Slashdot Mirror
Domestic Spying Records Ordered Released
CokoBWare wrote to mention an eWeek report on the NSA's domestic spying program. A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release records from the program by March 8th. From the article: "In ordering the Justice Department to expedite the FOIA request processing, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the department's opinion that it could determine how much time is needed was 'easily rejected ... Under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests,'"
"Vague suggestions that inadvertent release of exempted documents might occur are insufficient to outweigh the very tangible benefits that FOIA seeks to further--government openness and accountability," he wrote.
This judge is my new personal hero (temporarily displacing Alton Brown), and exactly the type of person who SHOULD be a judge. He actually seems like he cares about people and knows what kind of stuff gets pulled behind the scenes.
He may as well have come out and said "Sorry, guys, you're full of shit. Give us ALL the records, and soon."
A big tip of my hat to this guy... and a wag of my finger to the bush administration... bears are still the #1 threat at the moment...
-nick
On March 8th, which page of the newspaper will this story be buried on and who will Dick Cheney have to shoot to get that to happen?
(sarcasm doesn't always transmit well via text...)
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
From TFA: "EPIC asked the Justice Department for four types of records, including an audit of NSA domestic surveillance activities, a checklist showing probable cause to eavesdrop, communications about the use of information NSA obtained, and other documents concerning increased domestic surveillance." My new hero this judge is.
This case will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court, where its chances are unspectacular. Cases like this are usually filed in a court that the filing party knows or strongly suspects will be sympathetic to their claim - a practice known as "judge shopping". I would be absolutely shocked if this suit lost in the first round.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Why is so much time given? This gives plenty of time to gather up and redact tons of information prior to delivery. I expect we'll end up with millions of pages of black rectangles on them with few, if any, legible words on them.
Wow, an example of checks and balances. I thought that was pretty much gone now.
Next steps: The White House will declare him an "activist judge" (whatever that really means) and unpatriotic. Meanwhile a religious zealot on the ABC Family channel will pray for his death.
But nothing is more patriotic than those in power keeping the government open. Because nothing could more empower the citizens.
Developers: We can use your help.
Even if these records get released and prove to be, as claimed, solely people with direct links to known and documented terrorists, that still does not exonerate the establishment of the program. The real issue was never a matter of whether, at this particular time, the NSA was listening in on you or your grandma, it was about precedent. The real issue is whether it is acceptable for an agency like the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without oversight, without warrants of any kind. In the past the law has been such that various types of surveillance were permitted, but as these cases have come to light each loophole has been blocked - it was precisely for this reason that the Foreign Intelligence Services Court, and the corresponding act, was originally created. An about face and progressive weakening of such laws sets a dangerous precendent, and in my view shouldn't be tolerated. Don't let the report as to what surveillance was conducted blind you to the deeper issue of whether such a precedent is acceptable.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
It's safe to release all of the domestic spying records, now that Bush got his literal "get out of jail free" deal from his Republican Congress.
After terrorists attack our ports through infiltrating the royal United Arab Emirates corporation that just got handed the ports management contracts, I expect Congress will pass a law that says that "no one could have anticipated that the ports would be infiltrated through their foreign managers".
--
make install -not war
BushCo: 1x10^7
The highlighted is exactly what the Bush Administration has been trying to prevent since he came into office and frankly I don't see this victory becoming a trend.
Bush, Cheney and the Republicans have already been cracking down on leaks of classified information so that they won't have any more splaining to do.
Remember how they jumped all over the leak of the NSA spying? Not to condemn possible spying of Americans, but to demand investigations in order to discover the identity of the leaker(s).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To turn the "law and order" types' favorite phrase back on them, the law is the law. If the government will not obey its own laws, then it has no moral authority to operate. Ironically, that's a Biblical concept, not a liberal idea. According to scripture, God's authority to stand in divine judgement handing down damnation or salvation comes from his perfection and consistency. God follows his own laws, thus he has total moral authority. But how many Bush supporters would freak out at such an argument?
In pure secular terms, the only result of giving discressionary power in 99% of all cases out there is to have the government not obey the law. The government must obey its own laws in order to ensure law and order, and having a law that says "the state shall do what it wilt, shall be the whole of the regulation of the government's conduct" is not a law. It's a license to anarchy in the pejorative sense of the word.
If our government is unwilling to even use its Article IV powers to shut down the borders in violation of NAFTA and all travel from rogue states and Saudi Arbia, then it doesn't need to even speak about new powers.
Domestic Spying Records Ordered Released
Domestic spying... ok.
There was this one time, when I was ten, I was hiding in the hall and I heard my mom and dad talking about my birthday present. That was pretty cool.
Then there was this time in high school when I hid in the principal closet and hoped to hear something interesting, like him having a secret affair or him reading the final exams out loud for fun or something, but he just made a phone call to his doctor and passed gas a few times.
Then there was this time I was in a Jefferies tube with Seven of Nine, and we were listening to the Cardassians who had taken over our ship, but I'm pretty sure that was just a dream.
There was some other stuff, but I don't remember most of it.
We have to respect the Department of Justice's right to privacy.
Love the Third Amendment?
Hear! Hear!
Was this guy elected or appointed? Clearly these sort of judges will rub both parties the wrong way and therefore haven't a chance of being on the US Supreme Court, which isn't as it should be.
He may as well have come out and said "Sorry, guys, you're full of shit. Give us ALL the records, and soon."
Then he'll mysteriously die in his sleep or be invited to a "hunting" trip with Dick Cheney.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Cue the wingnuts screaming about activist judges.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
One thing about this is story is everybody has an opinion about what NSA is doing, and what the law is. Then of course there is the reality of what the NSA is really doing and what the law really is. General Hayen used to run the NSA, and was running it when the program was set up. He was the briefer of members of Congress (remember from both parties) on what the program was doing during his time at the NSA. Here is the transcript http:///http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.h tml/>
of Gen. Hayden's appearance Jan. 23, 2006 with the Washington Press Club about this program.
