Slashdot Mirror
New York Times sues DoD over Domestic Spying
gbobeck writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the New York Times has filed suit against the U.S. Defense Department. The suit is seeking the release of all relevant documents and a list of people targeted by the NSA domestic spying program. As stated in the article: 'The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was being processed as quickly as possible, according to the six-page suit filed at federal court in New York.'"
Like, say, all of the people who work for the New York Times...
We'll get to know after the suit has been resolved in about 3-4 years.
The NSA tried to send the data over a few months ago, but they gave up at the NYT registration screen.
Entire NYT Staff Held as "Enemy Combatants" at Guantanamo Bay
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
We need to thank the NY Times for doing this. They might be unpopular here at slashdot for their 'evil' online registration, but they've stood up for the public's right to know what their government is doing many times before. Hello? Pentagon Papers?
Take off every sig. For great justice.
so if they win the suit, the DoD can turn over page after page of redacted document that looks like a magic marker threw up all over it. If they don't want the information to get out, it won't.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
But the Bush administration says the president as commander in chief of the armed forces has the authority to carry out the intercepts and that Congress also gave him the authority upon approving the use of force in response to the September 11 attacks
I also heard that the president doesn't like pita bread, so we're ridding the country of that as well.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
Asking the government for arbitration when your complaint is against the government? I can't imagine how this exciting story will turn out!
What a pointless lawsuit. The information is classified and thus the Freedom of Information Act won't apply. Sure maybe they'll get lucky and a left leaning judge will initially side with them but there is no way they'll ultimately win this thing. I guess there's no harm in trying if they can afford it, other than wasting the time of an already overloaded court system.
Here's the Associated Press article on the same subject...contains a bit more info on the actual request than the Reuters copy, including:
From TFA:
Coming from an administration that took 411 days to set up a Public Inquiry into 9/11, the most significant terrorist attack in the history of the American nation, this amont of foot-dragging is a mere warm-up. Expect this to go nowhere fast.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Somewhere out there, Journalists are looking into their pants, and finding they have testicles. -paraphased from Penny-Arcade.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
When asked if he would support the administration's efforts, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "I...uh... what? They're going to kill what? Oh, well. I guess. I must obey my masters."
The ACLU released a statement condemning the move, but they were clubbed and beaten by government thugs before they could take any questions from reporters.
Electric Monkey Pants
Ah yes, anyone exercising their right to bring the government to task must be helping the terrorists. Good grief, how easily some people surrender liberty in crisis. What's worse is they have surrendered it to an Administration which even its own Congressional and Gubnorial allies are beginning to view with thinly veiled disdain.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Its just going to be the side that runs out of money first...I think I know which side is going to win
Cheap UK and US VPS
You know, if anyone is really saying "yes, I think we're going to blow up X" over phones/email/whatever, they're probably pretty aware of the possible risk.
I'm with the NYT on the grounds that the warrantless wiretaps are illegal. However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose. We've seen enough stuff that's *completely* unrelated to terrorism being pushed through while playing off fears of terrorism that I'd say that FOIA demands are going to get about as much traction as a demand to see McCarthy's list of communists during the height of his power.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
.....that the NYT is _out_of_touch_ with the american public.
I am *confident* that most americans don't mind people who are taking calls to and from the middle east are being monitored.
WE ARE AT WAR!!!
While I applaud this move, I doubt much will happen seeing as how this administration is one of the worst in terms of openness. Look at the energy deal Cheney brokered back before 9/11 (since that's always the reason for keeping things hush/hush), after a protracted suit but some enviromental agencies nothing came of it; denied by the courts even though there was precidence of more openness.
I know the attacks I'll face but look; 9/11, Katrina, the deficit, the protracted war in Iraq; do you really feel safer with what this government is doing? Does it seem like they're always prepared to serve OUR best interests? Call me an idealist, but come on, with all the crap that's gone down the American people DESERVE to know what's going on; the blind leading the blind routine is old, let's get an educated populus for our next election!
(of course the republican's scare tactics will be put on full force: 9/11, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, attacked on our shores, this post 9/11 world, defending the homeland, evildoers determined to do us harm, etc)
fak3r.com
Ok, now may we please see the links or the facts that back that statement up? Even if you don't have facts, you could at least try to link to conspiracy freak rumor sites.
It's a fascinating thing to see, the "you guys did it - or something superficially like it - so it's OK for my guys to do it" reaction.
Neither Clinton nor Carter "did the same thing." They used the FISA court to get warrants. This is public knowledge, so you can stop pretending it isn't, now.
..and, predictably, parent gets modded troll, even though it brings up a valid point about the double standard employed on a *daily* basis by the NYT. And, in the process, /.
So:
At least NYT isn't just making it up this time.
The real interesting bits would be if this FOIA request turned up something interesting, but I doubt it. Either the relevant documents will be classified ( and will remain so effectively indefinately ) or so heavily redacted they're useless. I'd hope something interesting would slip through.. but that doesn't seem likely.
A Human Right
when they start shooting at (or spying on) you.
Looks to me as if the Times has gotten under a few peoples skin - and not just Maureen O'Dowd for so accurately satarising Bush.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
The question stands....why is the Times willing to sue now, but not under those two administrations? The question is legitimate...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
How do you define 'the same thing' ?
Did Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton really do 'the same thing?'
I am pretty sure the technology didn't exist in the 1970's for 'the same thing' to be done.
Please explain.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton followed the law to spy on citizens.
Bush did not follow the FISA law and that's why this is a scandal.
Regardless of what happens NYT and when we see these pentagon papers when we're all 90 and don't give 2 shizts...Until then just waiting for 2008 and waiting to get atleast competent prez.
Was the calls by the NYT for investigation into the Valerie Plame leak for the purpose of prosecuting the leakers (even though the NYT aided and abetted the leak).
Then the NYT turns around and publishes information that is much more damaging to national security than the Plame case ever was. Hopefully there will be a grand jury investigation to put some of these NYT guys in jail. Last time I checked, releasing highly classified information is illegal, and the programs in question were classified for that rarity of reasons...actual national security. Not that it matters to the NYT when a juicy story is involved.
They didn't do the same thing! Bush was doing his spying without a warrant. Carter and Clinton both followed the guidelines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and their administrations went to the SECRET FISA court to get warrants for any surveillance that was being done. Duh-bya did not. He broke the law. Period. End of story. There was not a security threat in getting a warrant. It was a SECRET FUCKING COURT that he had to go to to get the warrant, but he didn't. Why? Who knows. Probably because this administration is so arrogant and ridiculous as to think the rules never apply to them. Of course, we the peopole have let them get away with just about everything sneaky and underhanded that they've done, so one can't really blame them for thinking that way.
And BTW, you neo-cons need to get a new rejoinder. the whole "but..but Clinton" thing is getting really fucking stale.
my pet machine
Interesting... that the bushbot response to Dear Leader's criminal bypass of FISA is to scream "them durned libruls did it, too!" Oh, and BTW - that talking point you've borrowed from Rush Limbaugh is (surprise, surprise) incorrect.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Evidence of Carter or Clinton ordering a warrantless wiretap? Clinton called for allowing warrantless searches, but that isn't what he did. Show some facts.
If you are going to get into past presidents, lets talk about who gave weapons and money to terrorists in Iran and Nicaragua, hmm?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Let's face it, the NSA has changed the way it spies, and is hesitant to explain that for two reasons.
First, they're probably spying on all of us. That is to say, they are probably just recording as much as humanly possible and then going back to review calls and other communications which their datamining and watch lists suggest have the highest probability of yielding results. They can't explain this to anyone, save for a few pliable Congressional reps, because the law says they're not supposed to do that first part without a warrant. I believe they started the program under the belief that if a tree falls in the woods, but nobody goes back to review the tape, then they weren't spying on the tree. The problem with this is that now we're getting even further away from this concept of Democracy our leaders spout off about when referring to the rest of the world. I know we've always been a representative democracy, but if we can't have transparency to the voters, it's really just a dictatorship by whomever presents the cleanest TV image.
Second, they don't want to explain how they're spying because any system is easy to circumvent when you know how that system works. Unfortunately, if you really believe in our system and our morals and our way of life, then you have to stand behind it and expect that it will hold up to a little transparency. Anyone who simply discards our rules as they see fit is, quite simply, un-American.
... Are doing something illegal. The government is responsible for protecting its citizens and making sure laws are being followed. (it is not to feed, clothe, or teach but that is a whole 'nother story). I am completely fine with government doing what is reasonably neccessary to protect me even if my phone conversation with my ji-had buddies is being listened in on. For once, someone has the balls to protect this country and the "civil rights" propronents want to bring it down. I know that we should have freedoms, but in a post 9-11 age, there is certain information that should not be released for the public to have. This is why we elect government officials. I love freedom, but I am willing to give some up if it means my wife and daughter are safer as a result. This happens all the time. I give up my right to go 100 mph on the interstate so that others are safe. We allow are personal items to be searched when we travel by plane. This is a privacy right we give up to ensure safety. So sue on NYT, and know that as a result we are all a little LESS safe.
Rant over.
Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=21387
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
This seems like a really bad idea, how much longer would WWII have lasted if we had been forced to reveal that we had cracked the Japanese codes, or we had successfully cracked the enigma machine? I still see nothing wrong with intercepting Internet, radio, telephone, telegraph, carrier-pigeon. smoke signal messages intercepted coming into this country. If the government really wants to monitor my E-mails between myself and friends in foreign countries I hope they enjoy the converstations about what is a better sport football or football. If you will excuse me I need to go crawl back under my rock now...
Shhhhhh!! You'll make Ollie North cry, and we just finally got him to go to sleep.
So the terrorists know that they're being spied upon, allowing them to be more surreptitious in their planning? I guess the NY Times is yearning for another 9/11 to fill the pages of their paper for a few weeks.
Got the message.
Thanks,
Pete
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
Bubba was busy saying that he didn't need warrants for PHYSICAL SEARCHES of US properties. Of course he was using the excuse of the drug war instead of something inconsequential like national security, but hey...
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
i hope NYT sticks it to the capitolist bastards. *evil laugh*
Menya zovut Shnur
"The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was being processed as quickly as possible..."
By "processing" I bet they meant shredding documents.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
..they're the ones with the news website that is mostly unusable without a privacy-shaving registration or BugMeNot.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Don't forget which president supported Saddam Hussein.
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Glad to see someone step and demand more openness from this administration. Circumventing established protocols with regard to obtaining warrants and violating Americans constitutional rights is a travesty. With this administration track record on disinformation to the American public and general incompetence. We need more information so we can judge accurately the actions of this administration. This is suppose to be a democracy. It is a shame that Congress has decided to waive its right to oversight on decisions to preserve a partisan line.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
The FISA process is broken, and all it takes is a libtard judge to block a FISA warrant to get something like Zacharias Moussaoui, who's picked up for immigration violations, is strongly suspected of having terrorist ties, but our agents are blocked from looking at his computer because of civil liberties concerns.
Anything less than a Reichstag-style rubber stamp court is as unacceptable as a media that isn't servile to the government.
Of course if you ask them to run some cartoons that are responsible for world-wide protest and violence they'll hem and haw and quake in their boots.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I sort-of get why the rest of these were covered on Slashdot. Not this one though.
Someone sues for info about an NSA operation. How is this news? Anyone can file suit for anything at any time.
How is this news for nerds? The NSA isn't spying on nerds, it's spying on terrorists and the people they contact.
How is this "Your Rights Online"? Is there a new right to be free from surveillance in wartime when you associate with the enemy? there never was before.
I wouldn't be so sure where you place your confidence.
We *the people* no longer trust Bush. If they gave us a reason to trust him with this or had shown ample trustworthy action in the past then maybe you would have a valid point....alas...
no.
...you have nothing to worry about. In the post 9/11 world, security is king. And sometimes that means giving up certain freedoms and rights temporarily. It's all for a good cause: to root out the terrorists. If you're on the right side of this fight, you have nothing to worry about because the government won't be looking in on what you do at all. They are more concerned about finding people who support the terrorists by dissenting with the Bush administration. We have nutjob liberal bloggers out there who are trying to take the wind out of Bush's sails by repeatedly publishing false information known to come from terrorist operatives like Truth Out, MoveOn.org, IndieMedia, and the ACLU. If we just let them run rampant and change people's opinions about the War on Terror, how can we succeed? These people need to be shutdown because every word they publish against our president and his staff if a word in favor of Al Queda, The Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and the like. I don't worry myself about being investigated because I say the right things and align myself with people of character. If you do the same, you don't have anything to worry about either. But if you spend time tearing down the hard work of George W. Bush or associate with enemy combatants (yes even bloggers who hate Bush qualify in my book), then maybe you should be looking over your shoulder and re-evaluating your position. The War on Terror includes a domestic War on Liberals in my mind. It's time to finally shut down liberal voices before they can damage the progress we've made in America these past six years.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Anything that drains cash from that tabloid works for me.
