Slashdot Mirror
DOJ To Claim National Security in NSA Case
deblau writes "Wired is reporting that the federal government intends to invoke the rarely used 'State Secrets Privilege' in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action lawsuit against AT&T. The case alleges that the telecom collaborated with the NSA's secret spying on American citizens. The State Secrets Privilege lets the executive branch step into a civil lawsuit and have it dismissed if the case might reveal information that puts national security at risk."
that this action by the fed pretty much confirms the EFF's claims here.
The Bush administration? Keeping secrets? Say it ain't so, Joe!
welcome our investigation-suppressing overlo..umph!
Such an action could only be seen as a flat out admission that the EFF allegations are at least as bad as they claim, and quite possibly worse. There you go, Citizens, your Government is spying on you. Now lets watch as the major media outlets all ignore the story.
So they say.
"In our defense, your Honor, we did it in secret so as not to get caught."
"Case dismissed!"
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
If the Executive *didn't* use ATNT to spy on Americans then it is not a security matter.
If the Executive *did* use ATNT to spy on Americans then its illegal (no warrant) and legal protection doesn't apply to illegal acts.
Try it, the judge will bend over backwards to find a way to continue this case.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which established the FISA court) clearly and explicitely says that the US Government may not do survielance of American citizens without a warrant. I do not see how the government can assert privilege over the NSA's clearly illegal actions. (Nixon tried and failed - badly)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
The examiner would, of course, be bound to secrecy other than answering the above question.
Need to get right: 1) who chooses the examiner (we don't want a gov't stooge); 2) who drafts the wording to the question to be answered.
OK: the above is a nice idea, but it won't happen - governments don't like their workings scrutinised.
Seriously, when the executive branch of the government can simply come swinging in and end any lawsuit they see fit without full explenation to all involved parties (including the public) sounds like what happens in banana republics. No justice for people when they can't get their few remaining rights enforced by the courts.
There is also the constant media consert in fortissimo about how the ends justify the means, i.e. chopping off liberty for the sake of temporary safety and all that jazz. Then there is the issue of seperation of Church and state is slowly but surely being erased. Unfounded wars of aggression (arguable to some extend though I guess) and last but not least, many computer programs are being Censored.
I find it easier to make a list (ala Kill Bill) no only for what needs to be done, but to check to make sure that basic rights are being violated. Lets call this list the constitution.
Here is your assignment for today kids: Go forth unto the internet and find EXTREME cases of governmental violations of each part of the constitution and the bill of rights. Extra points for snappy quotes from goverment officials and spokespeople chanting the party line!
Me thinks it time for a bloody revolution again!
(tickets sold seperately).
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
So we're gonna do what we all do best; bitch and moan and pretend like there's jack shit we can do about it.
The real question in this "State Secrets Privilege" issue is, what "secrets" does the State actually have... That is if you're not a conspiracy theorist.
As a Muslim American, I'm told that I should invite violations of my basic civil rights with the only probable cause being my skin color, ethnicity and religion because I shouldn't have anything to hide. Yet, when the corporations involved with the government and the government itself has lawsuits filed against it based on evidence beyond the realm of "probable cause," they can invoke some act they pulled out of their asses. How do I go about obtaining an act like this but only to protect my civil/constitutional rights? Does the "if you got nothing to hide..." line work with the government too or is FOX news going to spin it some other way for all of us?
SHIT there isn't jack shit we can do about it.
Thanks for f'ing up my day
Algerath
I would like to see some serious punishment for some members of the administration after they leave office... People are talking about impeachment if the democrats get control of congress... but that seems like kind of a slap on the wrist, and would only effect bush himself.
It seems like more than anything else, what has characterized this administration is the desire for power. The wiretaps don't piss me off because I think they are unjust. They piss me off, because wiretaps without any kind of oversight seem likely to be used against the administrations political enemies. The administration has already openly abused its power to try to destroy its such enemies numerous times... they've been hunting down the people that leaked the warantless wiretapping stufff forever (didn't they find one guy?) and will probably try to bring some kind of trumped up charge against their obviously legitimate whistlebloying. Who is to say they weren't tapping democratic campaign headquarters in the 2004 election? I'm not sure that, with the character the administration has itself to have recently, that I can say that is beneath them.
At some point if the power of the executive branch isn't checked, the presidential office itself, could become a threat to the country. With the kind of power that the president has, how difficult would it be to just refuse to step down after your term was up? This president has shown no regard for the law, and a willingness to make up paper thin excuses for his abuse of power. Maybe Bush wouldn't, or couldn't take power like that, but if we set a precedent where we allow the president to break the law, and grab power like crazy all through his administration just like this one did, what's to stop someone more ambitious than him from going further in the future?
I'd like to see congress put some mechanisms in place for checking the execute branch. Specifically, I'd like whatever authority that the administration *imagines* gives them the power to do warantless wiretaps specifically removed. Power to spy on whomever it pleases the administration, without even having to tell anyone in the other branches about it, is clearly a threat to the checks and balance system. Maybe a constitutional amendment needs to be made laying out the powers of the executive branch more specifically, and limiting the power to spy on anyone without oversight from the judicial, and maybe the legislative branch.