Throwing down the "question your patriotism" card... nice... too bad most people see through those kinds of arguments. Having someone turn your own country into a warzone is not fun especially when it's a war on something you can't see... Look at what happened to the war on drugs? uhmm.... admittedly the US government funded black ops in the CIA by selling MORE drugs to Americans, not less...
Why is it unpatriotic, nevermind not OK in your view to question your government's policies on breaking civil liberties? To live under a rock and believe everything you read is unhealthy and incredibly foolish, and taking someone's word for it that the powers granted to them will be used for good is hogwash. You need safeguards... Remember Star Wars Episodes 1-3, where Palpatine chipped away the Republic to gain emergency powers and ultimately total control over the galaxy? Well certainly this US Administration is no Palpatine, but if we allow for a similar pattern to happen with no checks and balances, the US could end up with an Administration that has more power than it should and really cause a lot more loss of civil liberties than you realize.
The US was founded on the principles of providing civil liberties to its citizens. You take that away, and you take away America. How unpatriotic is that when your founding constitution is eroded to the point where it's as useful as toilet paper? If you kill the US Consitution and the Bill Of Rights, you no longer have a free America. Period.
That's surviellence of an enemy, and given the Presidents power to wage war, it's not any stretch of the imagination that this sort of activity is within his authority.
Congress determines that authority.
Do you think that Britain and the US got warrants when they were trying to break Germanys enigma code in World War 2?
Last I checked Germans weren't American citizens and afforded the rights granted by the Constitution
A significant majority of the US population approves of this activity
Apparently you have read any polls lately.
If you don't want to be monitored by the government, then don't talk to overseas agents of an organization that has killed Americans, wants to kill more, and is killing our troops every week. It's not that complex.
The FOIA request wants to make sure that that is really the case. Negligence and poor planning is what is killing a lot of our troops every week.
To those who are worked up about this,
I question your seriousness about preserving our country.
Preserving our country means preserving the system of check and balances and assures that no one is above the law.
I question your patriotism.
Blind following of leadership is not as patriotic as questioning it.
Richard Nixon thought so, but somehow that didn't help him any.
"A significant majority of the US population approves of this activity, and they will be voting next election"
A significant percentage of the US population also believes that Saddam Hussein personally piloted both of the airplanes used in the attack on the World Trade Centre. And yes, many of them will somehow figure out how to vote in the next election.
"Sure, why not- but we're not talking about civil liberties here, we're talking about monitoring the communications of people who want to kill us, and their agents in our country. The fact that so many don't realize this- or plainly deny it because of a visceral hate for the current administration- sickens me, and you have just read the result of that disgust."
Actually, you're talking about the laws of your country and the principles upon which it was founded. You may want to try reading books instead of burning them, you may learn something.
I question your seriousness about preserving our country.
I question your patriotism.
and most of all....
I question your judgement
I question your motives. Wrapping your country in plastic and then never sitting on it will "preserve" it, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Does a low level member of the Judiciary branch have the ability to override the executive branch? We have a black program, that is protected by multiple layers of secrecy. This is a construct of the executive branch. Can the Judiciary proclaim this level of secrecy null and void by decree and order classified information released?
How many billions of dollars will be now rendered worthless as all of the programs that would be revealed by complying with this order would now be rendered null and void?
Does anyone believe putting our sources and methods on display to our enemies (the El Quesos) is going to make this country any safer?
> when the monitored conversations occured between foriegn, self-proclaimed enemies of the United States who are engaged in armed conflict with us, and people inside the United States?
Who says ? The administration certainly likes to imply those were the only conversations listened to, but Gonzales went out of his way to avoid confirming this.
> I question your patriotism.
And I question yours. If being an American means anything, it means respect for the constitution. Trying to justify the efforts of a president to remove the protections in the constitution brands you as a traitor to the republic.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Actually, some spy intercepts were purely domestic - but that's not the point. It's called "Domestic" because one person is in the US, and it isn't a purely international communication.
Since this program resulted in thousands of dead end leads, only an idiot would claim that only terrorists were monitored under this act.
If the NSA was only spying on terrorists, then FISA would have granted warrants (even after the wiretap had started). Given that the administration decided to end run around FISA, it's reasonable to speculate who else was being spied upon - particularly considering this crowd's track record with honesty.
No rational person can make the case that the disclosure of this program has damaged national security, so by making it you prove your irrationality. It's not like Al Qaeda didn't know that the NSA existed, or that the NSA was spying on phone calls. No one, and I mean no one is arguing that the NSA shouldn't be able to spy on terrorists. Why in the world would terrorists care whether or not the NSA got warrants to do this? The best excuse this administration can offer is that reminding the terrorists that the NSA taps phone calls damages national security, otherwise "they forget". If keeping the NSA out of the headlines is that important, then they'd damn well better follow the law.
It's not about eavesdropping on people who want to kill us - otherwise those thousands of dead ends wouldn't have happened. It's about whether the President can pick and choose which laws he wants to follow by invoking the excuse of a perpetual war, relegating Congress to a powerless debating soceity.
The candy asses are on the right - people who will happily give away this country's proud heritage because they're terrified of the big bad swarthy bogeyman. Grow a spine.
Do you think that Britain and the US got warrants when they were trying to break Germanys enigma code in World War 2?
I don't care what you might define this conflict as, but it sure as hell isn't a war. Wait until these terrorists control their own country and are coordinating attacks from it, then it might be considered to be on the scale of a war. Also, there is no way can you can even compare what is happening right now to WWII - which involved many nations all over the globe, took more than 60 million lives, and at the time cost atleast a trillion dollars.