All that and they'll still lose!
Since the datamining tool that they are using is automated (e.g. supposedly correlated foreign phone calls with domestic callers) then just how many people are going to be listed?
:x
Can the DoD use the same excuse that google is giving it? that there is no easy way to deliver 10 million names (even you are probably 26 nodes down in the search tree) as it would be technologically unfeasable and reveal too much information about how and when and why they do thier searches.
Getting all that information out into the public might not be as trivial as doing a database dump.
The thing that worries me is that the secrecy has become its own form of protection. The same secrecy that may be allowing them to perform illegal acts in the name of "homeland security", may be enough to keep those acts from ever coming to light. It concerns me that the act of quietly destroying a very small amount of internal records now-- or the act of having simply failed to keep certain records in the first place-- would allow the executive (someday once the courts finally get around to forcing them to expose their activities to public scrutiny) to eradicate all trace of certain illegal activities they have performed and then say "yes, we've handed over everything".
The amount of effort required to achieve this would be so minimal that the word "cover-up" would not really even be applicable; it's just, certain critical things would simply never come to light.
We would all of course hope that our elected officials and security agencies would not perform actions like this-- but, of course, this is the exact problem in the first place. We can only hope. A system where we must hope that the government will be subject to the rule of law is useless, what we need is a system where we know that the government will be subject to the rule of law because there are safeguards and oversights in place to keep people accountable for their actions.
So...what gives NYT the right to see a list which may have my name on it? If the government has already violated my right to privacy wouldn't giving my name to NYT be violating it again? But that's supposed to be ok? And the NYT has never had photographers or reporters violate the rights of a private citizen in the name of a good story? I find that hard to believe.
The way I see it, the only people that have a right to see the list are the people on the list. Even then, they should only be allowed to see information relating to them.
Don't confuse the two. These wiretaps aren't being used by the administration directly, as with that cheater Nixon. There's a reason we voted for these guys, even if 'we' doesn't include Slashdot or the NYT. We're getting democracy, there are still 500+ representatives on Congress who could have stopped this in the last decade, if we had voted that way.
As for freedom, there should always be a balance. We're on of the free-est societies in history. We can't get arrested for no reason, as in the UK, and we don't have judges arbitrarily ruling cases, as in France, and we don't have a legislature that can overrule the constitution at any time - as in virtually every other democracy.
We whine about wiretaps, and that's healthy. But this is still just whining while we're at war. Our vaunted forefathers did much worse (Lincoln, FDR, Wilson). The things you can get away with in this country under the guise of freedom is more than enough.
I agree the rules can't just be ignored, but this process for monitoring for national security is a huge gray area. A lot of people have gotten into the habit of calling everyone they don't agree with liars and crooks - when they have no evidence. NYT is one of them.
Let's review ...
We are at war.
We are at war with a stateless foe that moves from place to place easily.
We are at war with a foe that uses modern communications technologies to do their damage.
The NSA is tracking calls from this foe. This foe calls American phone numbers, and in some cases, American citizens.
With that in mind...will some of you learned people please tell me why it was good for FDR to monitor communications between Nazi and Imperial Japanese intelligence, and their assets here? All without a warrant, simply because wartime national security took precedence? And why can't Bush do the same?
As for the Times...yet again, the fourth estate has become a fifth column.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
You just linked FrontPage Magazine. You might as well link NewsMax for improved credibility.
Neverminding the fact that the New York Times is supposed to report news, not make it. How's that for objective journalism?
You mean "We the People of SlashBot"
... when the politician does the RIGHT THING he's often not re-elected -- Take ROTH for example -- the brilliant Public Servant that brought us the Roth IRA. Not Re-elected -- why? because he did the RIGHT THING.
... hence Polls really mean Jack Sh*t
An interesting fact about american politcs
I think that Bush's Low approval ratings Showcase that He's doing the RIGHT THING.
remember it's a republic of representatives not a pure democracy
US intelligence has stepped out of its role of supposedly defending the US, to taking an active, partisan role in US politics. In fact, the beginnings of the FBI were in the first red scare right after the Russian Revolution, the FBI was created with this political police role.
Another thing I hear on TV is how the Church committee tied the arms of the intelligence community in the 1970s. It tied it because "former" CIA agents like E. Howard Hunt were caught in the Watergate trying to wiretap the Democrats phone lines, they tied it because the intelligence community was not only illegally domestically spying in a partisan political manner, it was actively involved in trying to disrupt political groups. Even after these supposed controls were put on, it seemed like this did little good in the 1980s when these big brother institutions came out once again against anyone opposed to US intervention in Central America. The FBI were spying on nuns who were unhappy that teh Archbishop of El Salvador was killed, as well as four nuns who were raped, tortured and killed in El Salvador as well, with most evidence pointing towards military involvement, a military Reagan was supporting. When the lawsuits, FOIAs etc. flew about, it was even found that FBI agents and informants were discussing trying to seduce the US nuns against sending military supplies down there. This is after the "shackles" of the Church committee, which have been lifted and then some by the PATRIOT act.
Which doesn't even get into the question of why the US needs "defending". Everything the US does worldwide is called "defense". Farmers in western Nepal are fighting their landlords and the Nepal dictator who just abolished Congress - the US is sending rifles to the dictator so he can put down this rebellion (along with other countries like France). About half of all military spending worldwide is by the US. If the US can't leave alone farmers in western Nepal who are rebelling against their landlords and the dictator due to their maltreatment, can it be surprised some people somewhere in the world are unhappy with this? Osama Bin Laden stated long before 9/11 his unhappiness with US troops in Saudi Arabia (another dictatorship), in his eyes he saw himself as a defender of his home country, and the US as the attacker, and it seems pretty clear to me who drew first blood. The US will always be under threat as long as it seeks an empire. Just take the UK as an example - after decades, the IRA finally gave up military attacks in England because they were willing to accept a political solution offered - and as soon as that happened subways in London began exploding again due to British troops in Iraq. I think the forces of Halliburton, ExxonMobil and so forth are moving of their own accord, and only a great deal of effort can truly secure the US, by preventing this worldwide intervention.
