Slashdot Mirror
NSA Spying Comes Under Attack
maotx writes "The NSA's no-longer-secret surveillance program came under a two-pronged attack this week on both political and legal fronts. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania threatens to cut funding to NSA's spying program if President Bush's administration does not come clean on how it works. Separately, two hearing dates have been set for a lawsuit that seeks to prove that AT&T illegally cooperated with the NSA and violated federal wiretapping laws in doing so. Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'"
"he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up." He hasn't been reading /. much, shame more of the public doesn't either...
The public doesn't care. They have their Idol, they have their gas guzzingly SUV. What do they care that the president is the one breathing heavy on the other end of the line.
Personal liberties? What are those?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
So if Arlen Specter ran with George Bush as his Vice President, would they be Bush 'n Specter?
Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'
And what a more receptive audience then Slashdot? Sen Specter (aka "maotx") is well on his way!
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'
Sadly, like most things in the US, all that will build up is public apathy. This is the same apathy we see every year with laughingly low voter turnouts. Many people in America are perfectly happy not knowing what is going on and sadly enough have no clue the NSA has been spying on Americans. Those who do know are often perfectly happy to say, "They are only listening to the terrorist. They are just trying to keep up safe."
The majority of people in America are too stupid to know what this means or just do not care what it implies. If they feel a bit safer, they are more then glad to hand over every last civil liberty, until we are nothing more then a military state. Our country has come a long way since Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
OMG, PONIES?!?!?!
And we should care, why, exactly?
Because a senator is making a little noise to the public, increasing awareness, and pointing out how that what the NSA, ATT, and the Bush Administration did quite possible violates our Constitution?
Who cares if it is election time or not? Just as long as progress is being made.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
The constitution was designed to protect us from the mob rule of people that simply don't care about being spyed on as they "have nothing to hide." If it was up to "the people" we'd get rid of most of the bill of rights and our natural freedoms. Politicians pandering to the people got us into this mess, I suspect pandering to them now isn't going to help. Sometimes defending constitutional principle demands standing up against the people, but few dare tell the electorate what they need to hear because they are too busy telling them what they want to hear.
Because the President violated his oath of office?
He swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Allowing domestic wiretaps without a warrant is a violation of said oath.
And the warrants would have been easy to obtain, including the fact that they're available up to 72 hours after the fact.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Whenever I hear or see a quote from Senator Specter I am always filled with a little pride that he's from Pennsylvania. He's the only politician in Congress I've any respect for.
Nah...heavy breathing has been outsourced to India.
We should care because even biased people with an obvious agenda can be right sometimes.
A political posture by a RINO Senator in an election year.
Specter isn't do for re-election this year, unless I missed something. And I will admit I am a bit lazy today, but why do you think he is a RINO? I seriously do not hope it is solely based on the fact that he is opposing something that our control-everything president started.
As for your second point, I am not a huge fan of the EFF most days, but I really think you are a bit off there too. Since I used up my mod points, can someone please mod the parent Troll or Flamebait please?
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
The only way the attitudes will change is if impeachment is successful and heads roll along the line. Til then, the mouth-breathers will continue to support this administration and their crimes.
Blowjobs & hiding it from your wife (and the public) or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars and profiteering - Which do you think is more of an impeachable offense?
They watch stuff and record it.
Do I get a consulting fee?
Because your rights as a citizen of the United States of America should always have a higher priority than your loyalty to any political party. Always.
This sig intentionally left blank.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/02/09/AR2006020901415.html
Last paragraph:
"The president should have all the tools he needs to fight terrorism," Specter said, "but we also want to maintain our civil liberties." Now there is a perfect expression of patriotic, post-Sept. 11 thinking."
Since we aren't allowed to see all the laws governing the behaviour of the NSA, why should we assume that their spying is illegal?
Bigger Issues? How about:
This government says it can seize US citizens and subject them to secret military tribunals.
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.
Now add all that up: Any US President can say you are a terrorist, kidnap your whole family in the middle of the night, and have your kids raped to death in front of your wife to make her tell where you are hiding. And Gonzalez will say it's all legal, if anyone ever finds out about it.
That's the Novus Ordo Seculorum of George W. Bush and his Congress. As Orwell predicted, a hobnailed boot stamping on a human face. Do you right-wingers seriously want to grant total power to whoever's in the White House? What about if it's your evil arch-nemesis Hillary, or some Kennedy apparatchik?
But in this case, no.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Who cares if it is election time or not? Just as long as progress is being made.
Because the second the election is over, it's back to business as usual. NO ONE should get credit for election season posturing.
Mod Parent Up.
I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the 'wiretapping' isn't actually 'phone wiretapping.' It's going to be something else. What? Who knows.
Why?
circumstanstial evidence:
1) It was references as "communications." That could be friggin anything.
2) internal legal opinion saying spying method was legal when wiretapping already has well established rules. importance? Someone is probably splitting hairs, but getting such an opinion probably means they found a loophole. i.e. it's not a phone or something minor like that.
3) how it's played out in the press: "Bush is spying illegally" "No we're not" "Yes you are, your wiretapping" "What we're doing is legal and we're not going to tell you about it for technical reasons that might give it away." "So you are wiretapping" "Uh, guess you caught us, blah blah blah" importance? It may or may not be wiretapping, but the administration is happy to let everyone argue that it is. Can everyone say 'diversion?'
I have my guesses what it could be, but I'm staying mum. Why? Because it might actually be legal and doing some good and if I guess right, the eye of Sauron starts lookin' my way out of spite. Unlikely, but not worth it.
So in conclusion, uh, you didn't read anything. It was all a dream....
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Because the second the election is over, it's back to business as usual. NO ONE should get credit for election season posturing.