Sources please?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"Sir, if you have nothing to hide, then you should have no objection to a full disclosure of the documents you have created and accumulated with your wiretapping activities."
"But it is in the interest of National Security that I do not perform my legal obligations, and I do not wish to tell you"
Hypocrites - A study in government responsibility.
Even if you elect people who are less abusive of the power I doubt you are going to see any elected officials vote to reduce their own power/influence.
Algerath
Whatever the trial judge decides about the DOJ motion, you can bet this gets appealed all the way up the line to SCOTUS. The claim, as asserted by DOJ, would be a clear violation of the due process clause if the government could step into any case and inhibit discovery or evidence presentation. In other cases involving sensitive material, the trial judge has the opportunity to review such material before granting or denying the motion.
...democracy is over. All the western countries are now becoming fascist. So what ya going to do about it? Write to your senator? pffft.
It kinda sounds like the NSA equivalent, at least.
Ok, let's ponder. So it would endanger "national security" if they told that they used ATNT to spy on their own citizens. Now, those citizens are, at least if I got the system in the US right, the ones that elect the ones in power. They are the "nation". So it would endanger their security if they knew whether they've been spied on.
Ignorance is strength... where've I heard that before...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
People on /. have been complaining about the EFF filing lawsuits that they don't win. They may not win this one either, but it proves a point: The gov't is spying on a lot of us and doesn't want us to know it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
in the guise of "national security."
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
Seems to me that something like this subject should have senators and congressmen pounding on podiums with veins sticking out of their foreheads denouncing those involved and making a lot of stink to oust the bastards... or maybe that was just a reality tv show I saw once.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Even if that is gross hyperbole, the AC still has a point -- if our government hadn't screwing around with them for the past 20-odd years, they wouldn't have attacked us in the first place. Bush's policy of retaliation just pisses them off even more, and makes things worse.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I wish it were true, but I don't think the term "rarely used" applies to the states secrets privilege any more. Unfortunately it is used far too often, and even used when there is no state secret but the need to cover some body's hind quarters.
Perhaps it should be called the CYA privilege.
Think Deeply.
Rep. Waxman issued a Flash Report examining data released by the State Department and National Counterterrorism Center that shows that the number of reported global terrorism incidents has increased exponentially in the three years since the United States invaded Iraq--an increase of over 5,000% in the number of terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of deaths in three years.
report[pdf]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the lawsuit is not over any government records, but those of civilians. The only aspect of this case that could be considered "national security" is the fact that the NSA and possibly other government organizations got the records from AT&T... Isn't there some statute or code that mandates relevancy? Or maybe, common sense? If they use this "privilege" in this case, couldn't they use it in any case concerning anything with the federal government?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
You forgot "outside of the United States". Wasn't the whole idea to get terrorism out of this country.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
It's about time to put an user-transparent version of GPG (or symmetric encryption) in about every open source project, which uses communication or stores something. I'm already wondering, why it's not included in Thunderbird by default (I know, the provided GPG plugin is one of the best available for mail systems see http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ ).
p _encryption.html ...
Good programs would be:
- encrypted storage for torrent files (F*** off RIAA)
- Generate and upload GPG key when you install Thunderbird by default
- Encryption for VoIP (yeah, Skype has it and it pisses of the feds)
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/voi
or zfone http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index.html
- GPG encryption in HTTP traffic (no more snooping on forms)
-
Here's a scenario under which quashing the lawsuit would be a good thing.
Suppose that AT&T has been cooperating w/ NSA, this wouldn't take a great stretch of anyone's imagination. Now suppose NSA is using that access to get information on foreign diplomats and intelligence officers in the US (legally allowed) and data transiting the US or used by Al Qaeda people outside the US, such as Hotmail or GMail accounts. They could have a list of known overseas email accounts, and just watch the SMTP headers and grab them as they come by, or watch for the logins to suspecte accounts, they could even monitor the IP addresses on that SMTP or HTTP transfer to insure the email was in fact being retreived from overseas. The servers are here, but all the communications are between people outside the US, and the pipelines are an easy way to access it all, instead of having to monitor a bunch of dial-up, DSL, and DirecWay connections in the Middle East and Europe.
In this scenario, nothing illegal is going on, but for AT&T to defend itself, it would have to admit to cooperating w/ NSA, and would have to explain what traffic is being monitored, so as to prove it isn't helping monitor Americans, at least willingly or knowingly. That would definitely cause some of the bad guys to stop using US based servers, so we might lose valuable intelligence.
Who knows, but that could be a large part of it, and in that case I would have to agree w/ DoJ 100% on quashing the lawsuit.
Has everyone forgotten the events that led to April 9, 1865 in the Appomattox Court House in Appomattox County, Virginia?
Civil rebellion. Poorly-armed and -trained volunteers. Leadership that, while exemplery and genius, was against the industrial might of an entire nation. Seizing of lands, property, wealth, and persons without due process, warrants, or a fair trial. A legacy of bloodshed, hatred, contempt, mistrust, lawlessness, and general horror that lasted beyond the shooting war to become a silent specter to this very day.