So Jimmy Carter was our Best President EVER!!!!
Can the DoD use the same excuse that google is giving it?
Seeing how well that excuse is working out, I highly doubt it.
Getting all that information out into the public might not be as trivial as doing a database dump.
If there is indeed so much information that merely disseminating it is an unworkable proposition, that alone is enough of an indictment on the wholesale breach of privacy the current administration is indulging in.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
...However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose....
Agreed. There are national security exceptions to the FOIA, and I would be real surprised if the DoD didn't refuse to provide a lot of the data based on those exceptions.
It's been pointed out, repeatedly, that the parent is rightfully getting modded troll because the "facts" he brought up are provably wrong, and posted without any evidence.
I don't care if you're liberal or conservative; if you have to lie to support your position, it's time to reassess your position.
Please provide links for FDR's domestic spying program. I'm not sure anyone has heard of this before now.
I heard this news on my local TV station at least 7 hours ago. Digg has it, too. Is /. becoming behind the curve?
you asked for it
Here's the applicable quote: In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
What the author (and it doesn't surprise me, since this is the CATO Institute) fails to mention is that the searches referred to are specifically of foreigners on foreign soil, not American citizens on U.S. soil.
I know this is a common preception on slashdot but at least get all the facts.
;)
The "Administration" does not or has ever had absolute control over every agency or every government employee. Except in cases of security, they are afforded the same rights as every other citizen, free speech. Also keep in mind, this is the government. Goverment employees are known for their general apethetic tone towards their job. Its far more likely, no one read it and it was thrown away or used it as toilet paper (since its about the same quality). its going nowhere fast no matter who is in office. Its the actual people working in each department you should be questioning.
Its easy to pull together facts given a pre-conceived notion about someone else's actions and paint a picture of what you want it all to mean. I hope you are better than that. But then again, this is slashdot
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Have you taken a gander at the people they polled?
http://newsbusters.org/node/4206
Amazing, isn't it?
And Reagan? With his high approval ratings, he must have totally sucked ass!
I wonder if the NYT will publish a front-page story when the vigilante assaults start against the people on the list after they make it public...and of course they will publish it, why else would they be asking for it? Unless perhaps they plan to set up their own illegal surveill---er, "investigative journalism", hoping for a scoop.
Ahh, see I just read google's official response to the DoJ request [shamelessly taken from this comment on the story you linked], it seems to outline technological and business concerns, not privacy ones.
Paraphrasing the five points about why they are rejecting the request: 1/ Trust searchers have in google, 2/ search records wont actually tell whether or not the infomation is harmful 3/ the request results would return information about proprietary google search algorithms 4/ 'undue burden' on google to return the results due to 'system architecture'.
What I was talking about are points 3. and 4. above: the search/correlation algorithms used by the data mining tools and heck even the data that they are collecting itself isn't exaclty known and how much data and how/where it is stored is also not something that the DoD is going to be releasing.
I wasn't talking about the "wholesale breach of privacy", but rather that using automated tools (like google's spider) you get queried data that might not be authorized (i.e. when the spider index'es a page with a malformed robots.txt) but due to the bulk of the data being collected and cross referenced, it has to be automated. it is just the nature of using automated tools.
Heh, You got THAT right! How can they possibly try the man(Saddam) without calling on the entire Reagan cabinet? Same goes for Pinoche while he was being held. He was a nobody until the Americans put him in power. Neither of these guys would have gotten anywhere on their own. Saddam's trial is indeed a farce. In fact this whole "terrorism" excuse is a farce. However, the election of 2004 proved that 99% doesn't give a damn. It's pretty obvious that the name of game is delay, delay, delay in order to give the DoD time to doctor..er...I mean "process" the papers.
What?
Once again, ignorance outweighs intelligence 10 to 1 on Slashdot. The Old York Times is a business, do you really think they are standing up for the freedom of information? This is both publicity and a story, that's it. Let's think through their request logically:
1. Old York Times obtains list
2. Old York Times publishes list
3. Old York Times gets their headline and publicity
4. Suspected terrorist in America reads list and sees his or her name on it
5. Suspected terrorist goes underground
6. American government looses an opportunity to rid its people of a dangerous threat to their safety
7. National security is compromised
The government lost New York Times Co. v. U.S. because there was no substantial proof to support the need for prior restraint. In today's case, national security is the heavy burden of proof needed for the government to exercise their right to prior restraint.
Being a member of the media myself, I can truly say that this industry is in a sad state. It will put national security at risk for a headline story. How pitiful is that?
and Bush I and Bush II
. . . for doing more to ensure Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in 2006 than any other organization after the DNC.
What?
The unwarranted wire taps are illegal and not necessary. Not one, NOT ONE of the hijackers on 9/11 slipped through our intelligence gathering because we were unable to get a warrant to monitor their communications. They have special courts on call 24/7 that can issue these warrants in almost no time. The whole excuse about not being able to get warrants is a joke.
You sir (the OP) deserve neither liberty or freedom.
I don't like Bush bashing either, but I sure hope you're not defending this illegal spying, regardless of what administration it happened under. The whole country needs to have a revolution or elect somebody that can start one. I doubt it will happen until Jesus is as rich as John Kerry and he starts taking bribes from corporations, then maybe we'll have a break in the heart swollowing sadness that is consuming me and many others.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
The "Administration"
The "Administration" is in charge of the Executive branch of the government, and as such, is in charge of all various branches of the bureaucracy used to carry out the laws created by the Legislative branch.
Furthermore, George W Bush, as President of the United States also carries another title you might have heard: "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces". Bearing this title makes the President specifically the top person for the military forces, and in this capacity, specifically the top person of the DoD.
If the "Administration" is incapable of managing all of this bureaucracy, then major consideration should be given to cutting the government down to levels that it can manage properly.
OK, on my spamgourmet.com account, I signed up one time by mistake with a disposable email address to read an NYT article.
This was April 1, 2005 @ 9:50 AM, less than one year ago.
I have had to date, 364 spams sent to me at that address, above and beyond mortgage scams and porn sites that I have given disposable addresses to.
So, I'm glad NYT is caring about privacy today.
I will not read the NYT article.
That may be true, but not in the way you mean. The NSA is apparently scouring records to see who communicates with suspected terrorists. They aren't listening in to random conversations. There's no point to it. It would be a waste of manpower, utterly fruitless, and do nothing but make everybody mad, and rightly so.