This is not always true and in fact, I'm willing to say it probably hardly ever happens. If a politician wants to keep his job and be relected the next time around, he better do what he says he is going to do. Or at least make it look like he is trying.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
Bigger Issues? How about:
This government says it can seize US citizens and subject them to secret military tribunals.
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.
Now add all that up: Any US President can say you are a terrorist, kidnap your whole family in the middle of the night, and have your kids raped to death in front of your wife to make her tell where you are hiding. And Gonzalez will say it's all legal, if anyone ever finds out about it.
Can you provide a link with evidence supporting this?
If he's doing this BECAUSE it is election year, all the more power to our system. Having regular elections is a vital part of a working democracy. This would be a great example of that.
Sorry, but this whole thing was put to rest months ago, when the FISA court panel ruled that there was no violation of any such kind.
So...they used a mixture of lime and water, often with whiting, size, or glue to describe the situation.
What?
United States / Lexington
The rebirth of outrage
Mar 30th 2006
From The Economist print edition
There’s an epidemic of outrage
IMAGE
THE most striking thing about Americans to many outsiders is how nice they are. They have none of the aloofness of the British or the froideur of the French. On the contrary, they go out of their way to be warm and welcoming. This is the land of the smiley face and the “have a nice day” greeting. Put simply, Americans like to be liked.
Yet turn on cable television and you are confronted with a series of people who are in a perpetual state of outrage. They are incensed (if they’re on the left) that Barbara Bush has stipulated that her Hurricane Katrina donation should be used to buy software from a firm owned by one of her sons; furious (if they’re on the right) that Hillary Clinton has invoked Jesus’s name in decrying Republican immigration policies; and pig-wrestling mad (and here outrage goes bipartisan) that Yale University has admitted a former spokesman for the Taliban.
The current king of outrage is Bill O’Reilly, the host of a Fox television show who only has to look at the camera to convey a sense that some monstrosity has been committed. But there are plenty of others. Sean Hannity (also at Fox) and Joe Scarborough (at MSNBC) are furious about whatever the Democrats have done that day. Over at CNN, Lou Dobbs, under the guise of presenting a news programme, bashes the government for failing to fix America’s borders, and big companies for exporting jobs abroad. The oddest of the lot is Don Imus (also at MSNBC) who sits there with a cowboy hat on his head and a scowl on his face, fulminating about whatever irritates him at that moment.
Cast your eyes up to Capitol Hill and the scene is only marginally more restrained. The Democrats have abandoned the idea that politics stops at the water’s edge to berate the Bush administration for its “dangerous incompetence” over Iraq. The Republicans can’t decide whether they’re more outraged at the Democrats’ treason or the tide of immigrants. The House Republicans want to build a wall across stretches of the Mexican border. Willie Whitelaw, one of the last great British patrician politicians, once accused Harold Wilson, the Labour leader, of going around the country “stirring up apathy”; these days all too many American politicians, amateur and professional, are going around the country stirring up outrage.
Why is outrage becoming such a defining feature of American life, and particularly political life? It does not apply to the whole country. Four in five Americans tell pollsters that they are either very happy (34%) or pretty happy (50%). Tabloid journalists the world over are in the outrage business. But America’s tabloid titans appeal only to narrow slivers of the country (“The O’Reilly Factor” reaches 2.5m people in a country of 300m). Most Americans pride themselves on their tolerance.
Yet things have patently changed since the 1996 election when Bob Dole ruefully asked “where’s the outrage?” as he tried to persuade a fat and happy country to ditch Bill Clinton. Today the mood is sourer. A striking 42% of Americans support Russ Feingold’s bid to censure Mr Bush for illegally wiretapping suspected terrorists. If the Democrats retake either the Senate or the House this autumn, Mr Bush will probably become the second president in a decade to be subject to impeachment proceedings.
There are lots of short-term reasons for all this outrage. For instance, the left howls that after 2000 Mr Bush used a narrow victory to push through a highly partisan agenda. But there are also deeper structural reasons why outraged partisans have such a peculiarly
Too bad we can't cut funding for all "black" projects in the Department of Defense while we're at it.
Please help metamoderate.
until he retracted his comments. cutting the purse strings would be a nice way to force this little police state program into the light. god, let's hope the democrats win a majority in the fall. the republican party is out of control.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Here's a senario.
Osama emails an intermediary to correspond information that's of interest to US national security. That intermidiary forwards it to a sleeper in the US. That now puts this correpsondance under the jurisdiction of required warrants under the FISA court right? The argument of rapid response is covered by the fact that such spying can occur post-occurance when deemed appropriate.
That all sounds quite reasonable and puts to question why the administration felt it necesary to circumvent such proceedures.
However, here's another senario.
Osama emails his buddies about the kick ass humus in the old neighborhood. He CC's 1000 random spam US email addresses. One of the go betweens of the email forwards it yet again with another 1000 random US email addresses and so on and so forth. Is this outrage over warrantless spying circumventing the logic of current technology? When FISA was established to spy on possible Soviet interests within the US in 1978 we were in a totally different technological environment. It was an era of land line based communication. Call the Bush presidency what you will but I think it's a large mistake to cripple the speed of intelligence agencies in the name of a Bush witch hunt. Should some other president in the future expect the NSA to submit 10000 warrants due to one email string, even after the fact? If congress authorizes war (and make no mistake that there is no difference according to the courts between declaring war and authorizing use of force), should intelligence agencies be able to monitor anything and everything coming out of that country regardless of where the destination may be?
Seriously dude - '24' is a SHOW on the Fox network. It's not real.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Specter is in the 2nd year of his term. It's Rick Santorum's seat that's up for re-election this year.
This sig intentionally left blank.
How is it that every time one of these "NSA Surveillance" articles pops up, nobody chimes in about FISA Court? (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)
All you tinfoil hat people need to read this pdf document.
Some talking points:
Page 3: "In so doing, the Court of Review recognized that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, "as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
More Page 3: ""perhaps most crucially, the executive branch not only has superior expertise in the area of foreign intelligence, it is also constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs. The President and his deputies are charged by the constitution with the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States"
Page 4: In addition, substantial authority indicates that the President has inherent constitutional authority over the gathering of foreign intelligence--authority that Congress may not circumscribe. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review suggested that, even after FISA, the President possesses inherent constitutional Authority that FISA could not limit.
The list of quotes goes on
So, for all you people wondering why the hell nobody has got any legal dirt on all these 'illegal activities', you need to read your history book. Its come up before, FISA court shot the president down, FISA court of review shot FISA court down, and the Supreme Court Won't even hear the case because its been settled already. This is all democratic dragging through the mud.
/rant off
You can find thousands of links in Google. Just do searches for
"Ehsanul Islam Sadequee"
"Yaser Esam Hamdi"
and
"abu gharib"
Bigger Issues? How about:
This government says it can seize US citizens and subject them to secret military tribunals.
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.
Good! Can I watch!
Or worse! They could force them to listen to whining liberals using self-manufactured evidence in their "Hate America First" expositions.
There's nothing like having a signed document from '75 typed using Microsoft Word 2005, among other things. Those alien time-travel devices from area 51 apparently, for which I can provide signed and typed documents on request as proof, in OpenOffice 2.0 format, going back to 1492. Just give me a little while to type them up.
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. The one Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. The Senator to call for the censure of Bush over the whole wiretapping thing in the first place. If anyone's the One Good Senator, it's Feingold.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
It's not about rights. It's about duty. Duty to the Constitution and duty to the children. The problem is that so many people are concerned about getting theirs (their rights, their share, their piece of the pie) that they forget their duties...
Haven't you seen 24? Jack Bauer does this kind of thing *every week*!
Any US President can say you are a terrorist, kidnap your whole family in the middle of the night, and have your kids raped to death in front of your wife to make her tell where you are hiding. And Gonzalez will say it's all legal, if anyone ever finds out about it.
Hey, maybe the moderation system is working! This FUD ^h^h^h legal theory certainly is "interesting". And no one (yet) has moderated it "insightful".
- AJ
Well there is rendition. That takes care of the torture question.
Then there is the Patriot Act II which proposes stripping away citizenship
What else do you wan to know?
So what will happen even IF they are found guilty? Do you think they'll be as hard on the NSA as they were on MS, or perhaps AT&T with the monopoly things? Big deal, being guilty in this country doesn't mean anything as long as you are rich and guilty.
This country being "for and by the people" is the biggest crock of shit. It's for the money, by the money. If you have enough to buy some politicians, or you are one then you're in. Otherwise piss off.
I'm sure the gov't had all our best interests in mind with Net Neutrality, letting MS continue to force us to buy their crap with every new computer with their monopolistic abuse, allowing SBC and ATT to join back up, sending more money to New Orleans to rebuild than it it was worth in the first place, the only thing our gov't seems to be able to do is use the money of the masses to further mistreat us.
Sure he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background until after the elections.
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. More of the same from the permanently alarmed Left.
Care to explain why Bush is acting in so dastardly a fashion? I mean, you liken him to Big Brother, stamping on the face of humanity, so when is he going to start taking advantage of his illegal behavior?
Getting a little late in his term to silence his political opposition, isn't it? Certainly the anti-war loonies in the Democratic party haven't been silenced, nor have the Dixie Chicks, Newsweek, and the New York Times been muzzled. Bush hasn't used the IRS to punish opponents like Clinton did, and he hasn't gone Waco or snatched little kids to send them back to Cuba. So how exactly is he benefitting from all his evildoing?
It's obvious that he's simply trying to wage a war on terrorism in spite of the radical Leftists who will do and say anything to bring down the President."I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
Lying under oath about getting a blowjob, or raping civil liberties, massive debt, illegal wars, profiteering, warrantless wiretaps, etc etc.
Regardless, President Bush's activities are illegal, immoral, and unethical.
:(){
The Democrats would have to take the House for impeachment proceedings to occur. They would have to take the House and 2/3 of the Senate for a conviction to occur. Even then, of course, it's no guarantee. Of course, there might be a few Republicans who would impeach/convict. More likely, there are several Democrats who wouldn't. At least not yet.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Except the one court specifically set up to determine the legality of this type of wiretapping has already declared it a defacto power of the Presidency, and therefore out of their domain. Everything after that ruling was made is just showboating.
Google this phrase: "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
If anything, Bush has shown more restraint in his use of this so-called war times power. Previous Presidents, including as recently as Clinton, used this type of implied Constitutional authorzation for everything from searching suspected spies homes to drug raids on inner city neighbourhoods. Very few of their actions, if any, could be directly linked to any external military action being taken by the country at the time.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
In that hypothetical situation, you'd only need 1 warrant, not 10,000 (and not 1,000,000, either). For several situations, warrants can cover multiple locations. OTOH, IANAL.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Can you provide a link with evidence supporting this?
And I thought the slashdot left-wing groupthink was a myth... I literally got modded down for asking for a link for evidence so I could read about the torture, murder, and revocation of citizenship by the American government to American citizens on my own, instead of taking the word of some slashbot.
So much for "facts".
Perhaps you're right that the administration's only goal is to fight terrorism. Sadly, that doesn't mean those will be the only effects. Precedents are being set down that will be available for use by future administrations.
It's all about trust. You may trust the current administration, but do you trust an unchecked government in general? Would you trust your brother to install a closed circuit television to watch your house while you're away? Probably, but what happens when your brother is replaced by the perverted old man who lives next door? Still so trusting?
