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.'"
The NSA tried to send the data over a few months ago, but they gave up at the NYT registration screen.
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.
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
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
Yeah, that'll be the headline from the Washington Post.
http://www.coderoshi.com/
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
That's odd, because your country is not officially at war...
... oh ok.
:-()
Oh you mean that loosely defined "send our troops anywhere and disregard local laws" bit
As for "oh well monitoring the middle east calls is ok isn't it?" the point of the "slippery slope" is where does it end? It's easier for me to enter Romania of all places then it is the united states. Land of freedom? My ass. I can visit the UK for upto 6 months. I can't do that in the USA (or ireland for that matter
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
Because there's no evidence either Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps. It's that simple.
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.
"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.
Even if the lawsuit is not successful, it still serves two purposes:
- It highlights the fact that the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps, and helps make more of the public aware of the problem and keep them thinking about the problem
- It helps NYT sell papers with articles about how the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps.
We probably are not too concerned with the second, but the motivation provided to the paper by the second causes the paper to act in a manner that gives us the benefits of the first. Go Free Press.
paintball
WE ARE AT WAR!!!
Against who, exactly?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
Yeah, the New York Times is doing the public a service. If by some fluke they manage to get the government to provide the information so they can publich the names and information in the paper, alerting the terrorists which members of their cells may have been compromised so they can change their plans and manage to take out a city with a dirty bomb or a biological weapon, I am sure the New York Times will cover that in all the gory detail and accuse the government of not doing enough to prevent such acts.
There are some things that should not be made public.
I wish I could mod this guy "funny" because I know he can't be serious... if he's serious, he's an idiot.
"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 figure you are already set in your ways on this topic, but I cannot let a statement like that to go on and appease others.
How much? How much freedom are you willing to give up? Quantify it for me so I can understand. Are you willing to carry ID cards all the time, that can't be that bad right. But you know, those ID cards can be duplicated, lost, stolen. Maybe we can get a RFID, but recently it's been shown to be hackable and those terrorists could steal your information.
Would you be willing to give up "some" of your freedom for a permanent tattoo. And just to help things go smoothly, the tattoo can be done on a visible part of the body. Back of the neck lets say. Maybe in the form of a barcode.
maybe that seems extreme, but the problem with "giving up" a little freedom here, a little freedom there tends to give more personal responsibility to the controlling body and less to the individual. You used examples of speeding. There are places in Europe where you can drive way over 100 mphs and not get a ticket. From experience I can say that their speed limits are more for safety then here in the U.S. Most towns coffers depend on tickets for revenue. You never had a right to go 100 mph, 55/60/whater is just an arbitrary number established to pull in dollars. Would you feel safer driving at 45 or 35 mph on the highway?
I will concur that as a society we have abdicated some aspects of privacy. When I fly I am searched. However, that is a choice. If I drive drunk, that is a choice and while I disagree with the statutes, I accept that I am choosing to fly (and be searched) or drive drunk (and face a DUI). In the issue regarding wiretapping by the NSA, there is no choice. Someone else *made* that choice and invaded the privacy of an American citizen. This is akin to the NSA busting down the door of a "suspected" terrorist with no warrant and saying it is legal because of the War.
It is not legal. The Police, the NSA, nobody in power can just "choose" to invade your privacy without due case, without judicial oversight. To give that up is not giving away a little freedom, it is giving away the core that this country was founded on.
At issue here is not whether bad guys should be monitored, tapped, or busted into. Most citizens, right/left/centrist would feel that if people are committing crimes the law needs to take action. the *issue* is that an agency(s) were directed to step outside the law, step outside the checks and balances this country stands for and accuse citizens without just cause.
This.Is.Wrong.
From the way you wrote your comment I figure you are entrenched in the idea that giving up these small freedoms will make you fee safer. Why? Because allowing the Government to break the law will catch more terrorists? With the current state of affairs in the world, there is an endless supply of people to join the cause so I doubt it would reduce the number of evil doers. Will it thwart plans to perform a terrorist act? How plans do you think these guys have? More then one or two I suspect. So we stopped an attack on LAX; they may have 4 ways to blow Boulder Dam, 6 ways to bring the northeast corridor to a halt, 10 ways to disrupt (aka kill) people in crowds. I felt "safer" flying three weeks after 9/11 because every person on that plane knew...knew that if a terrorist stood up and said "This is a high...." Bam, pow, uff and he would be on the floor with 10 bodies holding him down. Today I fear to fly not because of the terrorist, because the government has done nothing to really stop the problem why that man is on the plane.
before you give up your freedoms (which by the way are mine as well and I do not give them up so easily) why not ask the government what it is doing to stop the hatred that feeds terrorists. Ask the government to work on having this country not be such a target for hate
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Very possibly. Which government rewrote your history, and how recently?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Actually, the NYT, like most media outlets, has an agenda, and they selectively choose what information they try to get out to the people. They didn't show the muslim cartoons, they went on and on about Abu Ghraib, but refused to show or write about the evidence of Saddam Hussein's torturing (many thousands of pictures came out at about the same time as the Abu Ghraib pictures).
I'm not saying this is a bad article, or that the information shouldn't be out there, but the NYT only stands up for it's own agenda. So kudos for this story, but shame on NYT overall, in my opinion.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I agree.
I used to be critical of George W. Bush until I realized that in this post 9/11 world, I need a strong, decisive leader who knows what to do, and isn't burdened by the need to consult with Congress, the Judiciary, or members of former administrations (or his, for that matter) to do what is necessary to keep my family safe. On the very rare occasions where he may need advice, Vice President Cheny is able to help him fill in all the gaps that may exist.
In addition, W is one of the few presidents who has shown the moral fiber and certitude to address the moral gaps in this nation: the right to pray in public schools (private prayer is not enough to show one's faith on God), correcting the inequities in the stratified tax brackets by passing badly needed cuts for those who work the hardest and appointing strict constructionist judges to the Federal Bench (maybe that mistake, Roe vs. Wade will finally get overturned) to protect the Constitution vs. those who think its interpretation needs to somehow "change with the times."
Those who criticize Bush should not be treated too harshly. Rather they should be given the opportunity to see how his leadership has made this not only a kinder, gentler nation as his father saw a vision of, but a *safer* one as well. Fox news is a good place to start with this insight. The one exception to this is those who choose to criticize The War on Terror or our Troops. These misguided yet dangerous critics (the New York Times and its patseys like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman in particular) need to be shown to the rest of America, in no uncertain terms, as being Soft on Terror and Undermining our National Security by questioning our Leaders and their Policies. What would they rather have happened? That Saddam stayed in power?
Thank God for George W. Bush. Hopefully his brother will run in 2008, though Bill Frist would be an acceptable alternative.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
If such information was, in fact, in that data, it would be classified and redacted in no time.
So if the info will be redacted and classified what good does it do for the NYTs to sue for it? They just want to exercise their lawyers? Or do they just want to publish a story showing that they can not get that data?
There are somethings that do not need to be made public. This is more about the NYTs trying to make a story out of nothing than anything else.
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.