Knowing this, people in the media keep using the words "wiretapping" and "spying", to conjure images of men in unmarked vans. It's nothing but political opportunism.
The whole point is to find out who to watch, to make it worthwhile to investigate further. They're just grepping logs.
The NYT won't be satisfied until there's another major attack. Then they can point fingers some more, saying how ineffective the President was. That will sell newspapers, and their obsolete medium will last a little longer. I'm not sure which one motivates them more.
sigs, as if you care.
The United States has been at war (declared or not) with somebody, somewhere in the world, for every single year of the past 100 years. That's 100 years of perpetual war. Moreover, the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, not only in revenue and military dominance around the world, but power over the US people. Note that neither the Republicans or the Democrats have dominated by themselves over this period -- they have dominated together.
My point is that if you want to outline the wrongdoings of US presidents, without playing favorites to anybody, then you're going to have to write a book.
Don't forget the Patriot Act. The only thing that has kept abuses of the Patriot Act down is that it all is not permenant. Watch out if the Senate votes to make it permanant today or tomorrow. Renewing the Un-Patriot Act is the wrong thing to do! the Patriot Act is Bad for Internet Users -- Kill it! "the Patriot Act affects anyone using the Internet and everyone reading this Web page now. That means the Patriot Act affects you! And that means the Patriot Act is bad for you if you value your privacy, your freedom, or your liberty!"
Lacy Peterson is still dead...Here we have Jeraldo Rivera looking through Scott Peterson's garbage...
Michael Jackson looks like a freak...and is under trial for something...
We just heard word that somewhere, a white girl is missing...
And, oh yeah, democrats are trying to interfere with George W. Bush's War on Terror.
Why the hell would it? It should be a FOI Act request. What the paper should be busy spending its time doing is finding out where the leak came from and who was stupid enough to act as a trator to the country.
But wait, I'm sorry, there's a Republican in office, so everything Bush does is wrong and anything done to take him down is given a pass, even if it's illegal and puts the country in danger. How silly of me.
--
Liberals want murders acquitted and innocent babies killed. What a bunch of fucktards.
Let's see, the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretap story for over a year (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor yId=5058710) and now they're complaining that the USG isn't responding to the NYT's FOIA request quickly enough, after only a 2 month delay?
, http://www.npr.org/search.php?text=electronic+priv acy+information+center%2C+rotenberg&sort=DREDATE%3 Anumberdecreasing&aggId=0&prgId=3&topicId=0&how_lo ng_ago=0
This is a load of bull. Not only that, but it's another example of the NYT's new spineless paradigm of roller-coaster reporting. They'll do something undeniably bad -- like publish "reporting" from Jayson Blair or Judy Miller, or sit on a huge story for a year. Then they'll attempt to swerve back the other direction -- Judy Miller is a First Amendment heroine, not a tool of the President! -- don't think of us as burying a story that could've affected the 2004 election, think of us as rebels pushing for information through FOIA!
So the NYT is paying some lawyers to sue in one FOIA case. So what? Wake me up when NYT has some accurate, significant news to report.
Til then, save your privacy accolades for organizations that fight *tirelessly* for such things, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org/). You might note that EPIC filed their FOIA request for NSA documents earlier than the NYT last December (more evidence that the NYT is pussy-footing around), and filed suit in January for the USG's noncompliance with FOIA. Before the NYT ever annnounced their PR stunt FOIA lawsuit, EPIC had already received favorable rulings in court -- http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsa/foia/default.html
ur mamma's at war, lol
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
The "War on Terror" is akin to the "War on Drugs". It's a PR campaign, the US is not currently at war as there has been no declaration of war.
And I don't personally protest the ability of the US Government to gather information on perceived threats. I do worry about the ability to abuse this program if it does not have proper oversight. That's all I've been hearing from US citizens concerned about this program.
I appreciate your concern for your family and country but I worry that you are reacting on the grounds of irrational fear. More citizens have been lost as a result of our reaction to terrorist attacks on the US than the actual attacks. Its something to think over...which is worse?
The ones who fear government are the ones who FOUNDED this country.
The Constitution of the United States was specifically fashioned in the still-fresh memory of the abuse of absolute authority. It was crafted in such a manner which affirms the inherent distrust the Founding Fathers had of a powerful, opaque government unaccountable to the people.
Freedom is for the brave. The sacrificing of freedom for security is for craven cowards who aren't worthy to look at the flag or prosper under the protections this country provides. Freedom is a risk but a risk worth taking as the Founding Fathers well knew.
You know what you don't want to admit? That NOTHING changed after 9/11... except that the utter cowardice that so-called "mainstream" America languishes under on a daily basis was revealed.
Please let the real men, women, and children with fortitude, courage, and gratitude for those noble principles of freedom speak for themselves. If you wish to sacrifice your freedoms for your own safety that is your own business, but ours are not bought so cheaply. Benjamin Franklin, one of the illustrious statesmen who were so vital to our nascent republic had something pretty vitriolic to say about people like yourselves as others have noted, so I won't repeat that truth here.
I guess this explains it...
You left wing nutjobs are incredible! You blew a fuse after 9-11 and said Bush did nothing to stop it. Now he's doing something and you're ticked off that he is. Get your friggin story straight and pull your head out of your fourth point of contact. Where is your plan to make us safe? Put your heads back up your ass where they have been for the past 50 years? During the Clinton administration we were attacked numerous times, what did we do? I feel your pain is what we got! Screw that! Do something to keep us safe and quit feeling our pain and your interns. Liberals don't have a plan and never will have a plan for national defense! They are weak spineless retards. How's that for spewin?
Both NYTs and Slashdot (likely out of inattention) shows their basis right in the headline with the use of the word domestic.
I don't think most Americans would consider a phone call from overseas to a number in the US to be domestic. It's an international call and an international spying program.
Yeay. Hooray for the NY Times. They stole top secret information and gave it to terrorists Now terrorists know how to avoid getting caught. Way to go.
But at least out rights are protected. Until the terrorists use their new knowledge to succeed in an attack again.
Do you really think that "your rights online" will be safer after that happens (presuming you're still alive after the attack)? How did it work out last time?
will some of you learned people please tell me why it was good for FDR to monitor communications between Nazi and Imperial Japanese intelligence, and their assets here?...And why can't Bush do the same?