Well, I guess that one reason is that he questions the patriotism of those who disagree with him. Not to mention his insinuation that those who disagree with him are "candy asses". Yeah, agree or disagree with him, that post is most definitely flame.
First, let's get this clear.. We are NOT at war. Period, end of sentence. There has always been people that want to cause damage to the US government. Are we at war with Oklohoma because an American bombed a US Government building? Did we start wars because the WTC was bombed in 1992 (maybe 93, sue me if it's wrong). Did the US President at the time use it as an excuse to start a fear campaign across the US and drag us into further conflicts? Or perhaps he said we were at "war" with the terrrorists and used it as an excuse to erode our civil Liberties? No, he didn't, are you sure? The people that can be labelled as traitors are the ones that are will to use the constitution to wipe their asses with, like our current regime. To answer your last point, there is a special court, perhaps you've heard of it by now, the FISA court. It is especially designed to handle survelance requests in a completely secure manner, even to the point of getting warrants after the fact of survelance. Our country is built on freedom, if we dont have it, the great promise our country once had, slowly goes into nothingness, we become a historical footnote of failed ideals. I love my country, the United States of America, I don't want people like you to destroy it.
I always thought you weren't a Terrorist until after found guilty by a trial of your peers. Or are we scrapping the whole innocent until proven guilty thing now?
Pessimists.net - as if life wasn't depressing enough.
but to demand investigations in order to discover the identity of the leaker(s).
And what exactly is your problem with this? You can't honestly say that there should be no such thing as classified information, unless you'd like every poor SOB who's trying to keep on eye on various actually bad guys to be strung up and shot. The classification of intel methods and collected information exists specifically to allow it do what it has to do. If you tell Kim Jong Il what time of day the next high-altitude drone will be overhead which of his slave camps, or CC the lunatic president of Iran on the intel you're sharing with EU security people about his nuclear program... you're pretty much asking for the consequences, including the unpleasant deaths of the people living in those countries and working, with our spooks, to counter the influence/acts of the mullahs or the so-honorable KJI.
Assuming you don't actually refute the need for classified and covert activities on a number of fronts, then how can you complain about tracking down the people who deliberately leak such specific operational information? It sounds like you're more in the "classified is OK, but only on the stuff I think should be classified, and then definitely the administration should be investigating the people who leak it" camp. But that's not what you're saying, and should be. At which point, you should be more clearly spelling out what you think should, and should not be classified when it comes to intercepting a phone call from a known Al Queda-type contact in, say, Lahore, Pakistan to a used-only-once-ever cell phone that was in a batch of fifty or so bought with cash. You know, a cell phone that is untraceable to a person, will never be used again, and can never be part of a FISA warrant scenario by its very nature. Is reminding the guys using those phones that we know when the person in Lahore is dialing a number from that batch of disposable phones something you think should be leaked? Is that constructive, from your perspective?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Staples recorded record profits for the first quarter of 06. Amazingly, all the sales were from paper shreaders.
How do you know they were between a foreign enemy and someone else? How do you know they weren't spying on normal US citizens who had piqued the interest of the government for whatever reason? Because that's exactly what Bush's executive order allowed.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
To clarify above.
The President has the ability to start a war but only Congress can wage war. There has been no Declaration of War and therefore there is no war that the United States of America is engaged in. The President has the ability to quickly react and defend the Constitution and People of the country but long term deployments of troops must be approved by Congress.
Any executive orders must have their authority from Congressional acts and/or the Constitution. No if or but about it. We are a nation of Laws. That is the founding idea behind all that we have, we agree to follow those Laws and that only Congress has the power to create those Laws.
If it doesn't get overturned, Cheney will just threaten to shoot the judge in the face.
The Gonzales will just give him the same tripe they've been spouting on TV. Constitution, use of force authorization, blah, blah, blah. The Bush administration isn't going to let some piddly little district court judge push them around. Especially when they've managed to load the Supreme Kangaroo Court with their cronnies.
They'll claim it's necessary for "security" and there will be a 5 to 4 vote overturning the order and they'll go right back to doing whatever the hell they feel like. This will only further demonstrate how little the current administration values the rule of law. And if you haven't figured that out by now, you're never going to. For rest of us it will simply be one more razor slash on the Constitution.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Amen, he crossed a line in insinuating that if you didn't agree with him, you were a traitor to your country ("I question your patriotism"). Even if I agreed with him, I would have modded him down flamebait.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
we are spying on them? Surely not!
I find that argument completly without merit.
No American is upset about our intelligence agencies conducting surveilance to protect us. I *WANT* them to be able to do that and am very grateful to those who have made it their life's work to protect my family and me. However, I am *VERY* concerned about the desire to conduct surveilance with no oversight or accountability whatsoever. People fought and died throughout American history to protect us from this kind of stuff, so we are not about to just take someone's word that it is OK. Not even when that person is our President.
"No rational person can make the case that the disclosure of this program has damaged national security, so by making it you prove your irrationality."
/. groupthink dissenting opinion as flaimbait. /. is guilty of censorship.
Huh. If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret. The statement you made was the irrational one.
"people who will happily give away this country's proud heritage because they're terrified of the big bad swarthy bogeyman."
Equating al Qaeda to the bogeyman is also irrational.
Who mods this crap up and mods down any
I don't even agree with Bush's program, and your arguements still suck ass.
Vote for Pedro
The point about the continued existence of real enemies is an important one, but the rest of this post is distortion at best. Throughout American history, Presidents and Congresses have turned to extra-legal police measures in the prosecution of war, and every time, it has resulted in the death and imprisonment of innocent people. Whether it helped secure victory is a more debatable matter.
It is true, it is not always realistic to conduct a war with full Constitutional protections in effect. But compared to other conflicts in our history (Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.), we have virtually no chance of 'losing' this one. Terrorism does not aim to conquer, it aims to change public opinion. If we continue to support Israel, speak our minds, and behave like Westerners, we've already won.