Perhaps, just perhaps, it would be best not to install that camera afterall.
Specter has a history of pretending to be interested in holding Bush's feet to the fire, but he never follows through with any substance. Its a good way to let the Republican leadership know that they need to toss some concessions his way on other issues, and at the same time a way to shape a nice "moderate" image. Effective politics? Sure. Substance? Not so much.
You're absolutely right. Arlen Specter and all of those d*** Republicans are just trying to make Bush look bad. Time to vote in some Democrats who'll support our president.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Hear, hear! Won't someone think of the children? To hell with the old people...
Seriously, what the hell do kids have to do with constitutional rights, other than not having any until they're eighteen years old?
Not to add to the flames, but the fact that Bush hasn't used his new US_God powers to destroy free speech is not very heartening. It was Lenin who set up most of the arsenal which Stalin used to dictate the USSR. I would suggest that Bush really wants to do good. I do not, however, like his tactics.
If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet. -Pauli
And I thought the slashdot left-wing groupthink was a myth... I literally got modded down for asking for a link for evidence so I could read about the torture, murder, and revocation of citizenship by the American government to American citizens on my own, instead of taking the word of some slashbot.
So much for "facts".
Hay, give them a little time.
They are having problems getting the signitures "just right" on those existing documents. Oh, and fixing the dates on the letterheads. The originals will soon be available, in Microsoft Word Vista format, signed by Ronald Reagon himself.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Republican In Name Only.
...or any Republican who shows actual concern for the rights of his constituents.
Guess that refers to any Republican who isn't right of Ann Coulter.
Aside from me and at least one other person replying to your post with serious rather than flippant replies, let me introduce you to a saying I like:
"You can't control what other people do, you can only control how you react to it"
So instead of just bitching about the moderation system and how you weren't spoonfed any answers (even though IMHO you were) you could do your own research and form your own opinion based on a lot of information that is actually out there and available.
You are hereby banished from Slashdot for using truth instead of political rhetoric.
IF (big if) it wasn't illegal, then the NY Times needs a slap from the courts that is big enough to put them out of business.
http://www.hawknest.com/
This November we shall be kicking out Santorum instead.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
First of all, I'm not bitching I wasn't given any answers. I was. They were all completely wrong. No one at Abu Gharib was an American citizen. No one in any of the cases had their citizenship revoked, and no one was murdered. The original poster is making things up, and so are you. You are literally being dishonest to push your agenda. One guy AGREED to give up his citizenship as terms of his release. The other guy was found in Afghanistan fighting against American troops. None of these people were "stripped from their homes" and "killed in front of their families" like the original posters suggests. The fact that you think three seperate cases, none of which as severe as originally implied, is meaningful to a testment to how blinded you are by your own ideology.
If there is a case of the American government taking an American citizen out of his home, revoking his citizenship, torturing and murdering him. I want to know. I'll be the first one in line to crucify someone...
It saddens me how low the bar is set for what qualifies as "proof" of completely ridiculous claims.
Been to the pumps lately?
Sorry, I smoked my last sig
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, many presidents have abused the IRS, Clinton and The Wife had FBI files, and yet we're all still free to shoot off our mouths and read subversive lit, so I doubt anything that's been done in the name of fighting the GWoT will be harmful. If you're really worried about precedents, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform has done more to silence political speech than the PATRIOT act could ever do!
"I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
When it's guys, we don't have a word for it, but whatever you call it, we sure have a lot of them on Slashdot. day after day preaching that America is turning into a police state, that their rights don't exist anymore, etc. Such melodrama. Now I know it's still somewhat radical to be paranoid 60s style, but honestly folks, let's grow up shall we? Let's stop posturing and clamoring, and be realistic for a change. While no doubt the Bush administration is taking liberties with the Constitution and should be chastised for it, comparisons between America and North Korea and such are just plain childish.
But I've had a Prius since 2001, so I'm not too bothered by high gas prices.
I was home sick from work yesterday and watched C-SPAN for a while. Do you know what they were debating yesterday on the Senate floor? Things like whether or not to spend $15 million on an ad campaign to encourage eating seafood. Call me crazy, but I think a Senator knowing the details of a program that may or may not be violating the constitution before committing more of my tax money to pay for it is at least as important as seafood commercials.
This space intentionally left blank.
I'd be more impressed if I hadn't read his wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter
dude... i think you're malfunctioning.
I believe that I'm unable as a citizen to decide if such programs are "better for the country", or that my elected representatives are able to on my behalf- if even their existence is a total secret.
The USA spends more on military/defense than almost any other nation in the world, both in total, per capita, and percentage-wise (of total budget.) I believe in some regards we're higher than China, North Korea, etc. I do fully believe that money would be much better spent on infrastructure and social causes.
Please help metamoderate.
In you scenario, parties outside the U.S are sending communications 'INTO' the U.S. which, as I understand it, is completely legal for the NSA to monitor and falls under FISA jurisdiction. (don't remember if comm's originated in U.S. to outside is monitored under FISA also; think it is)
It would seem that what IS going on here with the new NSA procedures is beyond that scope. I would ask if the FISA rules were "outdated and slow", which I believe is what A.G. Gonzalez indicated was the problem during Senate Oversight (??), why would they not ask Congress to expedite amending the FISA law?
It would seem to me, that expediancy in this type communications tracking and action is just a matter of technical ability (SW/HW equipment and connection lines), personnel (enough people), and appropriate oversight (Congressional ??).
Any activity that deviates from the scope of International Communications, and is strictly NATIONAL (U.S. to U.S.), I believe falls on the FBI, which I'd assume if the NSA found someone on U.S. soil from a FISA incident, would notify the FBI to watch or detain.