Assuming this happened, and assuming it was in fact good, there is still a pretty crucial difference that explains why Americans should not allow Bush to do the same. We were at war with Japan and Germany back then. We are not currently at war with anybody except Iraq. If this program was aimed at monitoring "domestic assets" attached to the Iraq insurgency, I would have less qualms about it. It is not. It is aimed at monitoring "domestic assets" of terrorists". We have already seen multiple examples of the term terrorist being misapplied to non-terrorist individuals, in order to take advantage of the lowered protections or harsher penalties associated with a terror crime. So, since drug dealers can now be charged as terrorists, my phone call to my brother who deals drugs in Canada can now be monitored under this program.*
Additionally, we knew WWII was over when Japan surrendered. When will the War on Terror end? Probably right after the War on Drugs... So, it is BAD for the government to assume additional powers against certain individuals when A) these individuals are NOT clearly defined, and often seem to simply be whoever law enforcement says they are, and B) the time period for these "temporary" measures is equally as fuzzy.
And if you don't buy that argument, how about the fact that when FDR did it, our duly appointed representatives in Congress had not yet laid down the explicit guidelines for how such behavior was to be gone about, so FDR wasn't going outside of those guidelines. Bush & company have specific guidelines saying "If you want to do this, you must do it in this manner." They did not do it in that manner, but instead said that these rules do not apply to them. It is a bad precendent to allow the President to decide which rules apply to him and which do not.
* My brother does not deal drugs in Canada.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
In the absence of mod points - I have to say - most excellent post!
with the NSA spying on Americans without a warrant...would you feel the same if the president in charge was Hillary Clinton? Even if you really get warm fuzzies thinking that Bush is only doing his best to protect us in a war, the War on Terrorism® will NOT be over at the end of his term. With the approval ratings looking as they are, it seems very possible that a Democrat will be in the White House again in 2008- will you want them to have this same power? Do you trust them to use it as judiciously as you trust Bush to? Remember, precedents stick around much longer than presidents
What are they hiding? What are they afraid of? Whatcouldthey be doing that requires such secrecy (hidden even from a secret court..!)?
It looks more and more that for the US governement the enemy might be "within", a.k.a. : the citizen.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I Will not sacrifice my rights for a false sense of security, being an atheist i'm already persecuted enough
/.'s MRCs?)
And as a Christian, I agree with you 100%.
Bush would have called Franklin a left wing nut job.
("Convect? WTF happened to
See, I knew information wanted to be free!
THANK YOU, New York Times, for suing the U.S. Government to make them have to say who they're spying on. You are sooo brave and smart and we love you sooo much. Oh, and who are you investigating right now?
Universal untargeted surveillance is still surveillance. No manpower is involved until the machine algorithms determine which individuals to target. Bush has already made it clear in his belief the courts are irrelevant in determining who these targets are. How much further from the Constitution does your country need to travel before you realize it's nothing to do with hats?
Sure, if we were in Syria or something. But in America the judicial branch of government (ya know, the people who will handle the case) is not the same as the executive branch (ya know, where the NSA resides within the bureaucracy) and they are often at odds with each other in their competition for power.
And, don't even bring up the point that a majority of members on the Supreme Court are Republicans. Seriously, take a civics class.
Go back to fark.com.
This place is too much for you.
8. Old York Times reports that government has trouble tracking terrorists.
It's the best of all worlds for them. Win or lose, they get to report how they make the news and they get to write follow-up stories on their efforts.
Hi Mr. Reagan. I'm glad you're dead. Primarily becasue 9/11 was *the* culmination of your legacy. I hope you're having fun burning in hell, you treasonous cowardly scumbag.
It might not be that the Bush administration was just being arrogant when it decided that it would break the law and ignore the FISA court. This is admittedly speculation and might turn out to be untrue but I for one wouldn't be too shocked to learn that they used the NSA to spy on ALL SORTS of people and corporations for political and monetary purposes. It's obvious that they NEVER thought this information would be leaked so who knows on who they've spied on for what reason. Rememeber the story of the humble farmer who found a ring that makes him invisible? Unchecked power can corrupt anyone, ANYONE! Politicians are not particularly honest people to begin with.
Several of the targets were *not* related in any way to foreign nationals. Several of the targets were anti-war protestors, or other who have vocally and publicly stated opposition to the war in Iraq.
The number of "leads" generated by the NSA as a direct result of this operation has in fact reduced the efficiency of real investigations, as it has been burdensome to the FBI and others. Basically, they're getting deluged with requests to investigate people such as George Main and others like him have been the target of the domestic spying operation.
You ignore this at peril to your own liberty.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It will put national security at risk for a headline story.
Amen, Brother!
The terrorists hate our freedom. The only way to stop them is by giving up our freedoms willingly! Thank God there are more people like you and George Bush who realize this!
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If I were a New York Times reporter I would be watching my back right now, you never know what sort of accidents are awaiting!
The problem with the current way of doing things is that all these sorts of arguments are now inherently circular. It could be just as you say. But since we don't know who's being wiretapped, it could just as well be:
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but without any other data how can you claim that one is correct and the other false? They both fit the known facts, both have historical antecedents, and both have a considerable number of people who believe them. Neither is intrinsically more or less plausible.
The whole process with allowing "you'll have to just take our word for it" is that, once you allow it as a permissible response, your entire system is now suspect. That's why we don't allow it in science, and that's why we don't allow it in banks. The parts of the internet that cause the greatest problems all share one feature--somewhere in their design, they accepted "you just have to take my word for it" as a valid response.
Knowing this at some level, most reasonable people have a intrinsic distrust of anyone who's only answer to a challenge is "Trust me!"--if you have good and valid reasons for what you are doing, you should be able to state them clearly to your employers (in this case, the American public). If you can't explain to your boss why it looks like you are doing something that seems suspicious without a lot of hand waving boiling down to "you'll just have to take my word for it" there's a good chance you're up to no good.
--MarkusQ
The multinational corporations have bought and paid for the Republicans and the Democrats. I plan on splitting my vote between the Greens and the Libertarians, and I urge everyone else to do the same. I don't care who you vote for, I just hope you don't vote Republican or Democrat.
If McCain or Clinton runs, well, I may change my mind. I hate Hillary; she's the single biggest reason we don't have universal health care like the rest of the civilized world does. My best friend died in 1993 for lack of insurance.
And McCain at least gives lip service to the problems of a bought and paid for "democracy."