In short, it is hardly necessary for the President to violate the Constitution, especially to the extent that he has, in order to win. And of all the War Presidents (Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, etc.) I'd say I trust this one the least with the delicate responsibility.
Wait a minute ... you're saying President Bush pardoned I. Lewis (a.k.a. "Scooter") Libby?
I think you've gotta be misinformed on that one. Unless it was just totally ignored by every media outlet on the planet, and it's being blocked by Google... I don't think it's happened. Yet.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
""That's surviellence of an enemy, and given the Presidents power to wage war, it's not any stretch of the imagination that this sort of activity is within his authority."
Richard Nixon thought so, but somehow that didn't help him any. "
Watergate had nothing to do with the Vietnam War, nor did anyone ever claim it did.
"Actually, you're talking about the laws of your country and the principles upon which it was founded. You may want to try reading books instead of burning them, you may learn something."
Yes, and the FISA wiretapping law may not apply in a time of war because of a presidental Constitutional powers. The supreme court will ultimately decide, I'm sure. Your ad hominim attack is unnecessary. grow up.
Vote for Pedro
to shred the undesirable stuff.
Huh. If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret. The statement you made was the irrational one.
Wow, I'm impressed. I'm impressed your lungs didn't shut down when your one brain cell was tied up in typing this.
Okay, I'll presume you're sitting down, since I don't think you can stand and read at the same time: The US has spied on calls before, and people know that. I know, this must come as a total shock to you, there there. Go read about Echelon. Osama might have learned we were tapping his phone calls when we tried to blow him up using his phone to track him, back in 1998.
So, to sum up: ssh! Grown-ups are talking!
>Last I checked Germans weren't American citizens and afforded the rights granted by the Constitution Hate to break this to you, but in fact during World War II there was massive scale surveillance of US citizens communicating with people in Europe in order to keep tabs on what Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in this country were up to. In most case there was no warrant, no discussion with a Judge. Back then it was understood this was a war and the goal here was to win, not be scored on how well you followed the rules. Did they (for a while) shred the constitution, you betcha. Did it snap back when the war was over? Same as it always has before and since. A different time and a different world to be certain.
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.
ENOUGH SAID.
One of the core questions is if the FISA court and the laws that established it are themselves within the bounds of the Constitution. There is a large number of scholars who doubt it is. If that is, in the end, the ruling. All of this is immaterial. Oh, one other thing. Congress does not have the ability to wage war. The Executive branch wages war after the Congress approves it. At least that's how its worked for several life times. The US Military reports to the President (aka the Commander in Chief).
Huh. If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret. The statement you made was the irrational one.
The exact same kind of tapping could already be done, just with a warrant. This was public knowledge. The warrant may even be obtained up to 72 hours after surveillance begins, so agents can begin monitoring them immediately. Exposing this illegal and un-American program did not give the terrorists any new, useful information. Even if it had (it really, REALLY didn't), that would be very much an acceptable cost for preserving the rule of law and justice.
Even if you're right, this 'war' is one in which the enemy is poorly defined, and for which there is no 'win' condition. The American Administration has admitted that this isn't a war that can be 'won', per se.
If THAT'S true, when will everything 'snap back'?
It's one thing to be fighting a fixed enemy that has a location and people to negotiate with, and another thing entirely to be fighting people that refuse to negotiate and are happy for you to kill them; it just adds fuel to the fire. More than ever, the only way to win this game is to not play at all.
Classifying illegal activities isn't right.
Leaking information about classified & illegal government activities isn't wrong.
Nothing you said addresses that fundamental issue.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Never mind a fictional leader; look at a real-life 20th century leader who rallied his citizens to his cause, blaming an ethnic group most of them had little use for anyway for all of their problems, polarizing his population into absolute patriots and absolute traitors, manipulating the gullible news media, and finally gaining special emergency powers to defeat what he had by then convinced everyone was a dire threat to life, liberty, and apple pie--or, in this case, streudel.
And then think how many other leaders have successfully played from this deck of cards throughout history.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Nothing you said addresses that fundamental issue
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad. They loudly proclaim that they want to do more, and work to that end. Part of that includes placing calls (regarding funding and operational coordination) to supporters and collaborators. When people make those calls, it's not only legal to follow the trail, it's an obligation to. The constitution not only permits it, but empowers the CinC to perform, in his role of defense against just such attacks, to act. So, if you're a known Al Queda franchise operator in Lahore, phoning your US-based finance guy on a disposable phone from overseas, get over feeling like your privacy isn't what it used to be.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When the president takes his oath of office, isn't the heart of that oath a promise to preserve and protect the constitution? And if so, is there some sort of check (or balance) to slap down a president that diminishes or damages the constitution?
IANACLPOAAFTM (I am not a constitutional law professor, or an American for that matter), but as someone who lives just north of the 49th parallel, I am going to be very worried if this particular president diminishes the American constitution any more than he has already, without any repercussions from the system of checks and balances that is supposed to prevent him from being able to do so. I'll be particularly worried if the next part of the constitution 'W' diminishes or destroys is the 22nd amendment.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
I would act surprised by this statement, but really I'm not.
A batch of fifty or so piles of bullshit more like it.
A blog about stuff.
If Bush and company have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from a Congressional or Judicial inquiry into their actions.
However, you've once again sidestepped the issue. Instead of addressing it, you changed the subject.
Either you're trolling or you're very single minded. Either way, you don't seem to be able to conduct a reasonable discussion.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
>>this whole "domestic spying" thingy.
You people are either ignorantly parroting what the left-leaning media has labeled this issue or else you are deliberately misstating the case: It's not "domestic" when a person in the US receives or places calls to someone OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.
The sitting President doesn't have any wartime powers, because this isn't wartime. He's claiming this authority as neccesary for the defense of the United States, not in the prosecution of a war, which is a harder legal sell.