I would state, the NSA is doing the FB1, and the Confused Information Association 's job for them when it comes to intelligence gathering as they have there THUMB UP THERE ASS.(see ignored memos from AZ. and non-Domestic jurisdication; yea, right)
The current Administration and NSA's tracking had all the capabilities of doing what they are doing now, through the proper channels; legally, technically, politically. 9-11-01 happens, early 02' spying begins. 5 months to build an infrastructure to monitor EVERY Int'l communication and NATIONAL communication, as the case may be???
Sorry people, the infrastructure was already in place. They just reconfigured the network.
Do you really think the usa is better off than it was 5 years ago ?
Do you really think that th eusa is heading in the correct direction ?
Do you really think goverment should have absolute power ?
Reading through your posting history leads me to belive you are a right winger.
Can you please post your first and last name and social security number so I can look into this more ?
Are you quite sure about that? Have you been paying attention to the comparative treatment at the hands of the IRS of more liberal California churches vs. conservative Ohio churches? If you haven't, you might not want to be so sure about that, although I'd be more inclined to attribute it to the kind of people appointed by the kind of people appointed by Bush (repitition intended), rather than thinking Bush directly ordered it. But that doesn't leave his hands totally clean in my book.
ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
Hmm .. IMHO, while I respect your request for proof, you seem to have an anger problem which I feel is affecting your judgement. Especially when you start claiming that I am making things up without providing your own proof of that statement. That just amounts to doing what you say you are against.
I mentioned rendition and the Patriot Act. Both of these are well documented and certainly provide the tools for the government to act as they want. Now you might claim that this is still no proof of what the GGP said. And I will agree that I have no proof of those original claims.
However, the government has the tools and in the past the government has never shown any compunction against using any tools it has available. For historical examples of the government doing what they want to do go back and look at the US support of the Noriega regime in Panama (which they helped install) or any other right wing dictator that the US has supported in the Central and South America.
To finish off: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence". So while you may call that a left wing consiracy theorists wet dream, it also means that *you* can't jump up and down and say "You're are lying. I don't have any proof either, but you are lying"
Yeah, those dastardly anti-Bush Republican committee chairs. Always out to destroy the President and embarrass his party at all costs, particularly in an election year.
Never a better time to donate or join.
you had me at #!
The more realistic scenario is that everything was planned out in another country before the future terrorists came to America. They then come here and live under their own names, get driver's licenses, and are even listed in the white pages. Despite not making any efforts to hide, the CIA fails to find these wanted men for nearly a year.
This is exactly what happened on September 11th. NONE of this spying would have prevented it. FISA was set up in response to the executive branch of the government abusing its powers and spying on political opponents. Hundreds of thousands of patriots have died to protect the freedoms which the constitution gives us. Personally, I am not willing to give them up in favor of a fascist police state just because it has a small chance of dropping our death rate by 0.00001%.
It's not an accident that the bill of rights doesn't make exceptions for periods of war (or anything else).
Do you really think the usa is better off than it was 5 years ago ?
Do you really think that th eusa is heading in the correct direction ?
Do you really think goverment should have absolute power ?
No, no, and no. I hate kneejerk liberalism as much as I hate "Gay Marriage is wrong because the Bible says so.". I am mostly against people are literally lie to get their point across. I fight for actual rational thought based on facts. I like people who base their opinion on reality, on facts, on the real world... and don't use a big pile of rhetorical nonsense to do it.
Reading through your posting history leads me to belive you are a right winger.
You should read closer. 90% of my posts are against people who make popular statements that are poorly thought out or poorly evidenced... on either side. If you can't back up for your opinions with a marginal bit of reality, I don't like it... I don't think it's too much to ask for people to be intellectually honest and rational. Labeling me a "right-winger" because I am ASKING for someone to provide evidence for ridiculous claims... is seriously mind boggling to me.. am I just supposed to say "oh, he's probably right.. i'm sure there's lots of cases of murdering of US citizens in front of their families".
It's not much to ask, I don't think. If you are going to claim the US government is taking people form their homes, torturing and murdering them in front of their families... I should be able to ask for some type of evidence without being labeled "right-wing" and have random people start assuming I support Bush...
First you get your ass smacked by the government for being a monopoly. The, a super-secret branch comes in and tells you that you must cooperate or . You do so, then another branch of the government walks in and says "THAT'S ILLEGAL!".
I bet AT&T/SBC's collective head is spinning. Talk about taking it from both ends.
It's humorous to see a big corporation in the same situation millions of Americans find themselves in every day when it comes to government stupidty - completely helpless.
Its about him bashing the current administration.
Dont fool yourself into thinking otherwize.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To finish off: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence". So while you may call that a left wing consiracy theorists wet dream, it also means that *you* can't jump up and down and say "You're are lying. I don't have any proof either, but you are lying"
Actually that's a complete fallacy. Similiar reasoning is used for Intelligent Design. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
My 'anger' is generally at people who want to start labeling me because I don't automatically believe what is, essentially, propaganda. If you are going to claim that Bush is killing people in front of their families... with no proof... you are a propagandist. That doesn't make me a Bush supporter. It doesn't mean I like the war in Iraq. It doesn't mean I support I rendition. It doesn't mean I like wiretapping or oil companies or Microsoft. It means I like "facts".
So I googled IRS California churches Ohio churches and got:
Looks like the IRS is trying to be even-handed, so I don't understand your point.
"I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
Just one question - could someone here define who/ what is a terrorist?
"All I have to change this country is one voice, one vote, and a little bit of money. Mr. _______, I feel that you are not listening to, or representing, my concerns faithfully. My vote, and the little bit of money I have will go towards the one who does. You have until November 7, 2006 to correct this oversight on your part, and I look forward to reading about your actions (not your words) in the newspapers to come.
Signed,
Another is that Senator Arlen Specter (R-YesItIsAllAboutMe) is, in fact, posturing. He's thumping his proverbial chest, posing for the cameras, currying favor with GWB's opponents because of Bush's low approval numbers.
Another is that Specter knows there is nothing hinky going on with the NSA stuff, that it's all within the President's Constitutional authority, and wants to have that shown in a public forum -- a forum which, by pure coincidence, would feature Senator Specter prominently.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Yeah, but sometimes I wish Jack's method of truth extraction was real...as in really practiced by others, even if only in other popular TV shows. For example, an episode in Season 1 of Lost when Charlie shot and killed the islander who kidnapped him and the pregnant woman. That man had info they all needed desperately, and yet Charlie unloads a couple rounds into his chest while he's about to be interogated by the rescuers.
No, damn it...shoot him in the leg! And if he doesn't talk, shoot him in the other leg!
Sorry .. you lost me there .. when did I start labelling you??? And I didn't make the claims you are so upset about either.
What I did do is point out that the government has done evil things in the past (that are documented), and now has the tools (documented) to do evil things in the present that can potentially fit the claims you are crying for proof of. And the government has never been shy of using any tools in its power. So I am only claiming that it is in the realms of possibility to do as the original post claimed.
As as for you pooh-poohing my statement of "Absence of proof", you are dragging in a ID strawman. The implied addition to my original statement is "Absence of proof (at this given time) is not (absolute) proof of absence (over all time)". Claims of government action are on a par with Schroedingers cat, unknowable at present, but potentially possible. So instead of screaming there is no proof, it should be worthwhile for you to actually go out and look yourself.
The NSA's no-longer-secret surveillance program came under a two-pronged attack this week on both political and legal fronts. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania threatens to cut funding to NSA's spying program if President Bush's administration does not come clean on how it works. Separately, two hearing dates have been set for a lawsuit that seeks to prove that AT&T illegally cooperated with the NSA and violated federal wiretapping laws in doing so. Sen. Specter emphasized that he doesn't want the issue to fade into the background, saying that he'd like to see 'public concern and public indignation build up.'"
Translation from Washington speak: Sen. Specter delayed real action on the President's illegal spying program again, citing lack of public concern and public indignation. "I've got my finger in the wind, but I can't tell which way it's blowing," the Senator said.
Don't expect Specter to go anywhere with this inquiry unless he is dragged there kicking and screaming. He's just threatening to threaten to be a threat.
Thank the EFF for suing AT&T. It could take a long time (remember SCO v. IBM?) but at least someone could get arrested. The fine for FISA violations is up to $10000 per violation, so AT&T might be in for the punishment of a life time for colluding with the illegal program.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
I thought your original request for cites was remarkably intelligent, and I wouldn't have modded you down for it myself.
But now you've stated that I was "making things up". That's false. Everything I said was based on public statements made by Bush administration officials or official US government reports.
Mind you, allegations that uniformed US soldiers raped children to make their mothers reveal the locations of their terrorist-suspect fathers are unproven. But I didn't say that they were proven, I said if the executive branch thinks they can arbitrarily declare US citizens terrorists without burden of proof (Jose Padilla case) and terrorists aren't subject to prohibitions against torture (statements by Gonzalez, Bush, and Rumsfeld) then obviously by simple logic the President feels he can do whatever he wants to a US citizen without due process, and equally obviously the people assigned to do this stuff are rapists and murderers (Rumsfeld, public statements on content of Abu Ghraib CD) who are willing to knowingly abuse innocents (Dilawar, Bagram report).
You said "If there is a case of the American government taking an American citizen out of his home, revoking his citizenship, torturing and murdering him. I want to know. I'll be the first one in line to crucify someone..." but I never said there was any such case. What I said was this government is trying to set up the conditions for this to happen.
Do you disagree, now that you've independently researched the Padilla and Dilawar cases and looked up Gonzalez's memo on the Geneva convention? Please tell us all if you come to another conclusion... after you complete your study of the data, of course - we're going to want cites!
I've posted several politically conservative opinions on Slashdot and none of them have ever gotten above 0 whereas the left-leaning replies were all modded up. I've shrugged it off as proof that Left can't compete so they suppress debate.
That worldview was seriously challenged when my latest posting got a 1! But now things are back to normal as it just got modded back to 0 (100% overrated).
What with the Right running just about everything here in the U.S., I guess Slashdot is just about the last bastion remaining for the frustrated and intolerant Left.
"I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
Because laws are easier passed than repealed... When the kids grow up they'll not know any better. Private companies legally snooping on your PC and phone calls? That'll be just the way it is.
The NSA does not spy on people. There is no spying going on here. None. You must have gotten bad information. Um swamp gas? Weather balloons? If it helps, just keep in mind that an intelligence agency is still filled with federal workers. All of the standard stereotypes can apply.
Wiretap the Congressmen, the real criminals :)
This government says it can seize US citizens and subject them to secret military tribunals.
Yes
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
No. I have never heard of this, in any case. As far as I can tell it is manufactured. The only thing similar is one particular case where someone agreed to give up their citizenship as part of a release deal. The government didn't have the power to take it.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.
I will give you torture, in particular, with regards to rendition. The government has never, in any document, nor any thing I have ever seen.. nor any evidence I have ever seen.. in any case I have ever seen.. said it can rape anyone. Claims of some members of the military doing it (without proof), doesn't constitute "the government OK". Murder... the only cases I have seen were of misconduct by US troops that were punished under the code of military justice. I see no evidence, whatsoever, of administation support for that conduct.
