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.
welcome our new, government-inconveniencing-case-dismissing overlords.
Lawsuits are as American as Apple Pie and Baseball.
When you can't sue anyone and everyone who has done or is doing anything you don't like, the terrorists have won.
Last I checked there were three suits pending on this exact issue, and the EFF suit was just one of them. Surely the executive can't brush off all of them.
Anyway I doubt they'll get their motion. While congressmen can be bought off and Supreme Court justices can be replaced, I see no reason why a normal civil court judge would roll over and abdicate his authority just because the executive branch is whining that they don't want oversight by other branches of government.
Guess what, the feds want the judges to approve their snooping and silence anyone daring to oppose it.
In a free country, the judges would give the government the proverbial finger and go ahead with the case. Let's see how it turns up in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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."
If I interpre this right...they want the case dismissed because it will discose state secrets? So it's okay to violate civil liberties and then get away with it because to defend it would hinder state security? Well what about my security? Hell what about my RIGHTS? Next to make a phone call you'll have to requisition phone time giving information like: number you're calling, receiving party, topic conversation.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
the carpet, that will be exactly when the citizens of the US will know that big brother is watching, and Mr. Orwell was right. Its time for all US citizens (and now EU citizens) to make such matters of privacy a voter issue. Ask your current representatives how they stand on such issues, ask all prospective candidates, and then vote with your privacy in mind on the upcoming, and every subsequent election.
If you are not sure how to find out some of that information, go to eff.org
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Only a dictatorship would take steps to prevent anyone from knowing if their rights were being violated.
If Mr. Bush is so sure of his assertion that nobody's rights are being trampled and that all of his Executive Orders approving these actions are legal, then he shouldn't be afraid for these actions to face the rule of law.
But then, the administration knows full well that none of this will stand up to a legal challenge.
You are witnessing the actions of a dictatorial administration consumed with the belief in its own superiority and its own place above the law. Bush believes that as President, he can do anything he wants without regard to the law; he believes himself to be invinceable.
Unfortunately, as Congress and the courts stand now, he's right.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?
No. If there were good and legitimate reasons, they would have simply obtained warrants.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Just curious, but has anyone thought that our own government might not be the bad guys here?
Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay.
Oh and yes, here's a hint: a good government is so rare you haven't seen one in your lifetime anywhere in the world.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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/
I'm not an American, so this is just my $0.02, but to those of you that are, your government seems to be taking away more and more of your civil liberties. America is supposed to be the land of the free, etc. etc. I think it is time that American government representatives were reminded of this - specially with elections coming up. They will do anything to remain in power. If you all tell them you are not going to put up with this kind of BS, then maybe they will stand up for you.
If everyone is silent, one day it will be too late. Speak up in unison to keep rights you have fought for over the past 200+ years. You know what they say - use em or lose em!
Good Luck!
Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?
Of course! Good Lord, man, no one I know has any problem with going after terrorists.
The problem here isn't that the system can be used to nail the bad guys. The problem is that there is absolutely no oversight, and it violates the law. Worse, any attempts to apply oversight have been shut down. If the system isn't being abused, then what the hell is all that about?
Our system of government is predicated on the notion that power inevitably corrupts. This system involves a lot of people, and the idea that absolutely all of them are uncorruptable is absurd.
On this very site as we type, it's reported that the U.S. Government is in negotiations to obtain the same sort of private information from European countries. Quite likely, that sharing will go both ways. Furthermore, media companies are closer than you'd like to getting access to that data, too, in order to "fight piracy". Other companies can't be far behind. Are we to believe that everyone who will eventually have access to our private communications without oversight will be on the up-and-up?
It is the potential for abuse that is the problem. And the fact that this administration has actively resisted any attempt to apply checks and balances in order to prevent abuse is extremely troubling.
Kythe
As my moniker suggests, I prefer a balanced judgement to a dogmatic one. Interestingly, in this particular case, a balanced judgement doesn't answer your question with "Yes" or "No."
Rather, I take this approach.
Assertion: The government is not the bad guys
Conclusion: It is ok to violate our rights if it's for a good cause.
I would think that the above conclusion seems nonsensical. If we accept that the current administration's plans don't include Big Brother-like control over the American public (a proposal that to some, might seem unrealistic, but I am willing to accept it for the sake of argument), that still leaves the question of whether it is RIGHT to be carrying out these surveillance programs.