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad.
You are wrong - that is not the fundamental issue being discussed. The issue is whether or not the president has the authority to spy on US citizens *without approval & oversight*. Bush thinks he does; many others disagree. This is a core issue of civil rights.
Twisting the argument into "but we need to do it to catch bad guys!" is a nice straw man. It's not about what "bad guys" want to do, it's about what rights law-abiding citizens have. There's plenty of people both in the US and the rest of the world, that want to kill people in a terroristic fashion (recall some examples), so at what point should we - the United States of America - draw the line between liberty & security?
As a point of reference, China doesn't seem to have had many problems with terrorism.
With one out of two parties in the US, and the tapping act itself also happening in the US, I think it would be dishonest to say that it was clearly not domestic spying. It also certainly isn't quite the same as tapping Al Capone or Martin Luther King. Luckily, we have laws that cover this. They just were ignored.
I'm a Republican. You're a Tool. or maybe...a Troll. Not sure which.
You Sir are playing word games. A person inside of the US is being spied upon. That IS DOMESTIC spying. The fact that the OTHER party is outside of the US does not mitigate that fact.
I realize that the Bush administration and its shills don't like being caught in the act of domestic spying but word games won't make it any less egregious.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
>>Did we start wars because the WTC was bombed in 1992 (maybe 93, sue me
>>if it's wrong). Did the US President at the time use it as an excuse to
>>start a fear campaign across the US and drag us into further conflicts?
Don't forget USS Cole, the African embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, etc.
No the "president at the time" (can't bring yourself to say Clinton, can you?) didn't fight back. Too bad, it probably would have saved the Twin Towers and thousands of lives.
According to Marc Genest, professor of Strategy and Policy at the Naval War College, the overall lesson from the Cole is that not responding to terrorists attacks only emboldens them.
And just in case you're dense, we're talking about murderous societies based on intolerant religions that start with the letters "Islam", of which there are many and soon to be fewer.
Some of us don't want to live in a pickle jar, and we need to start taking action. The executive branch is running an unprecedented power grab. Congress has no balls, so some judicial oversight is needed to ensure new measures improve security without sacrificing civil liberties or violating the constitution.
I am convinced this is the WORST administration in our country's history. Over the last few years, I've seen the administration leak the name of a CIA operative whose spouse disagreed with them. I've seen the United States use torcher on a grand scale and then criticize the newspapers that print the photos as inflammatory and inappropriate. I've seen a Vice Admiral in the United States Navy say the following about accountability (regarding Abu Ghraib):
"I don't think you can hold anybody accountable for a situation that maybe if you had done something different, maybe something would have occurred differently,"
I was an officer in the Navy. Actually, technically I'm still an officer in the Navy, and this quote from a high ranking officer makes me ill.
I've heard reports of secret prisons, secret courts, warrantless wiretaps... I sometimes wonder if the Neo-Con artists are taking bets on how many actions that prompted our secession from the British Empire they can get away with. "Okay you won on the secret courts, but double or nothing we can't get away with impressing British sailors." More importantly, it makes me wonder what atrocities we are not hearing about, and how these are being kept secret.
The real terrorists, the ones doing the most damage to this country are those currently in power. They criticize anyone who takes their illegal acts to press as unpatriotic and then continue to do whatever the hell they want. Can anyone think of some other world governments in the last 73 years or so that used censorship and propaganda like this? Once we lose the rule of law we will be no better than our perceived enemies. It is a slippery slope, and we are already a good ways down with high velocity.
We are completely mollified by the conveniences we have become dependent on. Since few understand the principles the country was founded on, we vote for whoever meets our immediate needs (in some cases, after they've convinced us what these needs are). As a result, we've lost all the statemen.
Where are the congressmen with the huevos to say "This is more power than a good man should want or a bad man should have." as did Sen A. Vandenburg regarding FDR's bill to allow additional presidential appointments to the Supreme Court? This is not a partisan issue, and this administration is not made up of Republicans. They are fascists and need to go quickly. The only good news is they are incompetent (see Katrina). Imagine the damage they could do if they knew their ass from a hole in the ground.
It torques my ass that we elected a frigging puppet in the first place. The fact that there are so many who cannot cognize or refuse to cognize what's going on and think Bush is their friend or a 'Patriot' is just icing on the cake.
I don't think they transcribed every wiretap. They probably have a lot of taped conversations. What I'm interested in is what criteria they used to spy.
The Bush administration is fond of saying things like "If someone is talking to a terrorist..." They always try to justify their actions by suggesting that it only happens when a "bad guys" is involved. They hold people without allowing them due process. Something that our constitution guarantees as a right and justify doing so by saying that they only do that to terrorists and "enemy combatants" without ever giving the victim the chance to prove they are neither.
I'm betting that even though Bush claims they only spy on people who "talk to terrorists" when the truth comes out it will be anyone who talks to people in Iraq or other hot spots in the world.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I don't disagree on any one point, but I do take great offense to those who go out of their way to murder us, and my desire for the preservation of my friends, myself and my family demands hunting such people down without mercy.
As for aiming to conquer, I don't know if you followed my Norway link, but it appears that a number of Scandinavian/European nations are folding under pressure from this drummed-up cartoon jihad, and that is how we can lose- when we no longer have the confidence in ourselves to deal with threats in a serious manner. I think that the United States isn't likely to capitulate to non-assimilated, belligerent Muslim immigrants any time soon, but the path to defeat is laid before us, that we might gaze down the road before we ourselves go down it. The public opinion they aim to impose is that living under sharia is the way to not be killed by them. They're not terribly secretive about this goal.
Cultures die most often by suicide, not by conquest. I see Europeans baring their necks and begging for mercy from their new Islamic rulers, and it doubles my resolve that we must violently prosecute the fight against fundamentalist muslims who would do us harm and change us into proper dhimmis.