As far as I can tell, at least half of your points, leading to your doomsday scenario, were made up and baseless.
3 Nights ago I heard on CNN that Bush was looking into running for a 3rd term! Talk about the pit of your stomach turning stone cold.
"If you are going to claim that Bush is killing people in front of their families... with no proof... you are a propagandist"
He never said that.
Qouted
" Now add all that up: Any US President can say you are a terrorist, kidnap your whole family in the middle of the night, and have your kids raped to death in front of your wife to make her tell where you are hiding. And Gonzalez will say it's all legal, if anyone ever finds out about it.
"
So much for the "facts" you seem to be so up on.
Go back to yahoo boards troll.
Your "quoting out of context" system is working too.
:)
Typical liberal ploy.
You do know this site can be accessed by people from around the world, and some of them even get mod-points?
In much of Europe, and propably other places, the US 'Left' would be considered quite far to the right. While the US 'Right'... Dunno how much further right they would be shifted, there's really not *that* much difference between the two.
- These characters were randomly selected.
I see a lot of people who ask for evidence that such things as toture kidnappings by government agencies, etc. exist. But seems to me that things like this require the question "Why not?" instead? Why wouldn't they toture a person they perceive to be the enemy or scapegoat of their own cause in a place from which information is unlikely to leave? One should ask for evidence to prove that it doesn't not exist, not vice versa.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
You misheard him.
He swore to withold and defenstrate the Constitution.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Conservatives are the people alarmed by this administration's willingness to disregard traditional values and re-interpret the constitution.
It's the biggest power grab since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and it offends real conservatives.
Liberals are just pissed off that they aren't the ones doing it, they've always been in favor of trying new ways - that's why we call 'em liberals.
Uh, last I heard none of this was legal. Do you know of any specific cases where this has happened? I think this would be pretty big news and I haven't heard about it.
You know, this could revolutionize how politics are done...
Wow, you read fast. It took me a week to read the Bagram report. Longer for the Abu Ghraib one... I couldn't even look up the Gonzalez memo as fast as you got through all that!
I hope you realise that just the points you conceded are enough to make my point anyway - that there are far more important issues surrounding this government's beliefs and behaviours than some probably-legal-anyway NSA spying.
My advice is to join the Republican party and stock up on ammunition.
This government says it can make you not a citizen by simple declaration without evidence.
No. I have never heard of this, in any case. As far as I can tell it is manufactured.
Read Section 501 of Patriot Act II. If, as seems to be the case, you're too lazy, the meat of it is that the government can decide your conduct means you are a supporter of terrorism and, as such, an enemy combatant who can be expatriated. Once expatriated then the rest of the Bill of Rights doesn't apply and it's Guantanamo for you.
Face it, your right-wing heroes are scum who've managed to subvert the entire Constitution.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
If Fiengold thinks this program is so bad, why doesn't he call for impeachemnt of the President for this issue? No prominent democrat has called for the program to be stopped. Why? Because it is probably legal (read some lawyer oriented blogs in stead of slashdot), and two, the country knows that this a good idea to stop the terrorists by listening to them. If they are talking to Americans, I sure want to know our govenment to know about it.
... the President has authority to do warrantless survelillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence....):
Here chew on this from Senators questioning retired FISA court judges (notice the phrase
Judge Kornblum: To be admissible, the evidence would have had to have been lawfully seized or lawfully obtained and the standard that the district judge would use is that, depending upon where this is, is the law in his circuit. In most of the circuits, the law is clear that the President has the authority to do warrantless surveillance if it is to collect foreign intelligence and it is targeting foreign powers or agents. If the facts support that, then the district judge could make that finding and admit the evidence, just as they did in Truong-Humphrey.
from:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013588.php
Here is another:
Then there's United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), where the court sustained the federal government's position, which it summarized as follows:
In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
The court explained why the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless electronic surveillance:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
from with more examples:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012975.php
People make mistakes, and as soon as they realize you're not doing anything wrong they'll stop the taps. Why wouldn't they? We talk sometimes about Big Brother like there's actually some guy watching you - really, since it's government, phone taps would be listened to by a group of underpaid burned-out civil servants. Do you think they really care about your non-criminal behavior?
And it's not like wiretaps are free. A lot of technology goes into that, and a lot of people-hours. That's really expensive, especially when billed at government rates. Just the market factors alone prevent innocent people from getting spied on - there really is just no budget for it.
You do realize that the Patriot Act II hasn't been passed, right? Yes it's a very scary proposed bill.. but it doesn't belong in a conversation about what the US government can do... since the US government can't do it... Second of all, talking about my "right-wing" heroes when I voted for both Kerry and Clinton is a bit presumptious, isn't it? Maybe you know something I don't.
But the IRS seems to be pretty much blowing off the petitioning in Ohio, apparently letting the conservatives there endorse to their hearts' contents. They actually took action in the cases of the liberal ones.
Note that your linked story is dated Feb. 28; googling without "California" (or a second "churches") in the terms brings up this much more recent article, they're still waiting for the IRS to do anything there, even after a second complaint. And the Ohio case involves much more direct campaign help, such as letting the campaign use their facilities and holding "political activities" in the church, assuming the clergy aren't wrong about that bit. The California church just preached a sermon about whether Jesus would endorse pre-emptive war, and how the candidates view the matter.
The cases are not equivalent.
ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
Let's be reaonable here. A proposal, even a "good" one, has only a chance to pass when the majority of the ones voting is in favor.
Now, if I KNOW my proposal has no snowball in hell chance, I can propose whatever I want. I could propose to freeze funding on military, if I feel the general population is against more weapons while I know that the majority of the congress is in favor of spending for guns. Even if I want to buy more artillery myself.
That way I get good press (remember, elections in Fall), people will believe that I'm the "good" guy, the voting itself isn't covered in the news and everything stays the same.