If you don't vote, you're not considered as being "against both," you're seen as apathetic. Rather than staying home, vote for a sure loser.
(MRC="memorial")
The beauty of this plan is that Terrorists already boycott the NYT because it's run by jews. They'll never see their names printed!
I was about to write pretty much the same thing. Only not as eloquently.
The question is, can documents indicating the president ordered illegal activity properly be classified? This is round one. Round two is when the NYT makes the legal staff of the DOD go before a judge and explain why things that weren't released, weren't released. With a straight face. Of course, the DOD and DOJ get to make motions about this sort of thing before the judge without the NYT getting to hear or argue specifics... but the judge isn't guaranteed to agree with the DOD. At which point the appeals start, from either side. And if the appeals judges are pissed enough, this might hit SCOTUS level before Bush leaves anyway in 2008. Or it might not.
While it's not likely to suceed, it has a better chance than anything else the NYT can try at this point. And it at least sells papers. =)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
This is just my 0.02$, but if someone wanted to kill a large number of people they are going to have the means to do it. Hell, if I wanted to go out in style I could drive my car around town GTA3 until they finally got me. You CANNOT claim that 911 was the government's fault. They failed to stop it, but the chances of them stopping a well planned terrorist attack are not good.
Look at Iraq and Israel as an example. These countries are as ready as they'll ever be but there's just nothing you can do against another Mohammed with a lit fuse. So I'd have to agree that this spying accomplishes little with our freedom as the price.
The FISA system may be imperfect, but that is justification for changing the law, not throwing away everybody's fourth amendment rights. FISA deficiencies certainly don't justify upsetting the balance of power between the branches of our government, or justify giving the Police and the President a blank check to simply spy on any citizen they want, for any reason they want, any time they want, with no independent oversight of any kind. We're told "protections are in place" to prevent abuses in the program, but we aren't told what safeguards exist, or who is enforcing them. Without answers to these fundamental questions, Americans are simply left to "trust the government" that their rights aren't being trampled to death quietly.
My skepticism over how "broken" FISA is stems from the fact that Bush and company have had four years since 9/11 to suggest and push for reforms to the act, but have failed to do so. They have instead simply opted to sidestep judicial review, relying on the fear of the vox populi to drown out any "pesky" civil libertarians who might want to see American citizens accused of crimes protected by the Constitution.
The simple fact is they didn't push to change FISA because this spying program is only ostensibly about national security. In actuality it is about transforming the office of the executive, from being one of three equals to the supreme power of the land, able to trump any law desired during "war" (and, conveniently, we're told the current "war" could last fifty years or more.) This is a radical and dangerous redefinition of executive authority, a total departure from the traditional "limited executive" that Republicans have insisted upon for the last two centuries or so--A departure towards powers more appropriate to "El Presidente de Nicaragua" than the President of the United States.
Who did what now?
I love freedom, but I am willing to give some up if it means my wife and daughter are safer as a result.
Move to the U.K. then if you prefer safety over freedom. There you have no permanent rights, the government spies on you constantly, and yet your still not that safe.
Ya know, plenty of people said that during the Revolution... They were Torries!
-FL
Or even worse, it might go nowhere slowly!
See, I'm still of the general belief that elements of the government bombed itself using dupe agents. I've seen exactly no evidence of any weight whatsoever to say otherwise, whereas there is a ton of evidence and sound reason telling us that the official story is full of gaping holes.
If that's the case, then this whole, "We are at war," claim is total misdirection aimed at keeping us from stringing up the criminals in office.
But it is fair to ask first, and I am curious, why is it that you believe in the Televised version of events? Have you simply done no real research, or do you have a solid reason for thinking that the events you've been told happened did so as described? I mean, it's the Pentagon which is relaying the blow by blow to the news casters, (more than 90% of the data about the war comes from government press releases), and we know they're a bunch of liars. So, logically, one would assume. . .
-FL
Look, if you think it's all an elaborate fraud, then nothing I can say is going to convince you otherwise. I believe the accepted version of events, and support the efforts to go after any and all people related to that event. I believe in what we're doing. You don't. We'll just have to part ways on that.
Well, Osama fessing up to it kind of colors my thinking on the whole deal... and I don't believe in large goverment conspiracies anymore, mainly because of three things...
Glad to hear your thoughts on that...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The sad part is, it used to be a fine paper. Then it started getting more and more biased, and substituting some oddball theory of compensating biases for investigative reporting, as if finding the objective truth wasn't as important as presenting both major brands of half-truth. They aren't alone in this, but it's more disappointing coming from them than from a paper that was never any good.
--MarkusQ
I've been a subscriber for years now and the New York Times continues to impress me. What newspapers have the balls to to take on the Bush administration the way the NYT is doing so? Many newspapers passivly report on the information that falls into their lap. The New York Times goes to hell and back to seek out the truth.
However their does lawsuit raise questions about the press's place to make news rather than just report it.
Regardless... I think they're doing a great job and hope they're able to get the information they want.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Mod parent up? For what? +5 Stupid?
Ben Franklin was quoted:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
Sounds like a terr'rist to me.
There was an Authorization for Use of Military Force. There's no practical difference.
Whoa there cowboy, you are flat out wrong in that. A declaration of war means all sort of international treaties get invoked, including conventions about the treatment of enemy combatants. If you don't declare war, you can do pretty much what you like. Thats why the US hasn't been officially at war with anyone since, what, Vietnam? Was that even an official war? Or just an intervention of some sort? If you want to open concentration camps without breaking international treaties, just don't declare war. Simple really.
Still you can take a stagnant sort of comfort in the fact that governments around the world pull this sort of stunt all the time, so you're in good company. Things like not declaring certain situations in Africa "genocide", and therefore avoiding the protocols that kick in requiring intervention, and avoiding getting stuck in an unprofitable struggle. I mean, where's the profit in stopping slaughter?
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
You blew a fuse after 9-11 and said Bush did nothing to stop it.
What would you call sitting on your butt for 20 minutes while the nation was under attack? He had a former Secretary of Defense in Cheney and a two time Secretary of Defense in Rumsfeld. He also might have herd of this little organization called NORAD. That he didn't make a call to one of those three, or even tell his staff to "make the call", is simply indefensible.
Now he's doing something and you're ticked off that he is.
Because A) it's illegal B) unesessary and C) what's the point of warrantless spying, endless dententions and searching library records when they don't even know an Arab company has bought six ports in the U.S.?
During the Clinton administration we were attacked numerous times, what did we do?
It is possible to make something a priority without stomping on civil rights, engaging in rampant jinoism, or invading random countries. Clinton officials made anti-terrorism a priority his last years in office. Despite getting a lot of power and running two elections on it, the Bush Administration still has collasal, inexcusable failures like Katrina and the current port scandal.
I have to check this assertion every time it comes up: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170322&cid =14237821...
Take it for what you will
The short version is
Don't take this excerpt to mean that you (or others) shouldn't take the time to explore the issue/meme completely:
(from http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.ht ml)
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
> This is why we elect government officials. I love freedom, but I am willing to give some up if it means my wife and daughter are safer as a result.
d =14824868
I've replied to this point of view here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=178785&ci
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
You can find a primer on it here.
The role of "Chemical Ali" is well known. He seems capable of it, if "modest":
Human Rights Watch covers it.
The Telegraph has done a series of stories: here, here, and here:
The Christian Science Monitor did this story:
Although a part of the defense establishment didn't believe it for a time, the State Department apparently didn't get the word even in 2001.
This site has photos.
Why this should be hard to believe when Iraq was actively using chemical weapons against the Iranians at the time, and more and more mass graves with thousands of bodies from simple mass murder each are turning up in Iraq, I'll neven know.
Saddam's government apparently even killed as many as 61,000 just in Baghdad alone.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
..about the memorial of all the "victums" of 9/11. The displays were all of how they were outstanding individuals, loving fathers, caring mothers, etc. Surely _some_ of them were assholes! - I forget what standup comedian had that in their act.
I'm not dancing on their grave, saying the government is evil, but the layer of false patriotism and portrayal they were "fighting the good fight" is bullshit. Some of them didn't agree with what "the goverment" was doing any more than others who disagree.
Fair enough. But at the risk of boring you. . .
Well, Osama fessing up to it kind of colors my thinking on the whole deal...
The problem is that you are again assuming that the secret services are telling you the truth. There's plenty of question surrounding the authenticity of the various tapes and recordings of Osama. In particular, on that website, (half-way down) look at the series of images of Osama and read the accompanying notes.
I have little doubt that Osama was involved, but the fact that he was a CIA asset causes me to think that the U.S. secret services were involved or at least aware of his activities and deliberately allowed him to proceed.
I don't believe in large goverment conspiracies anymore, mainly because of three things...
* Government secrets are the shortest lived secrets of all
* The larger an organization is, the harder it is to cover things up
* I simply don't think human beings as a group are competent enough to pull off that large and elaborate a hoax
Ah, this is the meat of the matter. I've heard these arguments before, and no offense to you, but they are flawed.
First of all, you are right; big secrets CAN'T be kept very well. There are leaks all over the place, as we see regularly. The thing is, most people refuse to look at those leaks. They look at network news, (which has a vested interest in lying; the CIA has boasted that during WWII, it owned every major human asset in the media, and the major media outlets have admitted to having proudly played right along with them. To think that this system has changed makes little sense. I know people in the media who have had their stories squashed for going against the party line. It happens all the time.)
The fact is that even with all the leaks, people have been conditioned to ignore discordant data and assume that, "Governments Can't Keep Secrets" and think therefore that they do not keep secrets. This is circular logic.
As for people not being smart enough to pull of a giant hoax. . . Sure they are! The Manhattan Project is a great example of a giant, well orchestrated government secret. It had leaks, I am sure, but for the most part, the world was stunned into silence when Japan had two of its cities vaporized. Of course, Bush might not personally be so capable of planning anything, but Bush is also a chimp on a string. He's just a dumb face and by no means the brains of his outfit.
To not believe in conspiracies is irrational. You might just as well say, "I do not believe in corruption." Same thing. Particularly when those keeping the secrets are either a) scared for their lives, or b) greedy bastards who have a vested interest in keeping things quiet.
That's all. Do as you will.
-FL
Coming from an administration that took 411 days to set up a Public Inquiry into 9/11
And who spent less money investigating 9/11 than was spent on investigating Clinton's blowjobs by something like a factor of ten. (I believe it's $50M investigating fellatio and $5M investigating 3,000+ counts of murder)
<rant on=true>
Since we're on the topic of 9/11, go to www.fbi.gov and look at the most wanted list. Look at Osama Bin Laden's profile. Note the curious absence of any specific mention of 9/11. Weird, huh? (Even weirder: watch the original video of Bin Laden which was released first. Examine his face. Notice his jewelry. Realize that in the video, he is writing a note with his right hand. Bin Laden is hard-line Islamic and NEVER wears jewelry, and is according to the FBI's website, left-handed. The man in the video is not Bin Laden. We've been set up. Weird huh?)
I hate to take this conversation in an unintended direction, but I'm sorry, I think it's necessary. The crime scene evidence was shipped overseas to China immediately to be melted down into new steel. The purported cause of the buildings' collapse was "internal fires" marking the first time buildings have ever collapsed due to internal fires in the history of skyscrapers (and we've had some twenty-plus hour fifteen-plus storey fires in that history), not to mention that the fires could not have been hot enough, fueled by atmospheric gases under atmospheric pressures in order to generate enough heat to melt steel, period. Popular Mechanics put out an article "debunking" the conspiracy theories. You know who wrote that article? The cousin of the head of the Department of Homeland Security (Michael Chertoff). One month before the attacks, the owner of the twin towers took out a multi-billion dollar insurance policy on the towers and has recently cashed in on it, TWICE, because 2 airplanes = 2 acts of terrorism. 9 of the 19 supposed hijackers have been found alive elsewhere in the world, mostly in Arab countries.
I'm going to tell you now why we didn't investigate 9/11 until it was too late: Because it was, yes, a great terrorist attack, but it was an attack orchestrated by Americans, Americans who knew that if they had enough time to clean things up, they could point the finger wherever they wanted with no questions asked. Who benefits from all this, though? Anyone who has a contract to rebuild Afghanistan or Iraq, anyone who can cash in on a multi-billion dollar insurance policy, anyone who has a vested interest in us having a reliable supply of energy in the years to come. Anyone who thinks their way is the only "right" way to do things and would force their ways on others. ("We don't like your government, you need democracy!") In other words, anyone in the current administration.
</rant>
Sorry, 9/11 is a touchy topic with me.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.