The meat of the Norway Link, for your reading pleasure:
As for the entire FISA fiasco, FISA is an independant path of authorizing survellience, apart from the Presidents authority. If the FISA statute attempted to limit the Presidents authority to conduct the kind of survellience that is under debate, it would be an unconstitutional infringement on the president's authority to do such. Some pe
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I've questioned and disagreed with plenty of Bush's actions. Just not this one. While lefties are uniform in their hatred of everything Bush related, on the right we do debate the finer points of various policies.
This conversation, however, is about one thing: spying on our enemies.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
More than ever, the only way to win this game is to not play at all.
You don't have be a willing participant to end up in a fight... or a beating. This isn't tic tac toe.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
-100, Godwin.
Yeah, cause the jews really did burn the riechstag
and bomb the bismark
and bomb the reichstag before they burned it
and killed a barracks full of German troops with a truck bomb
and blow up the spanish train system
and mass immigrated into Scandinavian countries, rape their women, murder their authors, and hold riots over cartoons
and....
oh, wait, they didn't do all those things.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What are you, the comic book guy from the Simpsons? Star Wars Episodes 1-3 were the most terrible movies made in the last decade, and you want to draw political lessons from a hack like Lucas who can do nothing but special effects lately? And you dare accuse me of living under a rock?
Think what you like of me, but you're your own special kind of freak. I've continued the discussion with others in this thread, feel free to read those.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Like the guys in Gitmo?
A blog about stuff.
They are not terrorists... just "enemy combatants". :)
The cool thing is that you're absolutely 100% right. History is repeating itself... unforuntately, history seems to be repeating itself when I'm alive. *sigh*
FISA is an independant path of authorizing survellience, apart from the Presidents authority.
Here's the thing - that's not true. The FISA law itself says it's the only method. So either FISA matters, or it doesn't.
If the FISA statute attempted to limit the Presidents authority to conduct the kind of survellience that is under debate, it would be an unconstitutional infringement on the president's authority to do such.
This is what the administration is claiming, but this is far from settled. (This is not the only justification that the administration has offered, including "Congress authorized it in the use of force amendement". This administration does not have a great track record with shifting justifications.)
It's not clear to me what you think "co-equal" means - let's grant for the sake of argument that an Executive with unlimited wiretap authority has abused it in the past, in the form of J. Edgar Hoover. What is Congress's ability, as a co-equal branch of government, to place checks and balances on that power?
Bonus question: if the President is allowed to independently and secretly decide which laws are constitutional and which are not, how does that differ from an elected monarchy?
I just wanted to point out that this is one of the stupidest concepts since the Romans made plates and cutlery out of lead.
The cartoonish axioms this statement rests on are:
This is related to the slightly less stupid idea prevalent in lazy journalism: "if both sides are mad at me, we must be doing something right". No, sometimes you're just that wrong.
And when exactly were they proved guilty of that crime?
A blog about stuff.
Except that the Bush administration would release any of the information immediately if it would suit the party interests. Look at Valarie Plame.
Giuliani is a fascist who was hated here in NYC when we finally were rid of him after the 2001 elections. But even then, he tried to use the 9/11/2001 planebombings as an excuse to extend his regime into 2002. When 2008 comes around, expect to hear a lot from New Yorkers who know that Giuliani is a fascist who would abuse these Bush loopholes efficiently, destroying American democracy irreparably.
--
make install -not war
The FBI reported that the thousands of wiretaps they were given by NSA led to nothing - but first the FBI had to spy on thousands of people in America. Those "US persons" are protected by the law from warrantless wiretapping.
But you don't care about those facts. You're parroting the RIGHT WING MEDIA, as is obvious to anyone who isn't a parrot, deliberately misstating the case in your prayers to Bush. Regardless of how it damages our country. Why do you hate America?
--
make install -not war
This conversation, however, is about one thing: spying on our enemies.
Actually, No, this conversation is about spying on US citizens.
You know, Americans, with rights guaranteed by the constitution. Various laws have been enacted by Congress, giving the government the tools needed to wiretap foriegn and domestic targets. The current administration's opinions about whether these laws apply to it, are troubling to say the least. It was troubling to hear the AG give his LEGAL ADVICE that we do not have to adhere to the Geneva Convention, and then later say that the NSA's (WARRANTLESS, and Without Judicial Oversight) Domestic Wiretapping is legal, needed and appropriate is nothing short of sickening.
Right, Left, Center, Whig doesn't matter, Policies of this Administration are flawed in every area, certainly enough to cause dissent in his own party, and inflame those outside it. Military Decisions, Domestic Policy, Emergency Management, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Policy, Enviromental Policy, Natural Resource Management, Economic Stimulus, Foriegn Policy, Diplomacy, Education, Scientific Research, Wiretapping, Torture. This Nixonian list literally goes on and on. There is so much, the opposition can't even focus on one thing before the Lt Commander-In-Chief shoots a 78 yr old man wearing a bright orange hunting vest, who apparently resembles a quail at 30 yards.
Gonzalez http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/ag012406.html
FISA and NSA Links http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
The link is an example (first Google hit I got, recalling the issue). Talk to anyone in law enforcement or intel - this happens constantly, but usually larger collections of phones are created by purchases of one or two at a time by mules that hit every convenience store for 20 miles along a stretch of highway. Drug runners use them constantly, they're a hit with illegal immigrants, and they often get carried overseas where they are frequently re-sold, cloned, etc. But the use of them domestically, as one-shot disposable phones, is a well established feature of both domestic and international bad guys. They're also popular as timers for bombs, of course - as seen in London and Madrid.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I heard we also sent a bunch of Japanese into concentration camps during World War II. What's your point?
This has already been picked to pieces, but I feel a strong urge to chip in:
I question your seriousness about preserving our country.
