Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that the US government has 'filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.' More from the article: " In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker." You may recall a few weeks ago when the DOJ asked the judge to dismiss the case. They've now taken the next step required to quash this legal action.
Same here I suppose: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/12/cia.lawsuit.ap/i ndex.html
My blog, if you're interested: http://www.purp
Guess what, the feds want the judges to approve their snooping and silence anyone daring to oppose it.
The problem is that the judges aren't even being asked to approve it. The Executive branch is just going ahead and doing it because they're afraid the Judicial branch might say "No."
This guy's the limit!
Text of motion: Government's Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment [PDF, 1.8M]
EFF's page on the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
Sounds great except both parties candidates support this shit. What then? Welcome to the two party system.
So vote for a third party, duh.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
But there does need to be some avenue for the government to actually have a functioning intelligence system. Warrents are for criminal prosecution. This is about foreign intelligence.
I think this displays a serious misunderstanding about the law and the way our system works.
The warrants in question are obtained from a court that is explicitly designed to deal with foreign intelligence, called the "Foreign Intelligence Survellience Court". The law in question is called the "Foreign Intelligence Survellience Act" (FISA). They were set up expressly for the purpose of dealing with foreign intelligence issues and the wiretaps necessary to carry out intelligence gathering.
No objection has been put forth that the current law cannot deal with. The one thing that the law wouldn't allow for is abuse of the system. In other words, the fact that they're avoiding the law and the system strongly implies that it's being abused.
The FISA system has been in place for three decades, and has dealt with tens of thousands of wiretap requests quite successfully. And because the "foreign intelligence" apparatus can be abused to harm Americans, that system provides oversight and a check.
Seriously, the arguments you're making could just as easily be used to justify putting cameras and microphones in everyone's houses.
Kythe
Judges can be impeached, so it is indeed possible to replace them. I imagine it's not that easy to impeach a federal judge, but it has happened before.
Yup. The executive branch can commit all kinds of fraud which the courts will constitute a "political question" because they could not undertake independent resolution of the issues "without expressing lack of the respect due a coordinate branches of government." There's an enlightening discussion in US v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986).
Republican the party and republican the system of government have nothing to do with one another. The US was founded as a republic, therefore our system of government is referred to as republican. If you'd read the Constitution you'd know this.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
I don't think any Saturday Night Live skit is as repetitious and hackneyed as people who call out Godwin's Law. OMG LOL I POINTED OUT THAT SOMEONE USED HITLER IN A COMPARISON ON THE INTERNET. Shut up, nobody cares, and I hope -more- people use Hitler as a comparison to Bush because it's entirely appropriate, despite what all the conservative right-wing fuckwit crybabies -- such as yourself -- say.
It should be noted that Mr. Hayden, Bush's nominee to lead the CIA (after the hasty departure of the felonious Mr. Goss and his #3-in-command Mr. Foggo), recently stated in a press conference that the words "probable cause" do not appear in the 4th Amendment.
There's room for debate about what Hayden beleives, but if you were to ask me, I would say that, if a person cannot identify "probable cause" as the key concept of the 4th Amendment, that person is unqualified for any executive branch office.
--
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General.
And here's a link to the video:
. mov
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha
right wing, overly religious, paranoid Republican
Before you jump to conclusions, you should realize that NSA has been doing precisely this kind of record keeping since long before the Bush administration. The democrats have always been just as enthusiastic about domestic spying as the republicans.
Basically, the two wings of the ruling party play a shell game, by pretending to be appalled at each other's encroachments on our privacy and liberty.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm not commenting at all on how valid those 14 characteristics are. I wouldn't know, I'm not an expert on facism. My arguement is that these characteristics were obviously created with a political agenda in mind, and not by a political scientist who is an expert in fascism.
This is the lyrics to Anti-Flag's "Anatomy Of Your Enemy" which was on their 2002 release "Mobilize" (btw, pick up the recently released "For Blood and Empire", awesome cd...):
10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them
with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
[Chorus:]
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.
[Chorus (repeat)]
We are not countries. We are not nations. We are not religions.
We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition. We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.
Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being!!!
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
There are tons of searches that don't require probable cause.
Keep studying. A Terry stop is one of the very few exceptions to the general rule that a police officer needs a warrant to search a citizen's person, belongings, or home.
Other exceptions would be a search pursuant to an arrest (based on a misdemeanor/felony committed in a police officer's presence, etc.), and an arm's length sweep (wingspan) for weapons when arresting a suspect in a home. Even during a Terry stop, a police officer is only allowed to frisk for weapons, not actually search a person thoroughly, but regardless, a Terry stop is way off-topic.
To claim that there are "tons of searches that don't require probable cause" is absolutely absurd. There is no legal precedent for eavesdropping on private telecommunications without a warrant.
You're right. The difference today, and the reason I'm upset, people in general are upset, and HOPEFULLY, you are upset is:
Independent oversight is currently non-existence. Which is exactly the reason the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) came to be.
The current administration is completely bypassing FISA judges.
Gee, I can only wonder why that would be...
I don't know if it's true, but presumably the reference is to Echelon, Carnivore and/or Total Information Awareness.
Revive the Constitution.
I've read up a little on Germany of the 1920s, 30s and 40s. Some of the parallels between current America and Germany after 1933 are frightening. Anyone who does not believe me might do well to read up on the subject.
One further one just struck me recently, both Hitler and Bush want to reshape the world according to a masterplan, with their nation as the leading agent and example of change. Isn't that the real reason the US went into Iraq? Some sort of reverse domino effect, spreading democracy throughout the region? Hitler wanted to bring true greatness to the nations he invaded, liberating them from their dissolute and soft governments and integrating them into an invigorated and renewed Germany.
Now when comparing Nazi Germany and Republican America it is important to note that while there are strong similarities, Nazi Germany was more extreme.
Nonetheless I hope and pray (as a Christian) that the current US administration stopped. They are dangerous.
meh
First off: Nothing for you here to get really excited here. Please save us your FUD.
I just ran this through a text diff and all I can see is that he condensed some of the prose and shifted it into present tense. No matter what, those 14 points are very valid and nobody needs to be an "expert on fascism" to see that. As far as you're "expert requirement" is concerned, do I need to know everything there is to know about toilet tissue to wipe my self? As far as expertise in the subject matter is concerned, people do really need to know that oh so glorified Cicero was just another slumlord who did his best to advance poverty in Rome just like they do here today. But even without that kind of background knowledge, people can certainly see what is happening in their lives today all too clearly and if anything that makes everbody an "expert" in the subject.
You can't really accuse the original poster of malquoting "Dr. Lawrence", and no matter what it still doesn't even put the slightest dent into the validity of those 14 points.
And presidents have been impeached for less. Nixon only wiretapped a hotel.
Nixon wasn't impeached.
He resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, Johnson was impeached for dismissing a cabinet secretary against a law that was later held to be unconstitutional. No US president yet has been impeached and convicted.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
THANK you - that was one of the few informative posts in this entire thread. Somebody mod parent up.
Here in Canada, in a case like this, the judge has the power to require the state to disclose the information to HIM, so he can rule on the validity of the secret status of whatever the hell it is.
It's implied in your post that that's not the case in the states - is that true?
The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR). Source. All Democrats, but still members. I'm not sure if any are up for reelection this term.
If no member of Congress is willing to stat the process, it does not start.
The US Constitution Article I, Section 2 grants the House "the sole Power of Impeachment." (Section 3 places trial of such impeachments with the Senate.) Under the House Rules, impeachment is governed by Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules. This states (ommitting crossreferences):
Most of these methods (such as the abovementioned Select Committee) are internal, but not all. Since a trial necessarily can exhonorate as well as convict, it is not inconceivable that a President might demand his own impeachment trial, to confront and counter debilitating political attack by rumor and innuendo; however, I would consider it implausible given the personal and political character of President Bush. (The president referring the VP for impeachment is barely more conceivable in present circumstances.) Charges may also come from a state legislature, as folk in California, Vermont, and Illinois are currently pushing; if conveyed this way, it must be addressed as a priveleged bill, taking precedence over all other House business. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is currently investigating the executive, with Libby indicted by a grand jury, and Rove anticipated to follow; it's not inconceivable that Cheney or Bush might be next on his list.
With a Republican controlled House, the potential exists for bills so introduced to be p
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Is't illegal wiretapping and collecting data in violation of the law a felony? If it could be proven that bush was directly responisble for the recent illegal survailance then he could be impeached. I think that there is no way that the techniques the president/NSA are using are not in direct violation of constitutional, statutory, and precidential law. If only somebody would hold the president legally accountable for his actions...
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA