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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.