These things happened because men thought "we have the Second Amendment, we can protect ourselves from the Federal government". And those men all died in vain. Despite the insipid reasonings that led to that particular revolt and civil war, the very real facts stand that a large body of dedicated individuals attempted to simply remove themselves from the union and it ended very badly. An outright attempt to overthrow and usurp the government would likely be met with even greater violence and tyranny.
Men are fools to believe a piece of paper can service their needs. In the end humanity answers to only one law: might makes right. It is something humankind has still not clued into, and this silly Second Amendment and Constitution worshipping is a symptom of it. It's a symbolism of men and women who continually live with just-world bias in their hearts. There is no such thing as a just world.
The Federal Republic concept was tried and it failed on that cold April morning of 1865. The Federal government is simply a facade for the tyranny of the powerful, the wealthy, the strong, the cruel, the wicked, and the insane. Religions, businesses, and political parties exist to misdirect the common fool from these truths. The only self-evident truth is that man is either master or slave.
Welcome to the result of millions of years of inborn, violent, heirarchical instincts.
So, either they don't have such a monitoring program, but they want the terrorists to think they do, and it would compromise state secrets to reveal the fact it does not really exist, OR ...
It's exactly what people are suggesting it is, and the government is going to cover its ass with a big "state secret" stamp?
What is this? The frickin USSR?
Here's a clue: if the system had been set up via legislation, so that there was debate about its merits and it had some kind of legal legitimacy, it wouldn't be a big deal to keep the details of its implementation secret. But secretly set up something that sure sounds as if it must be violating well-established law, and of course people are going to be pissed off and demand answers to questions. They are asking now for answers and justification that should have been provided before the thing was deployed.
At least the Great Firewall of China is openly admitted to exist, and everybody already knows the government there is authoritarian. Does a Great Firewall of the USA exist? The world may never know. But if its existence and justification is not properly explained to its own people it will say much more about the current US regime than the answers to the legal questions in this case ever would.
In what kind of bizarro democracy would the government truly be better off not explaining itself? Shouldn't they dispell people's concerns about these rumors?
Even if that is gross hyperbole, the AC still has a point -- if our government hadn't screwing around with them for the past 20-odd years, they wouldn't have attacked us in the first place. Bush's policy of retaliation just pisses them off even more, and makes things worse.
Not only is this a defeatist attitude, but it's completely baseless to boot -- you have no idea how the world would have turned out under alternate scenarios, and you're just idealizing that under a non-intervention approach everyone would be holding hands and singing songs.
In reality your approach could have led to extreme hardline overthrows of all of the Middle East, Turkey, Pakistan, extreme military hostilities with India, more violent wars between the secular Iraq and her neighbours, endless assaults on Israel, and so on.
Given that most Westerner's live a life that would earn them a stoning to death, I think it's a bit ridiculous to think that letting them in peace would make them good neighbours.
Does the "if you got nothing to hide..." line work with the government too or is FOX news going to spin it some other way for all of us?
Neither! It seems FOX news, along with all other major media organisations, are not going to cover this case at all. When the DOJ sued Google because "Google won't give us information about people searching for porn" that was big news. This seems like even bigger news, but strangely, it isn't in the news.
Why?
Erm, the allegations are based a story that entered the public domain in an NYT story in December 2005 which alleged that President Bush signed a secret order shortly after September 11th 2001 to conduct warrantless wiretaps of US citizens. This is backed up by the testimony of one Mark Klein, an AT&T tech who was approached by the NSA in 2002 to do some of the work. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the current allegations of illegal domestic spying. This is GWB's crime all the way.
Now I wouldn't call you a liar if you said that Clinton had perhaps done something similar sometime, but the reason people didn't complain about Clinton doing this is because there was, and AFAIK still is, no real evidence that he did so, and there was certainly no major news outlet or civil rights group making any allegations of domestic wiretapping when he was in power. If you remember, the US media jumped all over Clinton for all sorts of personal scandals when he was in power (Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc); if there wasn't an outcry over Clinton, it's because there wasn't an allegation to cry about.
Why should people complain about things that they've probably not heard of, and for which there appears to be no evidence?
I must say that quote got me a little choked up. I hope it doesnt come down to that but; as you say, the tree does look a tad dry.
The FBI secretly sought information last year on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents from their banks and credit card, telephone and Internet companies without a court's approval, the Justice Department said Friday.
And how many of these 3,501 where arrested as a terrorist? I suspect none or very , very few so how many of these where violated?
Got Code?
It probably has since the word terrorism has been extended to mean "anything we don't agree with"
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Wow, if you really believe that they are only spying on 'foreign nationals,' you are a sucker.
The problem is not just that the EFF loses cases. The problem is that for every lost case, a new legal precedent is established that permanently reduces our civil rights. In this case, the EFF has given the government an opportunity to use a new legal theory, that they are immune from lawsuits to prevent illegal violations of the Fourth Amendment (i.e. illegal search and seizure) merely by invoking Executive Privilege with a National Security Letter.
With their ill-conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed lawsuit, the EFF will permanently establish that the President and the Executive Branch is above the law and can violate the Bill of Rights at their whim, and that citizens have no redress. Thanks a lot, EFF!
what happens now, does it just go away? has this been getting news coverage or anything? i don't watch tv so i don't even know.
-- lol pwned
I dont know who said it but it has become a mantra of mine when discussing this administration and periodin our history:
"History will not be kind."
We lost the ground war in Vietnam but since they sell Coke there now I guess everything is kosher in the long run. Our policy in the middle east has brought us the first real atack on American soil since..... when? And repaid this in kind by destroying a country not responsible while giving Iran and DPRK all the time they needed to shore up their systems.
Amazing. And after all this Osama is still alive.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Those laws were passed in the wake of Watergate, but the White House acts like the law doesn't apply to them. So what good would it do to pass more laws the administration feels free to ignore?
I say we take some of that massive intelligence apparatus and turn it on the Federalist Society. They're a bigger threat to our country than Al-Qaida. The terrorists might be able to do some damage to an airport or chemical plant, but the neo-cons are undermining our freedom, our government and the very foundation of this nation.
It's time for those in law enforcement, the military and the Justice Department to start remembering that they took an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution, not the Republican party. The people threatening a building can't undermine the Constitution, it takes Dick Cheney to do that. They don't seem very worried about this fall, perhaps they feel they have the elections rigged well enough they can't lose.
And after all these bozos are in jail I say we take a paddy wagon down K Street and round up every one of those sonsabitches.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This is by no means a new legal theory. The State Secrets Privilege was first recognised by a judge in United States v. Reynolds, 1953 , and he drew on existing English case law to make that judgement. The precedent was set over fifty years ago, it's hardly being set by the EFF.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
When EFF loses, judges tend to expand the scope of fifty-year-old precedents.
Ok, so lets not think about the previous 30 years, lets look at the last 3 years. Lets focus on Iraq. Iraqis now have less access to electricity, clean water, and natural gas. The price of gasoline there is more than what we pay here before taxes. Whole cities have been destroyed. Over 100,000 people have died. Do you really believe they were all terrorists? Prior to the United States invading, they had electricity 24 hours a day in most cities, running water,and gas pipelines for providing gas for heating and cooking. Food was easy to get. Yes, there were problems, but generally it was a better society than it is now, you just had to keep your mouth shut and toe the party line. So how would you feel if a foreign country invaded your country and took away every creature comfort you had, and then killed your parents and your sister? Hmmm... lets see here... join a terrorist group. Now we are threatining Iran, which is an elected democracy in every sense of the word (unlike Iraq's "democracy) and is surprisingly pro-west, with dropping nuclear bombs on them. Yes, the world is a lot less safer because of George Bush. Specifically it is a lot less safer for Americans and for America.
Well, seems to me that they have two choices.
Either they go ahead with the prosecution and risk creating this precedent that you fear. Or, they do not, and the government gets away with it.
Either way, with no consequences to their actions, the government is (or might as well be) above the law. At least with the EFF trying to prosecute, they
a) have a chance of doing something about it
b) bring it to people's attention
c) in the event of losing, sow the seed in people's minds that they *must* have been up to something in order to quash the case like that
Incidentally, you also mustn't forget that precedent is a guide, not an iron clad rule. Judges are free to rule differently; precedent just gives them something to use as guidance, and to point at in the event of their ruling being questioned.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Me thinks it time for a bloody revolution again!
We have a good system. What it requires is citizen participation. Yes, corporations have money. Yes, politicians are corrupt. But in the last presidential election, only 67% of eligible voters (and that's the most since 1968) turned out. That 2/3 of the electorate voted in Bush despite all the evidence that had accumulated since his election in 2000.
A representative system only works if the people are engaged. The problem is, the people don't want to be engaged. They don't want a smart leader. They don't want to know what's going on in the world. They enjoy watching TV infotainment. They elected the man they felt would be the most fun to take a to a barbeque. Now people are coming out of the woodwork saying they are surprised and dismayed by the actions of the Bush Administration, even though they were willfullly ignorant of his autocratic tendencies in the first four years of his presidency.
We have to point the finger of blame at ourselves, or we're no better than the politicians we elect. Excuses about media bias, corporate power, and so on are ultimately just mechanisms for us as voters (or in many cases, non-voters) to pawn off responsibility on someone else. If we want to fix the system, we need to convince other voters that protection of the balance of powers is of paramount importance, and the rule of law should be more than just a phrase we use when we're invading other countries. We need to do some hard work here at home.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
And after all this Osama is still alive.
Of course he's still alive. Can you imagine Bush doing what he does if bin Laden were captured? He'd never get away with it. The public wouldn't let him.
As long as bin Laden is free, Bush is free to rule however he wants.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Hey...I never said is'nt wrong. I just read posts that sound like "hey...look! Gee Gawd! Only GW would ever do something like that!"
Like "executive priv" has never been used before.
Personally, I'm jaded. I've voted both democratic and republican. Both parties get into the white house defend the same policies (basically) when it comes to executive power.
When the next democratic president gets into office you can be SURE that if any precedant has been set by GW, the new president will defend those new rights even if they dumped on the prior administration while running for office.
. . .what "secrets" does the State actually have...
If I told you, they wouldn't be secrets, now, would they?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Iraqis now have less access to electricity, clean water, and natural gas. The price of gasoline there is more than what we pay here before taxes. Whole cities have been destroyed. Over 100,000 people have died. Do you really believe they were all terrorists?
Few would disagree that the Iraq war was a huge mistake. Nonetheless, interesting that you pin everything on the US. The US has spent billions upon billions upon billions trying to rebuild Iraq, but elements that want Iraq to be a cesspool keep, you know, blowing it and lots of people up. Yet the only villain you see is the US. Funny.
So how would you feel if a foreign country invaded your country and took away every creature comfort you had, and then killed your parents and your sister? Hmmm... lets see here... join a terrorist group.
Yeah, and go and blow up every burgeoning creature comfort of your country, and kill thousands of your countrymen. Yeah, that's a pretty logical progression.
The "funny" thing is that most insurgents in Iraq aren't Iraqis (you know, those disaffected people who you think the US got up in arms). They're henchmen with a long running desire to shame the US, hoping it will stay back enough that they can take over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Now we are threatining Iran, which is an elected democracy in every sense of the word (unlike Iraq's "democracy) and is surprisingly pro-west, with dropping nuclear bombs on them. Yes, the world is a lot less safer because of George Bush. Specifically it is a lot less safer for Americans and for America.
Ha ha ha. Talk about blinders. The Iran whose leadership has openly and formally called for the annihilation of Israel. Yeah, can't see why Iran getting nukes would be a problem... The Iran that is being continually sanctioned by the UN (as always, the people with blinders can only see George W. and the US. While the US has the means, it's hardly the US that is behind censuring Iran).
Personally I think the US should detach and let Iran to chart their course. Let the skeptics eat their cake when Iran inevitably nukes Israel, Israel retaliates, revolution kicks off in Saudi Arabia, and then spreads across the middle East. Damn that George W.!
You obviously didn't read US v. Reynolds. The plaintiffs were seeking federal data to support their CIVIL lawsuit. The case established the Government's right to invoke Executive Privilege to stop disclosure in a tort.
The EFF case is entirely different. The government claims that Executive Privilege is a higher power than the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. And the EFF, in the process of losing their lawsuit, will permanently erode the 4th Amendment, and place the Executive Branch beyond the reach of the courts.
There is no such thing as a just world.
There is no just world right now. But, if we fight for it, if we struggle for it, we might be able to make it just, make it fair, make it right. We are creatures of creation-- we life to create more than we live to destroy. If that weren't the truth, we wouldn't have civilisation, or buildings, or Apple ][ computers, or cans of soda.
We live to create, even more than we live to destroy. If this weren't true, there would be no "weapons of mass destruction," because we would have used them all. The Beatles wouldn't have given us great music. Jimi Hendrix destroyed himself, but left behind an astounding creative legacy.
We can make this world just, if we want. But it takes all of us, not just one or two.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The EFF will get publicity an order of magnitude greater than they currently have. Then maybe will see a lot of people saying, "What else does this group that just saved my ass stand for?"
Quite a few people believe it is our duty to support our President, even if he's a lying, cheating, murdering, egg-sucking, goose-fucking prick (and he is, too). Many even think that "freedom of speech" goes too far, and that the government should approve news stories (it seems it is these days). These same people have perverted the meaning of patriotism.
Patriotism is standing up for liberty. Patriotism is battling against tyranny, even if that tyranny is home-grown. Patriotism is putting the rights of the people before the rights of the government, and before the rights of corporations.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Whether or not the executive branch believes it can ignore the Fourth Amendment is beside the point. The State Secrets Privilege is all about dismissing lawsuits before they even get to a point at which such a thing can be discovered.
This can be used to cover up abuses of power, but that doesn't mean precedents can be set making the abuses of power legal. That doesn't make sense. To set such a precedent would mean that the lawsuit wasn't dismissed but went ahead anyway.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
in conclusion : You guys in the US are SO screwed. welcome big brother
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. Groucho Marx
I for one would love to see a sample of transcripts from the phone calls being intercepted... change the names to protect the naturally innocent until proven guilty but leave in the rest.
Would be very interesting to see what sort of communication between US citizens/residents and foreign correspondent merits the attention of the US government.
Is it merely the topics of conversation? "So did you watch Fox News on Satellite yesterday, when they talked about Moussaoui's case.... what did you think?"
or would there have to be actionable statements in there somewhere? "So what are you doing over there to make the US case against Moussaoui look as weak and prejudice as possible?"
or just a name... "Is cousin Zacarias out of the hospital yet... can't believe people in the US would throw rocks at him just cause he's got the name of that idiot, Moussaoui."
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The "rarely used" state secrets privilege may indeed have been rarely used once, but since Bush's actions started to become unpopular it's sure been in the news a lot. I can't think of a case involving the NSA lately that DIDN'T invoke the privilege.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
as you say, the tree does look a tad dry.
I agree. The democrat policy tree is very dry.
I would rather not have the executive above the law, but if they are, you're damn right I'd rather it be de jure than de facto. When the government's intentions are naked, fewer people will tolerate it.
English is easier said than done.
This WILL be dismissed, without a single line about any of it in the 'liberal' (read: joke!) media.
The fix is already in. Karl Rove (aka: Little Stalin) is already spinning the deceit. Jst watch....you'll see!Either way, with no consequences to their actions...
Except for the 'possible' Bush impeachment hearings that a few states and quite a few cities and counties are trying to bring about. (This isn't to say that I don't completely agree with everything that you said, just wanted to point out that the EFF is no longer the 'only' one doing anything about the current administration)
>all this case is about is absence of evidence as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what you're implying.
We have Mark Klein's written statement about tapping fiber at ATT facilities.
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
We have Russell Tice's testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has defended the program
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
President Bush says he signed the order.
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
Could you try using boldface? Somehow the all-caps hasn't been enough to convince me.
>Go forth unto the internet and find EXTREME cases of governmental violations of each part of the constitution and the bill of rights.
Wouldn't you say the Third Amendment is holding up pretty well?
Speaking as someone who loves my country, I'm going to work awfully hard to fix things peacefully. Look at the history of our previous civil war.
What's funny is that the ones suffering (the Iraqis) disagree with you. A vast majority wants the Americans out asap and there a plurality of people who not only sympathize with the "insurgents" but also support violent action against Americans.
Wow. Why don't you call up some of those Iraqis and ask their real opinion, because you're here spreading absurd misinformation flippantly. Most Iraqis want a timetable for US withdrawl (AS DOES THE US! Who the hell wants to spend hundreds of billions, and thousands of lives, putting another country in order?), but very, very few want the US to hop on a plane and fly out. They aren't crazy.
Of course, the reason is that those people are just too stupid to realize that Americans are angels from heaven and all raids, air and otherwise, on civilians is for their own good.
Yes, that's what was implied. Good strawman.
The sad truth is that 99% of the people running roughshod over the boards to piss on the US a) don't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis, or any downtrodden peoples. They just like a wonderful opportunity to piss on the US, or b) they're racist and want the US out simply because Arabs aren't worth the trouble. Usually a), but occasionally one sees b) as well.
Look up Bush's reactions to the Minutemen, a group which fits every definition of a well regulated (and armed) Militia. It's clear that he has no love at all for the second amendment, even when it's being used in the way you claim it's supposed to be used for.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Just because the text itself doesn't say it explicitly, doesn't mean that's not the reason Jefferson et. al. put it in. Once you read all the other stuff they wrote, it's obvious that this is how they intended it to be interpreted. Remember, they were revolutionaries themselves -- they were only re-affirming our right to do exactly the same thing they did!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, obviously that's the best-case scenario... I'm just not as confident as you are that it's possible.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Wow, you really don't understand the point of a constitution, do you? What point is there in having some special set of fundamental laws if they can be reinterpreted?
That makes them absolutely no different from a regular old federal law. The only distinction is that instead of having a general consensus of congress to establish the law now we are talking about having a general consensus of judges.
I think you ought to read the ratification clause of the constitution. It is designed to make changing constitutional law extremely difficult and contingent on supermajorities, not simply majority consensus. I would take it to be pretty freaking obvious that an agreement between 5 guys on SCOTUS was not meant to be given the same legal significance as a two-thirds ratification in each house of congress followed by a three-fourths ratification by the states themselves.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Uh, it's right there. being necessary to the security of a free state. The security of a free state is not only challenged from outside influences but by insider actions as well. If the framers we're only concerned with external states coming in and challenging our sovernty they would have said "being necessary to the security of a free state from foriegn nations" or something similiar. I
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
When the next democratic president gets into office you can be SURE that if any precedant has been set by GW, the new president will defend those new rights even if they dumped on the prior administration while running for office.
Then why didn't Carter insist on as much executive authority as Nixon? Why didn't Clinton claim as much as Reagan did?
The government's argument here is a very dangerous one. They seem to argue (in the actual filing) that national security is a greater interest than constitutionality-- i.e. that they can continue such a program indefinitely without judicial oversight simply because they can argue that national security information would be compromised in such a lawsuit.
This is part of a larger pattern, unfortunately. In defending this program, AG Gonzalez has stated that the AUMF of 2001 allows such a program because, in its words, it allows the president to take action against all "states, persons, or organizations that he determines" were involved in the 2001 attacks. Such an interpretation would essentially mean the official end of the American republic and the rise of an imperial military dictatorship. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, this is not fundamentally different to *how* the Nazis took power after the Reichstag was burned. Our system is designed to protect against this exact danger.
The problem is not the spying per se. It is instead the way the program is run without adequate safeguards to the system of government of our democratic republic. I certainly hope that the court in this case does not give the Executive a free pass in this area. Allowing the State Secrets privilege to be invoked as a way to quash judicial oversight of such a program would be such a free pass.
All most of us are asking is for judicial oversight.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Whether or not the executive branch believes it can ignore the Fourth Amendment is beside the point. The State Secrets Privilege is all about dismissing lawsuits before they even get to a point at which such a thing can be discovered.
But you have just hit on the real problem-- the case is fundamentally about the Executive failing to execute appropriate Constitutional safeguards, and due to those 11th Amendment (Sovereign Immunity), the action is being initially taken against those who have aided and abetted in this crime against our system of government. For the Executive to quash this suit via State Secrets would likely send a message that this principle is more important than the 4th Amendment.
The issue at hand is whether State Secrets are more important than the underlying questions of Constitutional law. So, no, it is *not* beside the point. It *is* the point.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Incidentally, you also mustn't forget that precedent is a guide, not an iron clad rule. Judges are free to rule differently; precedent just gives them something to use as guidance, and to point at in the event of their ruling being questioned.
IANAL, but I think that vertical stare decisis is an iron clad rule. I.e. the appellate court is *not* free to rule in a way inconsistant with the Supreme Court, nor is the trial judge free to rule in a way inconsistant with the appellate court.
I think that in most if not all circuits, apellate panel decisions can only be overturned by the appellate circuit sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.
Of course this doesn't prevent a judge from looking at a precident and ruling differnetly from it *if* he can make a case that there is no inconsistancy here (for example, if he can make a case that the previous precident doesn't apply because the cases are sufficiently different).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I agree. But there is a world of difference between "sending a message" and setting legal precedent. I was specifically replying to somebody claiming that the EFF would be setting bad legal precedent with this case. I quote:
I'm not arguing that the power to quash this lawsuit is right for the executive branch to have, I'm saying that this isn't setting precedent. The State Secrets Privilege is already well established.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Very true. If one were to apply the current definition of terrorism to events in the past, I suspect many would consider the US government of past to be a terrorist organisation.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
IANAL....
I agree. But there is a world of difference between "sending a message" and setting legal precedent.
Correct, though I often wonder how fine the line really is (at least in the short term) when court cases are involved. In the long term, however, it is clear that there is a substantial difference between the two.
I was specifically replying to somebody claiming that the EFF would be setting bad legal precedent with this case.
You are correct. The EFF can't set precident. Only a judge can do that. There are of course readers who will likely suggest that this is a fine line, but it is not. Judges write opinions for a reason and the opinion substantially informs the precident. Thus if the EFF or another party launches a similar suit against, say, Verizon, then they may be able to get around the objection of the first precident. THis is one reason why precidents are as narrow as possible.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And I thought I might have the best username-related gag for this one...
Freedom: "I won't!"
Show me where in that there amendment it says anything about the purpose of the populace having guns being to overthrow the government
Their other writings make that general mindset pertty clear. Hell, just look at the Declaration of Independance.
On the other hand I don't think the Founding Fathers exactly anticipated or intended shoulder launched tac-nukes and the various other developments in arms, so I don't think that clause should be accepted as denying any regulations or limitations on arms at all.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The miltia is (and always has been) that portion of the population able (and hence expected) to take up arms and defend their country.
Besides, doesn't Bush claim to be Christian? He must be lying, because if he were actually Christian he'd be "turning the other cheek" like Jesus preached about!Bullshit. Bin Laden is not stupid; he just has a different ideology. From his perspective he's fighting for freedom from foreign control, similar to how the Americans fought against the British during the American Revolution and War of 1812. The only difference is his choice of tactics, and though I certainly don't condone them I can see why he picked them -- George Washington was much less outgunned in 1776. And make no mistake: if it were happening today, the British would be calling Washington a "terrorist" too.
Similarly, other Muslim leaders aren't stupid either. Just as we have no real hope of changing their ideology and way of life by force, they have no real hope of changing ours. And our military is certainly capable of defending us, whether Iran or Pakistan have nukes or not. Therefore, if they didn't see us as a threat (and we are a threat, with Bush's warmongering ass in thw White House) they wouldn't feel the need to attack us.
Finally, it is not our job to police the world! If the Muslims don't have the right to impose their ideology on us, how can we possibly claim that right over them?! I say if they want to let themselves be overthrown by hardline extremists, then that's their problem, not ours.
Look, I'm not an isolationist. In cases where we justly should intervene, I don't have a problem with that. However, this is not such a situation because we are in the wrong. We were in the wrong when we helped Bin Laden 20 years ago, we were wrong when we helped Saddam Hussein come to power, and we were wrong to invade Iraq this time, too. (We weren't wrong all the time, though -- stopping Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was justified.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Bush also draws his authority to do the illegal wiretapping since congress passed the AUMF. Of course, it doesn't even tangentially allude to such power and even then, former senator Tom Dashcle was asked to slip a provision into the AUMF to do exactly that and he declined.
For those of you keeping score, the Bush administration asked for a specific provision in the AUMF to do domestic wiretapping. It was denied. They then turned around and said that the text of the AUMF as it stands allows them to do just that anyway. Obviously, this raises the question of why they needed a provision in the first place if the original text would do just fine.
The Unitary Executive Theory isn't totally bull. I can sympathesize with some of their arguments. For instance, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, so it is his job to execute any war that congress declares. Congress cannot pass a law that says "attack Basra with these weapons, using this platoon, etc." On the same token, some of its ideas are totally out of whack.
The constitution is rather vague about the powers of congress regarding executive oversight. I'd say that under UET, congress can still simply not fund certain projects that they don't agree with. That'd be the major way congress could still do reasonable oversight. If the president reallocates funds without the approval of congress, that would certainly be grounds for impeachment.
I see a very common mistake occurring in these posts: the mistaken idea that because liberals and conservatives have different views on things that one side is correct and the other side is wrong. Both conservatives and liberals have this view; that the other side if filled with gullible idiots who will destroy the country if given the chance. Because slashdot is predominately a site for young people, the liberal viewpoint is the main one expressed here.
If I hold up a coin between us and say "This coin is 'heads'" and you look at it and say "No, you're wrong the coin is tails" NEITHER one of us has incorrectly described what he sees. Arguments between the conservative viewpoint and the liberal viewpoint are just as pointless as arguing over whether the coin is heads or tails - both sides are right and wrong equally - neither is "seeing things" or delusional. Both sides have massive blind spots in back of them - neither sees that the people at the head of "their" party are up to no good - although that is obvious to those with the opposite viewpoint.
Are the liberals correct that the people at the head of the Republican party are Rich - would be kings - who wish to turn the U.S. into a second coming of Rome? Yes - that is not a delusional viewpoint.
Are the conservatives correct that the people at the head of the Democratic party are Rich malignant narcissists who will - given the chance - destroy everything the founding fathers worked to create by turning the United States into a second coming of the Soviet Union? Yes - that is not a delusional viewpoint.
Since most people here at Slashdot have the liberal perspective it is not necessary to show you that Liberals have correctly seen what the leaders of the Republican Party are about.
What is necessary is to show you that the conservative view of the Democratic leadership is just as accurate, and that conservatives are no more delusional than you are.
Did you know that John Kerry is a Communist Traitor? That is not conservative rhetoric or anybody's opinion - it is the official position of the Communist Government of Vietnam who in 1983 while Kerry was Lt. Governor of Massachusetts awarded him as a "Hero of Communist Victory" for his actions on their behalf during the Vietnam War. You won't be able to find confirmation of that fact on the Internet - except at some conservative sites which you naturally won't believe - but if you scan the newspaper archives from 1983 you will find that the story is absolutely true.
The conservatives are no more deluded than you are: they simply see things which are actually there that you are missing.
The problem is not Liberal vs Conservative the problem is 'the Republicans and the Democrats' VS all the rest of us. The antidote for the Imperialistic Rich is not the Narcissistic Rich.
Bullshit. Bin Laden is not stupid; he just has a different ideology. From his perspective he's fighting for freedom from foreign control, similar to how the Americans fought against the British during the American Revolution and War of 1812.
Right. So that's why this Saudi went in and was a major participant of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. That's why he was attacking the US back in the early 90s, long before the current adventures. That's why his troops are trying for the overthrow of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (to kick out governments he doesn't like, to replace them with hardliners).
Yeah, he just wants to fight the foreigners, just like the war of 1812!
My god -- do you really believe this crap? You're spewing moral equivalism, imagining that he must be just like "us", only with different motives. That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer was just like other guys, only he liked human flesh instead of chicken: If you really think it's all the same, then you need to rethink things.
Stop touching me there! That's my danger zone!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Once it starts to unravel, we're going to find out more about the vast conspiracy that is the neo-con movement, from rigging the ballot to treason to war profiteering and on and on. It will shake the republic to its very roots. But once we excise them from the body politic and expunge their backers (the ultra-wealthy who are behind it all), we'll be a much stronger country."
You modded THAT garbage up.
What the fuck? A rant about one conspiracy theory after another, a rant about "excising" people from the politicl process EVEN THOUGH IT'S THEIR POLITICAL PROCESS TOO, and a blind assertion get +5?
You should all be ahsamed of how you've let slashtdot fall. Instead of REAL insight we get kooks who have already decided what the rpoblem is, how to deal with it, who is at fault, who's rights to take away, and who to blame.
THAT is the problem with American politics. Reason is discarded in favor of whomever screams the loudest.
And you idiots fell for it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
The Government already has the "Patriot Act" which opened the pandora's box to lies, deceit and whatever crimes the government decides to perpetrate in the name of "your protection" AKA "national security".
;)
Even posting here could get you declared as an 'enemy combattant' -- or certainly someone worth spying on. Just watch your step or you may be hussled off to Cuba so fast you'll think you're on the Concorde.
And don't worry about any pesky lawyers -- you won't have access to one for many years to come. In fact, you'll be lucky to see ANYONE you know for many years to come.
Of course, it's all for your convenience and safety.