember when I was young and thought the CIA/whatever monitored my library activity...But the fact is that one idealistic young slashdotter is just like ten thousand others. You're all just part of the noise.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
"What prevents a two-party system in Finland (and many other coutries), is the parliamentary system with proportional representation."
Glad somebody understands this.
However, proportional representation and a parliamentary system suck in many ways. Mostly because there is no concept of a separation of powers (fundamental concept of US government). Others include France (you think special interests are bad in the US?) and Italy (hmm, it's been six months, time for a new government) and to an extent Canada (large separatist party).
"First, you organize the vote normally. This is phase one. If any of the candidates gets over 50% of votes, he gets elected, and that's that. If none does, you organize a new vote, with the only two candidates being the two people who got the most votes in phase one. This is phase two; whoever wins it gets the presidency."
This system might be a good idea for the US if the President were elected by voters. But the President is elected by the states. If a candidate doesn't get elected by reaching 270 electoral votes, Congress decides. Pluralty of votes is irrelevant in the US system (for electing the President).
Now rational people can debate the usefulness of the electoral system (or at least its relevance today).
My problem is that we have this President who has continuously attempted say that he maintains a higher moral standing than most of us.
Wha? When has Bush ever said or even implied such a thing? Many liberals think he's playing holier-than-thou, but the truth is, he's simply taking a moral stance. Nothing more. This is just a strange concept for liberals to handle -- a president with moral convictions.
As a dedicated Republican...
Why is it that so many liberals think that claiming republican membership will lend credence to their argument? Not only are you a republican, you are a dedicated one at that. OOooh! What does that mean? Do you share in the republican (actually conservative) belief of a strong, capitalist society and strong national defense?
I certainly can conclude that Bush is acting as nothing more than an arrogant ass.
Actually, he's acting as the President. Nothing more. Sure, some may argue that he is overstepping his bounds with "domestic spying" -- an activity the last administration also took part in, BTW. Others, though like myself, argue that he's being prudent in a time when al Qaeda have directly threatoned the American people with another attack on our soil. Government's FIRST PRIORITY is to defend and protect our way of life. Sometimes, this requires rationing, or drafting or even [what some think is] an invasion of privacy. Sometimes, mistakes are made too. If the Democrats truly thought Bush's actions are illegal, though, they'd start the impeachment process. No, they have proven themselves to be nothing more than the party of opposition. Their stance is simply the opposite of whatever the President's is. And, it's not working out very well for them. Or you.
sig: sauer
The Bill of Rights restricts the actions "the government" may take against "the people". That means the US government may not act against anyone in ways that violate the constition anywhere... regardless of whether or not they are on US soil.
No, We the People will tell whether this was legal. It wasn't and isn't. As Cringley noted in his article, the taps were made without the authorization of the FISA court. It is the FISA court which covers exactly these kinds of things. Therefore they are illegal. There exists no special holes in the statutes for presidents who are too lazy, and no openings for things that do not meet the standard.
The very reason that we have a FISA court is to provide some oversight of the process itself and to ensure that the shotgun approach so favored by past presidents is not done.
It still shocks me that people are debating this or, worse yet, accepting Bush's half-assed lines about "inherent authority". These taps are a patent violation of both the letter and the Spirit of the FISA law. What the hell more do we need?
Nononono, the only corporations that were making money off of oil in Iraq were Russian, German, and French. US oil took a big hit after the start of Iraqi Freedom. And recently, when they finally start making a nice profit, the Govt. decides to tax it away (hence more price raising). Why are the same people that oppose drilling in Alaska the ones saying that we are in Iraq for oil? If we are in Iraq for oil (which isn't true), and we can't get it in Alaska, and we can't build nuclear reactors, and you won't drive anything but an SUV, where the FUCK are we supposed to be getting this energy? You see, oil is a scarce resource (as in the economic term scarce) and the most efficient way to ration out something not required for survival (like food, water, medical supplies, etc.) is utilizing the law of supply and demand. This of course depends on the absence of monopolies. Don't you think it's amazing that oil, which has to be found, drilled for, pumped out of the ground, shipped halfway across the world, refined in a multimillion dollar refinery, and then transported to a gas starion is cheaper than water, something we need to live and much more plentiful than gas? The only real way to get anyone to drive more efficient cars and save electricity is by adjusting the price of it to reflect the supply. We've been spoiled by dollar-gallon gas (in the US), which is an artificial situation created by governments, which is why we are in an energy crisis now. But yes, our corporations have too much leeway, as does our government, as does our media, as do religious organizations, as do idiots.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
1) In World war II congress DECLARED WAR and completely mobilized the entire nation including a draft. The congress committed "the entire national resources" to the war.