Except that the general population thinks that I (or "we", as in, "my party") wants to do what they want. While doing what we want.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's also the first time in years of commenting I've ever been moderated as "flamebait"! Though I think I got "troll" once.
- AJ
That's a rather grim way of looking at things.
Very realistic, I might add...
Do you mean people who exercise?
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
Can the president open up snail mail without a warrant, presumably without notifying anyone (assuming that they could duplicate the actual letter the mail is in)? I'll bet you a lot more people would have a problem with the president doing that (though it is essentially the same exact thing).
I'm a rational anarchist so I don't care if you lean left or right. Although you sound like a paranoid leftie, I'll accept that you're a Conservative.
Now that we've addressed your point, are you going to answer mine from several posts ago?
"I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
Too bad we don't live in a working democracy, we live in a representative democracy... with only 2 points of view. If we lived in a Democracy Al Gore would be president right now, but he isn't.
It's either Dem or Rep, black or white. There is no gray, which is why it doesn't work.
Personally I think political parties should be banned and people should have to run on merits alone. But no one cares, can't say that I do anymore really.
When the shit hits the fan, I'm leaving. Enjoy the mess your faith in a 'working democracy' has created. The game is rigged but you all keep playing and routing for your team, it's sad.
No change can happen when people are either on one side or another. No good can come of it if there isn't multiple points of view. Life isn't as simple and black or white, but we think that governments are. Kinda sad really.
There were several "No" votes in the House, IIRC.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Yeah... pity about that First Amendment thing; if it weren't for that they could put lots of newspapers out of business. Then they could do whatever they want and nobody would be around to call them on it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Too bad that didn't stop them from re-electing him.
Liberals are just pissed off that they aren't the ones doing it, they've always been in favor of trying new ways - that's why we call 'em liberals.
I'm a liberal, and I don't want to see the Constitution infringed by Bush or anybody else. One thing the American Right has been very good at is reducing their opponents to caricatures -- that is likely why your idea of what liberals stand for is so negative and cartoon-like. Keep in mind that "liberal" and "Democrat" are not anywhere close to synonymous.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
>why should we assume that their spying is illegal?
Because they didn't submit to the (minimal!) oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
This government says it can rape, torture and murder suspected terrorists.
Last I heard, the power to strip American citizenship by fiat was still only a proposal
This government says it can seize US citizensbut military tribunals have been reserved for non-citizens.
It is legal for british intelligence to spy on americans and for the NSA to spy on the brits. Who says it isn't the MI7 that is occupying ATT's secret closets?
Yeah you can tell the nerds from their failure to read sarcasm, however slight, right?
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
It has nothing to do with 1st ad.
If it was illegal, which is prob is, then they are in the clear, completely, just look at the Pentagon Papers case...
But if it was legal then it's treason..
http://www.hawknest.com/
Care to explain why it's treason?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Last I heard, Patriot Act II was snuck into some must-pass bill as a rider. As for the original stuff you disputed, it's all been in the news and you were rightfully modded down for not knowing and being arrogant about it. Bush has several times claimed that he can declare anybody to be an "enemy combatant" who is outside the scope of criminal law or the privileges of the Geneva conventions, and he has on at least one other occasion claimed authority to go as far as ordering the death of anyone he declares to be an "enemy combatant". Both of the more significant cases of these involve his authority to do this to American citizens. One was a guy arrested in Chicago and taken from police custody to be thrown in a brig for three years without being charged with anything or allowed to see a lawyer, the other was an American (since rumoured to have been a spook of ours) riding in a car with an al-Qaeda bigwig whose car was blown up in one of the Saudi peninsula countries. These are far from the only instances of Bush claiming power along these lines. The really scary ones are the memos coming out of the DoD and White House which lay out a legal position that Bush has "commander in chief authority" to order literally anything with no legal restraints. By this standard, Watergate was legal, as would have been Nixon's plan to firebomb the Urban-Brookings institute that John Dean talked him out of. I hear that most judges that have seen these arguments have been agreeing with them, although I'm not familiar with the specific cases.
I'm just trying to state what is the recoqnized legal view of this issue. As it is the FISA court that was set up as a form of oversight for possible Presidental power abuse, and they seem to agree with the legality of the Presidents authorization of NSA wiretaps of international communications, then the case is pretty much open and closed.
...".
But if you want to deal in hypotheticals, you may want to insert the key words to your example "Can the president open up snail mail from a suspected terrorist to an associate inside the United States without a warrant
You'll still get people who fall on both sides of the issue, but at least it's closer to NSA example than any generic snail mail example. As far as I am aware, no one, even those against the wiretapping, have presented any evidence that it is not being executed as has been reported by the government, that being the taps are restricted to communications between known terrorists outside of the US to people inside.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Why should we complain?
We finally have a government that listens to us!
Flamebait and Troll mods are often a sort of backhanded compliment.
Anyway, hmmmm you axed: I'm afraid I haven't a clue. His actions are not predictable or even sane. The immediate goal, obviously, is the keep the price of Texas oil high, but that doesn't really explain his disregard for traditional American freedoms or his love for Saudi fundamentalists.
Your other statements make me think we don't have a lot of viewpoint in common. I pretty much stopped slamming Clinton when he left office; I don't understand the obsession. And I don't think it's actually possible to wage war on a technique, so to me the "war on terrorism" is just another insane Bushism.
I'd very much like to see a "war on the people who attacked us" (and I'd even settle for a "war on the people who funded the attacks") but since the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are George Bush's friends and business partners, I guess that won't happen.
"Oil is a drug producing madness" -Anacharis of Scythia, ~590 BC
Didn't Bush & Co. argue in Rumsfeld