"No government can be maintained without the principle of fear as well as duty. Good men will obey the last, but bad ones the former only. If our government ever fails, it will be from this weakness."
--Thomas Jefferson
It is precisely because I wish to preserve this country that I oppose a too-powerful government. The acknowledgement of the government as a necessary evil was, arguably, the most important cornerstone upon which the U.S. was founded. To allow the government to have its say without checks and balances, the most basic and first defense against tyranny, is to surrender in a critical battle against that omnipresent desire for leaders to view their constituents as subjects.
I question your patriotism.
No need to dig out the old quotes on this one, I'm sure you've heard them all if this isn't your first visit to slashdot. Suffice to say that I am, at this point, tempted to dismiss out of hand any argument which attempts to compel people to change their views, or support a plan of action in the name of patriotism. This is, quite simply, because past experience has shown that this line of "reasoning" usually exists to justify a position based not upon reason, but rather lack of it in favor of either fear or blind morality.
and most of all....I question your judgement
You question my judgement because I want my government to be afraid of me, instead of the other way around? Or because I happen to think, like a few other crazy bastards before me, that individual safety is less important than individual freedom? Perhaps you could expound a bit on what, in particular, is wrong with this belief. I would like to point out, before you do, however, that the Enigma code would not have been an issue, nor the related expenditures of time, money, and life, had a certain european government been a bit more scared of its people than they were of it, or perhaps if the governed there had been a little less "patriotic".
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
While lefties are uniform in their hatred of everything Bush related, on the right we do debate the finer points of various policies.
If the left was uniform on anything else at all, maybe they could actually try to get something done....
Many of us Bush-haters are surprised when we meet reasonable intelligent right-wingers; we so seldom hear from you, among the cheers from the lunatics. I suppose it's the same from the other side, the pot-smoking baby-killing gay hippies probably drown us out too.
KCRW has a weekly podcast called "Left, Right & Center" which I really like; look it up on the iTMS or kcrw.com. Their slogan is "public radio's antidote to the screaming talking heads that dominate political debate."
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"Hate to break this to you, but in fact during World War II there was massive scale surveillance of US citizens communicating with people in Europe in order to keep tabs on what Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in this country were up to."
I'm not quite sure I see a point here. That was a war. This isn't. It is, at best, a minor conflict.
Saying we are at war does not make it so.
"If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret."
Only if they thought they were not being listened to. I don't think they are that stupid.
I would say exposing this program has increased our national security (assuming it stops or is reduced in scope). Now maybe the FBI can do something useful rather than chasing thousands of dead ends. You chase enough dead ends and you start to assume all leads are worthless.
We have two main problems with intelligence. We don't get enough "on the ground" intel. And we have a had time turning useful intel into actions. We had sufficient intel to stop 9/11. But the intel didn't get converted into action. This program doesn't address the first issue and only make the second worse.
The reason people went along with these accusations was two-fold:
;-)
1. They wanted to believe. Everyone wants an enemy to blame in hard times (and Germany was certainly having them at the time). Even rational people can be drawn into this trap when they're listening to their children moan in their sleep because they can't afford to buy bread.
2. There was no transparency in the government which made these claims. There was little opportunity to verify or discredit the accusations, and if you asked too many questions, you were called (you guessed it) unpatriotic.
The second cause is what we're talking about here, although there is some concern in my mind about the first...mistrust of muslims is still hiding behind the eyes of suburbanites everywhere (I see a hell of a lot here in the midwest). It is also important to remember that these causes bolster each other. Fear leads to opaqueness leads to more fear. Watch the BBC series "The Power of Nightmares" sometimes. I'm sure you won't agree with everything in it, but the section on the rise of Leo Strauss' views, in particular, is interesting and enlightening. (and, yes, I know it was put out by a country that is much more socialist than ours, but I'm sure that you, like everyone else on slashdot, is capable of taking things with a grain of salt
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
"No the "president at the time" (can't bring yourself to say Clinton, can you?) didn't fight back. Too bad, it probably would have saved the Twin Towers and thousands of lives."
And what about the President who ignored the intel that would have stopped it? We did fight back at the time-unless you count lobbing cruise missles as "nothing".
"According to Marc Genest, professor of Strategy and Policy at the Naval War College, the overall lesson from the Cole is that not responding to terrorists attacks only emboldens them."
It is possible that he is an idiot. The Cole ignored basic security (allowing an unidentified craft inside its security perimeter) and suffered for it. If I am not mistaken we also managed to grab many of those responsible.
And attacking the terrorists didn't seem to prevent them from bombing a lot of SE Asia locations. Nor did attacking Iraq and creating a terrorist training ground (of course we weren't attacking terrorists in that case). We have created MORE terrorism from our actions of late.
That's up to interpretation. While I don't disagree with you, there are certain constitutional clauses that seem to imply an extension of authority (without congress) under certain circumstances
No, I'm afraid he's right. The majority of the population doesn't give a damn about civil liberties, they just don't want to be safe. It's a sad state affairs.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Either show us that declaration of war or stop trying to claim that we're in one. Until congress passes a resolution saying that a state of war exists, we are *not* at war.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
A new Patriot Search Engine has been developed to make us all more secure. Use Patriot Search to ensure that your search terms are automatically submitted to the government for analysis, without the risk of judicial oversight, congressional enactments, or probable cause. This will make your even more secure from terror, terrorism and terrorists!
Surely if you are a true patriot with nothing to hide, you will use Patriot Search today. If you don't, then surely in the interests of security someone will have to find out why.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
As for shooting the messenger - it is the weak act of those who are more interested in appearances than results. A variety of intelligence failures (most spectacularly Oliver North selling weapons to Iran to give money to a drug dealer that required military intervention to fix - and more minor ones from other agencies even in 2005) and the reaction to them has shown that appearance is the point more than results.
"Domestic Spying" is what Hoover did. And there's every reason in the world to hate it; I'm with you in that regard.
But this ain't that.
This is war; their warriors are calling people in this country, and vice-versa. If we weren't doing this, *I* would call for impeachment. And don't give me that "I agree, but it's the method" argument; it doesn't hold water.
But in the old-world media's mind, "It's not the facts, but the seriousness of the charge" as you may recall. Like the 20+ Halliburton investigations, kicking people out of office for kind words...to Democrats...who were openly racist then, and still are, just not openly.
Other than the smoke-and-mirrors 911 commission, and the obligitory war declaration, has there been even one attempt on the part of the Democrats to actually *help* fighting terrorists? All I see is them protecting them with red tape and starting rumors.
But then, liberals are always the first to help an enemy. Look how they lionize Castro, Noriega, Stalin...remember Jane Fonda sitting on an AA gun, used to shoot down our planes in Vietnam? How about the 200-or-so people who went to Iraq to be human shields? They got there and found the schools and hospitals were full of guns and ammo, not kids and sick people. Saddam had mass graves of 400,000 civilians. And *we* are evil? How's that work?
So now, every move from the left is a means of making the war in Iraq go bad, or talking down the economy, so the Democrats gan get into office. It's about as rude as it can get.
It's getting old, guys- you have elections coming up, and you still haven't decided on your core values, as McAllif has reluctantly told us. "It's coming".
Core values, the platform of a political party, should never be something to conjur or take from polls- they're a part of who you are.
Can we move on, please?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
No, I'm afraid he's right. The majority of the population doesn't give a damn about civil liberties, they just don't want to be safe. It's a sad state affairs.
Only because the spinless Democrats don't challenge it, so the spineless media just parrots the GOP line. Imagine the reaction if, oh we'll say, Clinton had done the exact same thing with the exact same justifications.
You don't have be a willing participant to end up in a fight... or a beating. This isn't tic tac toe.
They would point out our willingness to bomb economic targets, our blank-check support of Israel, and a century of western meddling in their politics as evidence that the U.S. definetly is a "willing participant".
Congress doesn't determine the president's authority, the constitution does. An act of congress can't legally change the powers that the constitution grants the president. Other than that, what you said has much merit.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Is what constitutes foreign intelligence gathering, which the courts have held doesn't require a warrant and is outside the bounds of our criminal court system; and what constitutes domestic spying that requires a court order.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
"Do the Democrats really want to return us to the days when al Qaeda could call its American operatives with impunity?"
There are current laws on the books that would allow a wire tap 72 hours PRIOR to a warrant being issued in these cases. That is sufficient.
This domestic spying crap is illegal and Emperor Bush and his cronies should be held accountable.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
My thoughts exactly.
With no oversight, who's to say they even kept any records of their domestic spying?
-Rich
a day late... When we (Regan) responded to trerrorism by attacking Libya it stopped all terroroism? A measured response is good, even Regan and didn't create an atmosphere of fear and distrust within the US by responding to terrorists abroad. That's my biggest problem now, I agree with responding and stopping terrorism, using fear and paranoi within the US to respond is very bad.
Part 1, Sec. 1.4 (Classification Categories), Subsection (c) states:
Further, see:
The right to declassify rests with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, under the direction of the Archivist and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Cheney is so not that guy.
Further, Part 4 (Safeguarding), Section 4.1 (General Restrictions On Access) states, in pertinant part:
Thus, only the CIA had the right to release the name of a CIA operative; not Cheney.
Now, does the Veep have the right to declassify on a whim (without following procedure)? Nope. Absolutely not! Part 3 (Declassification and Downgrading) Section 3.1 (Authority for Declassification), Subsection (b) states:
The NAS domestic surveillance program violates the FISA act which was specifically enacted in 1978 to clear up some of the questions left unresolved by the Supreme Court. It allows warrantless surveillance of conversations between "foreign powers" (and their agents) only if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. In cases where a call was placed or initiated from a US citizen ONLY the part of the conversation from the foreign entity could be taped. Unilaterally deciding to extend the spying to a US citizen is an authorization of domestic spying and IS ILEGAL.
- president.htmla udacity.html
"1. We are at war. congress' AUMF gave the Pres all the authority he needs to prevent another attack."
False. To be at war the Congress must make a formal declaration. The Authorization to Use Military Force is NOT a declaration of war. We are NOT at war. But even if we were the president's inherent power as commander-in-chief during wartime DOES NOT override the provisions of FISA.
The suggestion that Congress has no power to interfere in any way with the president's Article II commander-in-chief power is ludicrous. There's no case law to back this up and no reason to believe this except for the president's own apparent belief in his unlimited authority during wartime. (Which this IS NOT.)
I suggest you read: www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL30465.pdf
and http://volokh.com/posts/1135029722.shtml
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/which-is-it-mr
and http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/definition-of-
You may now consider YOURSELF informed...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The right to DECLASSIFY does not rest with the Veep IF he was not the original party who classified the information in the first place.
We may be aware of that... the VP however appears not to be.
S.J.RES.23
States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.
Actually, No, this conversation is about spying on US citizens.
Has that actually been proven yet?
The order he signed with the approval of high ranking democrates and republicans allowed the use of the NSA against US citizen but has that yet to be shown that it happened? All the examples I have heard about is where it was used against people talking to known terrorists or with known terrorist supplied phone numbers. Have they shown that some of thoses talking where actually citizens?
BTW NSA without special orders does not have the right to listen to US Citizens, US Corporations or immigrants in the US with legal permanent residency status.
From action taken place during the mid to late 90s we known that they do capture US citizens in thier conversations. When that happens they are suppose to blacken out or drop the name of the unless the names and indentifing information is needed to under the "context of the information".
When did we ever have trials for prisoners of war?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.