The ends almost NEVER justify the means; a superior stating of this adage is the following:
"It is never a question of whether the ends justify the means; the means make the end."
In this case, the means being used are possible encroachments on the civil rights of American citizens. Acceptance of that kind of program can only have one end: surveillance of American citizens themselves.
That is not a power I want my government to have, regardless of how "safe" it might make the country. I am not willing to give up my fundamental rights for the ethereal promise of safety.
The US government is and always was, accountable to the American people. The system of checks and balances was put in place so that the no single branch of government could have enough power to destroy the rights of American citizens; the belief was that if one branch acted improperly, at least one of the others could kick them back in line.
What President Bush is attempting to do is tantamount to suppression of the system of checks and balances put into place specifically to protect us from government abuse.
And I leave you with one final question:
If what Bush has approved is so upstanding and legal, why should he fear a legal challenge? I, for one, would like another branch of government besides President Bush to tell me that my freedoms are not being violated, not because I think President Bush is lying, but because that's what the other branches are there for in the first place. And a healthy dose of suspicion of the government is very necessary to a free democracy; that is the only way a society remains free.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
When the judicial system is being asked by an agency to not permit itself to look into a subject, you know there is something VERY wrong with this government's actions.
Even if this were really the most effective way of rooting out terrorist actions, the fact that they seem to feel they have to shield themselves from judicial inquiry breaks the accountability of such a system. Are judges and juries too dangerous for our security network now? Are constitutional protections now too restrictive for our intellgence needs?
Do we really need an unnacountable set of parasites feeding on our basic rights in order to protect us from an invisible set of enemies now? If so, does the debate about if we need these things need to be outside public consideration?
Sounds great except both parties candidates support this shit. What then? Welcome to the two party system.
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But we still have to make trade offs for security.
No we don't, that's my point: when you make tradeoffs, you open the door to tyranny. Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs. Once that's done, they can use the special rules to enact some more special rules, etc..., until the country is a dictatorship.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
So vote for a third party, duh.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. People died for these rights. Human beings had to say goodbye to their girlfriends, wives, parents, and children forever in order to go die a likely horribly painful death. They did this because they believed there was some value in these rights. They sacrificed themselves so that the majority of us would, in privlige, enjoy the benefits of their sacrifice. Today, in this day and age and by not caring, we as a people are telling those TRUE patriots "You can take your sacrifice and shove it up your ass." Ironically, liberty and freedom are being attacked by the same people claiming to be inspired by it.
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.
The "in Soviet Russia" jokes have become obsolete. They're simply not funny anymore. "In Soviet Russia, the government monitors you", "In Soviet Russia, the products dictate the market", and so on.
The whole fun of twisting subject and object in a sentence around and placing "in Soviet Russia" in front of it is simply not funny anymore. It's true. It's where we're heading. Communism won. Slightly differently than we feared, but the result is the same.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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).
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
What the fuck is Republicanism? Republican is a political party, and I can think of a lot of things that are better than the Neocon dream, a representative democracy with a weak executive branch being one of them.
This country would be a whole lot better if our electorate were informed.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
This motion to dismiss the case goes against the very idea of having checks and balances, and if anything the motion itself is unconstitutional. I hope we (the American public) do not allow for this to occur. I hope this issue continues to gain media coverage, because it has the makings to be a very hot political issue. Something needs to be done to make sure this case gets heard.
One idea i have is to simply boycott of AT&T, Verizon, and Bellsouth. Corporations need to understand that they cannot sell out their customers, either to nasty spammers of the US government, without serious repercussions. Someone needs to picks up this idea and runs with it, because it will send the message home. Convince people to switch to other telco companies that did not participate in this such as Quest, or better get make the move to encrypted VOIP.
Because the US is attacking Iran in the next one to five months - before the fall elections.
Two aircraft carriers are moving through the Pacific to join a third already in the Gulf as we speak.
The US is running Kurdish and Iranian dissident groups on incursions into Iran, to stimulate Iranian incursions into Iraq. The Turks are severely upset, having massed 250,000 troops on the Turkey side of the Iraq border.
Once the Iran war launches, it will "bomb" all other concerns off the front pages - including the Republican bribery scandals, the CIA agent leaking, the wreck of the US intelligence services by Bush, etc., ad nauseum.
The end result of the attacks on Iran will be a ten-year guerrilla war two to four times as big and damaging to the US as Vietnam.
By this time in 2008, even Karl Rove will be demanding Bush's impeachment - oh, wait, Karl's being indicted this week (he told the President so last week and AG Gonzales went into the courthouse Friday to hear the indictment.)
So forget the spying on US citizens.
By the way, the Narus company that builds the hardware referenced in the EFF case is run by an "Israeli immigrant" (read: Mossad) - and one of the the directors is a former NSA guy.
Anything more you want to know?
Better learn to welcome your new Bush overlord...cause he already knows if you don't approve.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Bush is nominating Hayden to direct the CIA. Even though Hayden broke the law by spying on us, saying the 4th Amendment doesn't require probable cause. It does.
So Bush's government is derailing justice to protect his compiling vast complex databases of our private communications. In the hands of Iran/Contra conspirators.
After Bush's Justice Department agreed to drop their in-house investigation into Bush's NSA wiretap spying because Bush's NSA told them they didn't have security clearance, these lawsuits are the main obstacle to Bush spying on you as much as he can, taxpaid by you.
Next week, NSA whistleblower Chris Strom will reveal to the Senate how the NSA domestic spying goes even further than these latest exposures (despite Bush denial at every step). Probably spying on us with our satellites, which they scare us into paying for as part of that useless $BILLION Star Wars missile shield.
Feel safer?
--
make install -not war
Warrent's are the correct channel for criminal prosecution. But Al Qaeda is not a criminal organization, they are a terrorist organization. The US does not have the means to prosecute a criminal globally except in a few rare circumstances. Hence we need mechanisms for intelligence that are governed differently (note not laxer, just targeted around intelligence)
Are you kidding? They can of course go abroad and use any illegal method they like to hunt for, trap, and kill Al Qaeda operatives and supporters. But I'll be damned if they can do it in America, to Americans! If someone is suspected of having ties to foreign terrorist organizations, then get a warrant if these enemies are within the U.S. borders. If not, then send a sniper. Don't give me this spoonfed bs that the administration spouts off about. Maybe you'd like to live under King Bush, but I for one am appalled that this issue is not causing people to pass out from sheer anger.
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?
If you get wrath it's not for questioning the mindthink...I'm not even sure what that is. You might get flack for taking a gutless coward's stance toward civil liberties, which don't seem very important to people sticking up for an over-reaching administration empowered by a spineless Congress.
The bottom line this is useless for tracking down terrorists. All it takes is for one of the cutouts to be a coffee shop or other public place and the pattern goes out the window. Likewise if one of the cutouts uses Nike Net and walks the message to another party. Pretty basic trade craft. We're not the only country monitoring telecom.
What it is good for is keeping tabs on who those pesky newspaper reporters are talking to, and for outlining your political opponents support network, and people donating money. Saves the government thugs a lot of running around when they know right who to intimidate. And you can make customer lists of businesses critical of your administration and send the feds out to talk to all them and watch their business dry up overnight. It's really good for those kinds of things, not very useful for tracking terrorists.
Besides, if this is such a good thing, then brief Congress and have the oversight legalized. Most times you do that BEFORE spending billions of dollars monitoring innocent Americans and then get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
It's not paranoid to suggest the current administration and their supporters are the biggest threat to America to come along in the last 150 years. Terrorists can knock down a building or blow up a chemical plant, but Bush is undermining the foundation of our country.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
So I take it you support Carnivore and the DMCA then?
See Amendment X:It is The People that have unenumerated Rights.
See Amendment IX:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Donate $50 to the EFF.
Today.
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."
Why would they? I suggest you read Smith v. Maryland (1979).
Hi. Please see my comments in response to someone who brought up Smith v. Maryland in a different thread. In short Smith v. Maryland applied in 1979 but I do not think it applies in 2006, becuase the Smith v. Maryland suit is founded on the subjective question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy"; however, privacy laws (and laws concerning exactly when the government must ask for a warrant before obtaining certain information) have changed significantly since 1979, meaning that what may be considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in 1979 is different from what may be considered a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in 2006. Thanks for the link though.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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.
These are extremely ominous developments. What is worrisome is not merely that the executive branch is engaging in these illegal and unconstitutional activities, but that it is so brazenly asserting a right to do so. In past administrations, e.g. Nixon's, great efforts were made to keep activities like this a secret. Nixon understood that it was unconstitutional for the "Plumbers" to break into Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office or to tap the phones of the Democratic National Committee. He did not want these activities disclosed because he knew they would not be tolerated by his political opponents or even by his political allies. In comparison to Nixon's administration, Bush's efforts at secrecy are relatively lackluster. Indeed, whenever they are faced with a disclosure of one of these kinds of activities - torture, holding people without charge, circumventing the Geneva convention, spying on innocent civilians without a warrant, etc, - they assert that these activities are perfectly justified.
In a strange way, Nixon's attempt to cover-up his administration's illegal activities involved an implicit acknowledgment of the rule of the law - he engaged in a cover-up because he knew what he had done was illegal. Bush and company don't try very hard to cover up their illegal activities, because they don't care to understand that what they have done violates the Constitution.
As the logic of this plays out, it is going to become apparent that *there must be a constitutional crisis* if we do not want to see the Fourth Amendment eviscerated. If the executive asserts powers it should not have, then either the legislative or the judicial branch, or the people directly, will have to bring the system back into balance. Otherwise we face a slide into tyranny. We cannot allow Bush's justifications of these unconstitutional acts to stand, because they provide precedents that are too threatening to our fundamental liberties. A constitutional crisis is inevitable - and essential - for the health of our democracy.
Since the program will waste investigative resources it will *harm* national security. No, I do not see good and legitimate reasons to hurt my country's safety.
/. for daring to question the mindthink
>taste the wrath of
Yes, there is a lot of "mindthink" on Slashdot. Most of us think with our minds. There are exceptions.
And if true, any reference to 911 in justifying these measures must be a lie.
All these months of emotional repression are leaking out, and I for one don't care to constrain myself. This Godwin's Law horseshit is straight out of Orwell - and please let's start trying to smear me as a paranoid hippie of some sort, because after all, who the fuck uses cautionary novels for support? (well, besides the Bible Thumpers, but I'd say Orwell remains relevant to our times)
Laughing at people who compare things to Hitler is ignoring a very large question that you (and in this case I am referring to the Grandparent and those of his mindset) should (if you weren't so educated fucking stupid) be asking yourself/yourselves: Why is this person so upset?
If we can't cite Hitler, we can't learn from our mistakes. If we can't learn from our mistakes, there's no point in making mistakes. If there's no point in making mistakes, then we should live in constant fear of making a mistake. If we should live in constant fear of making a mistake, we should all wipe ourselves out, because mistakes are inevitable, whether they be supporting facists or making a spelling error on Slashdot.
I am sick and tired. I can TASTE the contempt I have for people like you in my TEETH. "I'm content to be stupid, I enjoy being a parrot, and I can be happy with making little sacrifices - I'm not a bad person. Why can't everyone else be just like me?"
I... there's just so much contempt within me that I find it almost impossible to coherantly express how I feel. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Stalin was able to remain in power. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Hitler was able to commit crimes against humanity. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Bush and the fascists in office can feel free to trample all over every basic human dignity and liberty alike, because you will accept, and even defend, this practice. Not because you actually relate to it - though it gives you a goofy rise, much like how civilized people get a goofy rise out of watching Sonny Chiba movies - but because you are a crippled creature, willing to surpress your basic, ingrained notion of Right, and Wrong, and Fair. Whether through phony intellectualization or simple contempt for whoever's hurt your feelings (which you allow to spread over to the rest of humanity because epic destruction is so awesome), you become a creature of contempt. And even if you were touched by these idiotic policies which your contemptable straw man voodoo rhetoric supports - you know, say your brother got shot to death in Iraq, your father was imprisoned for talking with an old college bud of his and joking about killing the President, and your mother was stalked and raped after trying to rally people in support of your father - you would still sooner claim it the fault of liberalism, misunderstanding, dirty Islamic towelheads who have no right to anything, violent videogames, or God's Will - rather than simply admit that you are wrong, that you have been wrong, that your desire for a cheap rise, a moment of feeling Intellectually Gifted, and/or your simple crass thoughtlessness - whatever it is - is to blame.
The problem isn't that people feel, or think, that Bush is like an American Hitler. The problem is inside you, and inside anybody who would laugh off a comparision without actually giving it some thought, just because they read on Somethingawful/Fark/The "New" MAD Magazine/your satire source of choice that it's apparently "ridiculous" to say such things. Because "OOOOH HITLER, LOL! OMG, WTF, BBQ??? get it??? (insert heavy handed dose of "we're saying this is funny, in an unfunny way, because we think we actually ARE funny in some way, and therefore right - irony" here)", or something.
I have yet to actually read anywhere a coherant and sober reason for why it's a fallacy to compare things to Hitler or the Nazis. Maybe it's because Moderate folk (who can be just as emotionally overwraught as diehard Liberal or Conservative - leaning folk) can't stand t
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
I'm not passing judgment on R.v.W. or anything else. All I'm saying is that, by making a litmus test of that ruling, politics have forced justices into a commitment of absolute obedience to precedent. By their public admission that "No matter what I, personally, believe, I will honor precedent," justices are forced to honor all retarded rulings previously made rather than giving them the flexibility to adapt to the changes of the world.
I have no answers. This is really one of those "worst form of government, except all the others" kinds of situation. We have to honor precedent, or we fall into anarchy; but we have to disregard bad precedent, only who knows what decisions we're making today that are bad? (Okay, we all have opinions, but a century fom now at least half of them will be demonstrably moronic.)
By the way, I found your earlier post very well-thought out, though not entirely convincing. (That's newspeak for "mod parent insightful.")
There are a number of reasons why people aren't talking impeachment, these days, but the most obvious one is: "President Cheney"
I suspect I know the answer to this already, but I'll ask it anyhow, just in case a legal person can respond and we'll learn something about it:
Can we begin impeachment proceedings on BOTH of them and try them as a pair, impeach or not, hang together or serve together?
The constitution doesn't begin to cover it, but what about legal lore? Can congress make that move?
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.
The point with Godwin's Law is that the mention of Hitler/Nazis is very often too emotionalizing to continue the discussion in a constructive way, thus it diminishes the probability of resolving the debate in a good way.
The reason for this is that just by mentioning words such as "Hitler" or "Nazi" you are stirring up images and irrational thoughts that everyone of us is confronted with when learning about that part of history. We connect these words with visions of extreme atrocities against other humans, but also with simple anti-nazi propaganda that we have been fed with since WWII.
A very simple example to reflect this: if I were to say "Hitler did many good things." the first thought that will go through most people's minds would be that I am a nazi with all the characteristics associated with one (racist, anti-semitic, authoritarian etc.). Thing is, that I'd consider myself as quite the opposite of a nazi, yet I would stand by that sentence above because it is true (as true as "Hitler was not a good man."). Yet due to the reasons mentioned above most people will react irrationally to my statement and any possibility for rational discussion will be buried.
This is why mentioning Hitler as a comparison to augment a rational debate will only work with certain (educated) people, but usually not if your peers are your average Joe Doe - yes, even here on Slashdot, though at least here fortunately the demographics seem to be scewed a bit towards the 'rational debaters'. Apparently the moderation system improves the SNR as well ;)
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
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."
Bush seems to see FDR and Truman as his role models.
Not exactly. FDR and Truman both had the guts to fight a war without pulling punches. (At least, Truman started out that way... Pity about Korea.)
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...military control is one way of gutting the CIA for the purpose of subverting intelligence operations that may uncover truths that are "inconvenient" for the current adminstration. The military, with its strict hierarchy and narrow focus, is much less likely to have access to the kind of independent thinking and breadth of expertise that is necessary for extracting the truth from a set of conflicting accounts, observations and intepretations of events. Transferring intel analysis to the DoD will make it much easier to "manage" the product. Plans to strip the CIA of its analysis functions have been formulated and are most likely already being implemented.
To take aim more directly at the points, I would ask you to look up the wikipedia entry on facsism. There are similarties like those shown in the 14 points. However, many of th 14 points have stretched those similarities quite a long way. Many of the 14 points are simply ways in which governments of all types have tried to gain power. Some of the more definining characteristics of facism are discussed in the wikipedia article:
"Fascism in many ways seems to have clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it it can be seen as opposing democratic capitalist economics along with Marxism. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes (and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict), replacing it instead with two more nebulous struggles: conflict between races and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end in itself and determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideas reason or rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge." I'm curious to see if you find that paragraph to describe the current administration.
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