2) In World War II The United States had actually been attacked by hostile military forces, half our pacific fleet was destroyed in one day, US territory was actually occupied by the enemy(phillipines at the time was a US territory) , and hostile military forces were launching continual attacks upon US shipping and ports. Many of the phone calls and letters referred to came from countries actually involved in the war.
A series of small terrorist attacks with one large scale attack four years ago does not constitute a continuing war being waged on us. More US soldiers died on D-Day than the number of people killed in 9/11 and the whole iraq war combined. The Bush had the authority BEFORE 9/11 to get wiretaps on phone calls from Al Queda suspects to the US all they had to do was make a quick email over to the FISA court to get a faxed warrant or even AFTER the fact. Considering the FISA courts grants 99% of all requests I really dont see why Bush is asking for MORE power.
Having been in the intelligence community (though not NSA), I think it is clear why people are confused on this issue. The administration is treating the "war on terror" as a literal war on terror. Under that definition, the President can intercept these communications to suspected Al Qaeda members as part of a military campaign. Many of the people who are up in arms about this are viewing the "war on terror" as an extended police operation. FISA clearly applies to criminal investigations. It is generally accepted that military actions in war time are held to a different standard.
I believe the courts will probably uphold the administration's version, since they are in many cases, choosing to engage those on the other end of the communication with military (deadly) force. I think if they were just trying to arrest people and prosecute them, the administration's case would be far weaker.
I don't know that it is as clear cut as those on either side say. We'll have to wait for the courts to decide.
"The Constititution and FISA are both notably silent on data mining on telco traffic to/from foreign nations."
The Constitution is very specific on data mining, telco traffic:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What part of "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches " is so difficult for so many to understand?
The worda "and effects" pretty much covers anything that could not be for seen like internet,celluar and any other future technology. And in addition, they added "probable cause, supported by oath" to make sure that the need to search is real under penalty of perjury.
When i hear the term "the constitution is a living document" i chuckle. Because it is not a living document. It is a set of rules handed down "of the people, by the people and for the people" to the government limiting the behavior of the government. Why? Because the people that came from England wanted to make sure that what happened in England could not happen here. What is one of those things? Amendment IV,the Abuse of power via unreasonable searches, seizures and spying. This does not change over time or with every generation. Amendment IV (and The Constititution in general) is a specific set of rules for the government at all levels to follow. The Constititution does not live, nor should it ever change to suit the whims of the people in power at the time.
This domestic spying reminds me of another case where a 10-year-old girl was strip-searched. More disturbing then that is the search was upheld by the Supreme Court even though the warrant did not list the 10 year girl old as suspect.
Once again, the Constitution clearly states a rule for this: The warrant must be sworn by oath AND it must be "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I am quite sure it was this little girl the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect. And i am quite sure that the framers wanted to protect the folks in that Quaker Church that was snooped on recently.
I am also quite sure that the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect all American's from all forms of unreasonable searches without a sworn oath that the search is necessary.
---
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
As Ben Franklin said "Those who surrender their freedom in the name of saftey deserve neither"The point is if these people are know terrorists, why cant the president get a warrant to electronically monitor them? Your whole arguement is false. You act as though we only have a choice between allowing Bush to do as he pleases with no oversight at all or not even attempting to catch terrorists, did you even consider the idea that there are legal methods of wiretapping terrorists? The FISA court allows 72 hours AFTER the wiretapping begins to get a warrant, so are Bush's targest of wiretapping so flimsy that he cant even manage to get evidence after three days of wiretapping? Also the idea that exposing this program somehow endangers our national security is a joke, like we are supposed to believe it somehow matters to Al-queda whether they are being monitored through the FISA court or through exectuive discretion.
There was a Quaker church that was spied on by the Department of defense in Florida without a warrant, they had no connection to Al-Queda and they had NSA agents infiltrate the church and they conducted no violent protests. Only their philosophy, which was anti the Iraq war, made them a target of the NSA. You can be a target since there is no oversight of this spying program, they wiretapped these church going people, why not you?
As for their legal arguements, they have no basis. They argue that FISA has exceptions in wartime and that constutional ambiguities should be cleared up by executive authority. What this essentially means is that congress has no power over the president during wartime, and since we are in a war on terror that has no end in sight we have essentially a dictator in power who is not beholden to the laws passed by our congress. Today it may be a wiretapping law, yestarday it was the torture ban he said he did not have to follow if he did not wish, and tomorrow it could be your financial records. That is why this president has never vetoed a single bill, any law he does not like he just does not follow.
The entire basis of our government is the separation of power, how can we regulate the discretion of a single man? The president is not a dictator, and there are legal means of wiretapping. Anyone who believes this president should be allowed to wiretap at will is pissing on the constitution and our freedoms.
You're on the right track, but what we really need is this:
First, you organize the vote normally. This is phase one. If any of the candidates gets over 50% of votes, he is banned from the presidency, forever. Next, you organize a new vote, with the only two candidates being the two people (excluding anyone thrown out) who got the most votes in phase one. This is phase two; whoever wins it gets the presidency.
