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."
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.
So, you have one branch saying, "Let's see what really happened" and the other two saying, "Nothing to see here; move along, move along".
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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.
to shred the undesirable stuff.
>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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
"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.
"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
With no oversight, who's to say they even kept any records of their domestic spying?
-Rich