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.'"
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
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.
"you seem to forget the whole airplanes crashing into buildings."
...
And you seem to forget you can't declare war on an idea. A formal declaration of war means cessation of trading, recalling foreign diplomats, sending troops to defeat a foreign power and occupy.
You got the last part down, but last I checked YOU STILL HAVE A SAUDI EMBASSY IN THE STATES.
Oh yeah, where did the 9/11 "terrorists" come from? Iraq? Afghanistan?
You really need to stop watching Fox News.
tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Those who fear the government... Are doing something illegal.
What about those who fear, and have been proven correct repeatedly that individuals within the government are the ones doing something illegal? What is it about the government that makes you think anyone elected or assigned to a post within it should immediately be able to commit crimes?
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.
And you can provide what assurances that this what they are doing instead of illegally spying on political opponents and blackmailing other government officials as has happened every other time a government agency has lost transparency?
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.
What makes you think your family is any safer? They are already about as likely to die by accidentally drowning in a bucket as by being killed by terrorists. The risk of terrorists is statistically negligible and the actions taken by the administration seem mostly to be PR. People are forced to stand in extra long lines at the airport so they can feel safe but investigative reporters can still sneak anything they want on board and random people accidentally board while wearing six inch hunting knives they forgot about. What makes you think that anyone is even trying to make your family safer? More successful attacks result in more fear and more opportunities for bureaucrats to expand their power and make money. Hell Iraq is the fastest way conceivable to make terrorists who hate the US. We've done everything possible to create angry, frightened people with nothing to lose and an unbelievable hatred of the US.
Cowards like you make me sick. You cringe in fear at a PR campaign and willingly give up all the freedoms your ancestors fought for in the hopes that someone else will protect you, even though they have no reason to do so. If you want to be a coward at least be a smart coward and act in ways that might protect you, rather than ways that history has shown will lead to more suffering and pain.
Tell that to the 2948 people that died on 9/11.
Tell them what?
That the incompetence if not outright malice of their government allowed their deaths?
That their deaths were willfully misused as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with their deaths?
That their deaths are being used as an excuse to pass a whole slew of anti-Liberty legislation?
That their deaths are used by the President to open torture camps, to piss all over the constitution woithout doing a single thing to address the actual issues that lead to their deaths?
Hell, their deaths weren't even in vain, they were maliciously used for purely foul purposes.
Fuck that dude. I don't have the heart to tell them. How about you tell them.