What data do you have to back that up?
emt 377 emt 4
America's strength comes from it's democracy and its justice system, not its military.
:'We are neither so threatened nor so weak as to necessitate a king who is above the law.' but the previous sentence made spit my coffee ...
LOL
How did 'America' steal the iraqi's oil? By trowing laws and balots at them ? Get real.
I do agree with your point
However, proportional representation and a parliamentary system suck in many ways. Mostly because there is no concept of a separation of powers (fundamental concept of US government).
Agreed. The authors of the US Constitution were very familiar with the parliamentary system and specifically chose not to implement it. Personally, I prefer the idea of voting for the candidate, rather than the party, because individuals can be "statesmen" but parties cannot. Unfortunately, plurality voting also ties us strongly to a two-party system. I think that a different voting system would still allow us to vote for the candidate while allowing third parties (and independents) a fair shot at office. In practice, I'm sure something like Condorcet voting would reveal its own warts, but I'd really like to see it tried. I think it would be better.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Once again Cringely is repeating common knowledge and pretending that it's insightful.
You seem like a reasonable person. Maybe you can comment on this hypothetical:
Jim (a "natural-born" American citizen), age 35, is a member of a secret organization called Ar Khalizad. It is well-known by the world intelligence community that Ar Khalizad is planning a bomb attack on Detroit during Super Bowl week.
Intelligence information obtained by the French government while spying on a Parisian terror cell indicates that Jim is the trigger-man for the terror event at the Super Bowl. Due to the abundance of intelligence, President Doe unilaterally authorizes a wire-tap of Jim's home phone, office phone, and wireless phone. As a result of clear and incriminating voice calls placed during the week of January 22, Jim is incarcerated by federal law enforcement under charges of espionage and treason.
Were Jim's Constitutional rights violated?
Could the President be impeached for taking improper action?
Does the President have the Constitutional authority to grant pardons for unlawful search and seizure to parties that may have broken Federal or local laws?
-----
Okay, so much for the hypothetical. By now, you're probably remembering why you never bothered to mail that law school application.
In case you are really wondering what the "Right answer" is, ask Judge Alito. I'm sure he'll give you a thoughtful and detailed explanation. And he probably won't even call you a homo-lovin' libertarian hippie fascist. At least not to your face.
And if that good man doesn't please your orgasmic sense of patriotism, ask Ginsberg. She will give a very accurate summation of where the Court stands on this issue. You will find that under the Executive orders clause of Article 2, and under the Commander-in-Chief clause, and under a dozen or so ruling precedents, the Court has found and maintained that a sitting President has the Constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, especially during a time of war. So the real question, O Name-Caller, is do you believe A) that the "War on Terror" rises to the level of "Wartime", or B) that President Bush has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors and should be removed from office?
By the way, ad hominem attacks are easy, especially against the ignorant. Use your whole brain and solve the real problem. Or else, spare me your impressive dearth of Constitutional jurisprudence and go make a Ruby on Rails demo.
It would be bad enough spying on Americans if we really were in a state of emergency. I thought the Alert Level was supposed to be at Red before all of our constitutional rights were violated... I guess our Imperious Leader jumped the gun a little bit.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Were Jim's Constitutional rights violated?
If warrants were properly attained under the law, no.
Could the President be impeached for taking improper action?
Yes. Presidents can be impeached for any reason Congress deems appropriate.
Does the President have the Constitutional authority to grant pardons for unlawful search and seizure to parties that may have broken Federal or local laws?
Yes, obviously.
So the real question, O Name-Caller, is do you believe A) that the "War on Terror" rises to the level of "Wartime", or B) that President Bush has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors and should be removed from office?
No, I do not believe the "War on Terror" rises to the level of wartime. This nation has faced and seen defeated numerous, far more serious threats than turban wearing religious zealots. Bush broke the law, and his oath of office. The continual after-the-fact justifications may fly with the media elites, but they do not fly with me. Al Qaeda may be dangerous, but not nearly so dangerous as to require an imperial presidency, nor do I think the implication that we are weaker with our system of checks and balances is either correct, defensible, and certainly is not wise.
Oh, and by the way: your air of superior smugness is no less of an ad hominem than any other, however implied it may be.
You only think it's a straw man because you haven't serious thought it through. Pulling out a hand gun and shooting somebody sounds dramatic but the less dramatic real life scenario is that the Bush administration has argued that Bush can imprison any American citizen captured on US soil as an enemy combatant indefinitely (which effectively means the rest of his life) and the courts have no jurisdiction to review that imprisonment.
Once one accepts the notion that the president defines the limits of his constitutional powers, he effectively becomes a king or dictator since he define any action to be one of his constitutional powers. In this case, Congress acted to set rules for wire taps, and the president ignored them. Your choice is either unitary executive power or that the limits of the executive power be defined by Congress and/or the Judicial branch of government. Congress is the logical choice to set the rules as the Judiciary is not in the business of making policy.
but I don't think the anlogy is correct. Devine grace doesn't recognize any limits on the power of the monarch. The claim about "warrantless wiretaps" isn't that the exectutive doesn't have any limits, but that these particular wiretaps are covered as part of the executive's contitutional role in gathering foreign intelligence. I'm much more worried about the slippery slope aspect of this. I think that most of the wiretaps that are being criticized now are pretty clearly foreign intel, and I think we can agree that Bin Laden et el. should be treated like we would treat the agent of a hostile coutry. The problem is where that line in drawn. Eco-terrorism? White supremacists? Drug runners? Serial killers? Where do we draw the line?
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I just read the relevant sections of the FISA law. The following link is to the definitions. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/u sc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html
1801. Definitions,(b),(2) clearly states that any person who engages in Internation terrorism is fair game. This section makes no distinction as to citizenship.
Subchapter 1802. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/ usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html) goes into the procedure for conducting the warrantless wiretaps.
If they are certified by the Attourney General and the relevant committes in Congress are notified, then it is on the up and up.
Bottom line: The warrantless wiretaps are legal if the procedures outlined in FISA have been followed. It appears that they have since the Attourney General (and an Asst AG has as well) has made his certifications, the congressional comittees have bee notified (they have on numerous occasions) and the president has done the reauthorizations (he has).
That's what you people in this thread fighting for? Personally, if Zawahiri or Osama gives me a ring, I would want the NSA to know. Also the FBI, CIA, DIA, IRS, and possibly my local crossing guard. Even if it was a wrong number. And if you don't want your Al Qaeda calls monitored, then frankly I'd like to know what sort of private discussions you need to have with them and why. Is that unreasonable after a trillion-dollar terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people? Am I overreacting?
Someone who calls another nation of people "fucksticks" is hardly someone who deserves to be modded up as insightful! I can be flamed to hell for this, but no fucking wonder these impoverished people hate America, or, perhaps what America is/stands for... is because of attitudes of people like yourself.
Remember YOUR constituition, perhaps theres a RIGHT to wielding NUKES?! New Zealand has always been proudly "green", ie, totally against all forms of Nuclear energy, which I personally would be fine with, but it looks good morally, why do we need nukes? An old movie, WarGames, showed decades ago, that "the only way to win, is to not play" etc. Really, what do you think will happen when one country launches a nuclear attack on another? That country would fight back, if you Americans would let them have their nukes. What will you do to prevent that? Completely destroy that country in one fell swoop? Nuke all that nations allies worldwide?
Please answer, in a reasonable state of mind!
---
This is one reason why NASA recordings (at least during the Apollo missions) had a beep in them periodically. This is what I've been told. Of course, the beeps may also have other uses, as a measure of time, but I believe it was so that everyone on the comms knew that they were being recorded.
Given that record I'm not going to take her assertions on the Verona Project at face value; only a sucker would. So if the parent can find independent support for the claims about the Verona Project, I'm interested, but if it's all based on Ann Coulter's brand of unsupported claims, forget it,
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
When the country is at war, normal civil liberties are suspended or modified and the executive branch of government is naturally granted greater powers. This is in the constitution if anyone would care to read it. When the US was attacked on 9/11th it was an act of war and involved military action in Afghanistan. Our security was precarious for some time afterward. Thus, the President took extraordinary measures to prevent further attacks. Then came the war in Iraq, a war which the Senate authorized by a around a 2/3rd majority. I think our period of imminent danger is passing, though, and the President should stop the warrantless eavesdropping, but his doing it until rather recently was perfectly justified, and constitutional. That's the man's job.
Hello, Do you know where to get the files for the quadlink emulaor board? Thank You, Cy
...your air of superior smugness is no less of an ad hominem than any other
Ditto, babe.
If Kerry looks better than Bush on Wikipedia, it likely isn't due to "propaganda".
Propaganda. noun.
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Seems to me like it pretty clearly is propaganda. That doesn't necessarily make it false, but it was clearly put there by people who wanted to further their cause and damage an opponent's cause. Whether or not you agree with them has no bearing on whether or not its propaganda.
If that were true, how do you explain the fact that Exxon posted the BIGGEST profit EVER by a US company in 200 years of US history?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Okay, what is the single most desired natural resource in the world that is becoming ever more important since drilling for more or using nuclear energy or concerving energy are so vehemently being denied as reasonable possibilities?
And what about Microsoft? Are they just a runner-up, did most of the profit go to Gates, and what is happening with their taxation?
Also, that is only a minor point in my whole statement. If you disagree with that line, or it is invalid, do you still agree with the rest of my post?
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson