Government May Help Bells Defend Against Wiretap Suits

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "As lawsuits mount against phone companies from plaintiffs who allege their call records were handed over to the National Security Agency illegally, the companies' defense may get help from the U.S. government, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'The plaintiffs, who accuse Bell phone companies of privacy violations and are seeking billions of dollars in damages, would need to delve into the depths of the NSA's surveillance program to make their cases. But the government considers such information top secret, and legal experts expect the Bush administration to assert the "state secrets" privilege in the 20 or more lawsuits filed by privacy advocates in recent weeks. If judges accept the claim, as has been the case in nearly every instance in which it has been asserted since the early 1950s, the suits will dissolve.'"

Comments

Proposed Strategy

[eldavojohn]

The information itself may be classified but the fact of whether or not they collected it shouldn't be.

Why don't they ask the director of the NSA, Michael V. Hayden, whether or not their information was collected? They don't need the classified records, just to have him swear under oath (after checking appropriate databases) whether or not AT&T gave it to the NSA.

I would think a simple "yes" or "no" answer would be enough evidence and also keep the classified information concealed.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[TheSpoom]

Personally, if he answered "no", I'm afraid that wouldn't be good enough for me.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[CRCulver]

Why don't they ask the director of the NSA, Michael V. Hayden, whether or not their information was collected? They don't need the classified records, just to have him swear under oath (after checking appropriate databases) whether or not AT&T gave it to the NSA.

The NSA wouldn't be willing to do this because part of ensuring the efficacy of its interception capabilities is making no public comment whatsoever. See Bamford's The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets for a layman's introduction to why keeping one's mouth totally shut is the only way to defend SIGINT gathering.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[NoTheory]

FYI, Michael V. Hayden is the former head of the NSA. Also, i sincerely doubt that they'd put the head of the CIA under oath. The republican senate has been extremely leery about putting anyone under oath who might face tough questions (I.e. justice department officials such as Alberto Gonzales).

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush Administration has already said that just knowing about these illegal programs jeopardizes our security. But honest, its all for our own good.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

I'm pretty sure he can plead the fifth. To get and keep his security clearance he can never divulge classified information. This program is no doubt still classified despite the fact that it was leaked. If he were to just confirm its existence he would be breaking the laws relating to his security clearance and subject to prosecution. You can't make people break the law, or incriminate themselves on the witness stand assuming the Bush administration hasn't unilaterally overturned this basic civil liberty yet. To get Hayden or anyone else in the NSA to testify about this program it would have to be declassified which ain't gonna happen.

If there was enough information leaked already to clearly establish that the records were turned over illegally then they might still have a case, but the government probably will try to have all the leaked evidence thrown out and to prevent anyone in the phone companies, who might not have a clearance to worry about, from testifying on national security grounds.

You would hope that if the law was broken, and it almost certainly was, that the phone companies and the government would be held to account. There is a communication act the explicitly forbids releasing your phone records without a court order.

It is an unfortunate fact that laws are much more vigorously enforced against ordinary citizens than they are against people in power. When the DOJ brings a Federal case against a citizen their success rate is extremely high like 80%. When citizen's bring a case against the government their success rate is extremely low. Welcome to Fascism.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Qzukk]

Intelligence is kind of like encryption. Excluding things like infiltration, if it only works because it's super-sekrit, it's probably not working anyway.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[PapayaSF]

The information itself may be classified but the fact of whether or not they collected it shouldn't be.

Really? Isn't that like saying circa 1943: "The information itself may be classified but the fact that there is a secret project at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge and Hanford involving uranium shouldn't be"? Or perhaps "The photos themselves should be classified, but the fact that many photo recon missions are being flown over the Normandy coast shouldn't be?"

Sometimes keeping secret the fact that information is being collected is as important, or even more important, than the information itself.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[SCDavis]

This is very true... also if you dont have anything to hide, why should it matter whether or not you are being "listened" to... i think it would be fun to see how much they are listening and start rambling off "bin ladens" and "bombs" and "pentagons" all seperated by some static...


"whos there?"
"The NSA"
...

"and you thought you we werent listening..." :)

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Roduku]

I agree with that. The suit has nothing to do with classified material, it's about whether or not ATT turned over calling records and whether or not the NSA acted without a warrant.

The only material that would need to be transported is a bona fide warrant from a judge. My guess is that such a warrant doesn't exist and that is the "states secrets" they are wanting to keep.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

I forgot to add you can setup a trial where classified information and testimony is involved but I think the judges, lawyers and everyone else involved have to have a security clearance, and I'm not sure you can have a jury trial in this case. This is done when the government needs to convict someone for espionage. I just bet it would be nearly impossible for private citizens to bring a case where classified information is involved and this case will probably follow in that mold

Re:Proposed Strategy

[kfg]

I would think a simple "yes" or "no" answer would be enough evidence and also keep the classified information concealed.

I'm sorry, but that information is classified.

KFG

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but we aren't talking about military missions. We are talking about large scale data collection on the entire US populus.

The government derives its power from "We the People" When they target everyone for investigations and then try to keep it from us, that's out of line. The people try to use the legal system to stop this and are shut down.

You may believe that this administration is trustworthy. However with a precident of holding people without trial indefinitely, collecting personal data on every single citizen, searching and seizing with "sneak and peek warrants" or if it is "terrorism" related potentially without warrants at all, and making reporting on any of these activities illegal etc... It is a pretty solid ground for a totalitarian government to pick it up and run with it.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Sometimes keeping secret the fact that information is being collected is as important, or even more important, than the information itself.

In this case, the existence of the thing is itself illegal, so your example doesn't really hold water.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

To deal with the importance of classifying some information (like short-term military tactics) and unclassifying other information (like surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr.), I propose a partial solution.

Whenever a government employee/officer wishes to classify something, they should specify a time frame and attest under oath why the classification is necessary. The longer the classification time, the more people it should require to attest.

Each such classified piece of information should be periodically examined by an independent, security-cleared audit group.

If, at any time, either the audit group or the public (through the courts) determines that the classification time was falsely attested for (meaning the information should have been classified for less or no time), those who attested for its classification should be subject to criminal charges proportional to the excess.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[gstoddart]

The information itself may be classified but the fact of whether or not they collected it shouldn't be.

Unless they're not willing to share the fact that they've collected it, and deem even that to be a state secret.

All they have to do is say "Your honour, if people knew the ways in which we spied on them, they'd switch to other ways to avoid us". If they were stubborn, or just the invasive idiots we believe them to be, they'd fight this just on principle and to deny you the knowledge of if they did it or not.

Heck, it's a brilliant legal strategy. Let anyone make any old allegation about government wrong-doing, and simply invoke state secrets. "We're not saying we did something wrong, or even that we did it but we think it was right, we're just simply not going to tell you, and you can't make us."

The perfect magicians sleight of hand -- while you're looking over here at the left hand, the right hand has snuck into your house and rifled through your stuff. Of course, that doesn't help you determine if the left hand just did something naughty.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[NoTheory]

The Fifth Amendment protects SELF-incrimination. It does not protect you against testifying about other matters. If you have been called to testify and have been sworn in, and do not testify, you can be held in contempt of court or congress. At least, so far as i understand it. Since Michael Hayden != NSA or any telecommunications company, the 5th amendment has no relevance to this case.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Pendersempai]

Right, and that's why one necessary component of a court system is that it can compel people to do things whether or not they want to do them. So Hayden presumably wouldn't have a choice -- or rather his choice set would look like {answer the question, keep mum and be held in contempt}. Ask Judith Miller how much fun that latter choice is.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of lawsuits against the bells, people should start calling or e-mailing the NSA asking "What's this phone number on my phone bill and who did I talk to? I don't remember ever making this call." If anyone knows, they do.

A few million calls like that will cause them to regret ever obtaining those record.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[bill_kress]

Doesn't invoking state secrets at all imply that there is something to keep secret?

Re:Proposed Strategy

[painQuin]

SIGINT gathering? All they were seeing is how often we press ctrl-c in our terminals?

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Ian Wolf]

In this case the existence of the thing is NOT illegal until a court of law says it is. This case splits hairs down to the atomic level and nobody can say definitively whether or not it is legal or illegal until it reaches the SJC. You can bet your ass this is going to get to the SJC too. All of these private lawsuits are premature. Until the legality of this data gathering is determined by the SJC the lower courts are absolutely going to dissolve these cases. It will go something like this:

1. Telco Attorneys file a motion to dismiss claiming that it believed they were acting in accordance with the law.
2. Plaintiffs will argue that the Telcos should have withheld the information because they should have known it was an illegal request.
3. Government attorneys will quickly point out that every law on the books allows data collection under certain circumstances, but those circumstances as well as the program itself are classified.
4. The court will point out to the plaintiffs that it cannot force the government to declassify the program or the circumstances that prompted the data collection. The court would then point out that without evidence indicating that the actions were illegal must dissolve the case.

The main motivation of these suits was to raise awareness and get the ball rolling. They had to know that they would have no chance of winning without a final determination by the courts as to the legality of the program.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fifth Amendment protects SELF-incrimination

In addition to what you're saying: let's remember that the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not corporations.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[susano_otter]

A lot of intelligence-gathering techniques rely on the fact that your enemy is unaware that he is leaking intel in some way.

As long as he remains unaware, and continues to leak intel, you can stay a step ahead of his game (whatever it may be).

The moment you describe your techniques, the enemy has an opportunity to become aware of his leaks, and plug them.

Leveraging your enemy's ignorance is a key component in getting good intel on your enemy. It is very different from encryption, in the sense that good encryption does not become stronger from being secret, but good intel is often unattainable unless it is kept secret.

When your enemy knows how often your satellites pass overhead, he stops revealing his troop movements during your satellite passes.

When your enemy knows you are tapping his phone lines, he stops revealing his plans by discussing them over the phone.

Thus, it is always in your best interest--and in the best interest of those you have set out to defend--to never reveal to the enemy the various was in which he is helping you to defeat him.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[bmh129]

The 5th Amendment does not apply (per se) in civil cases. Witnesses in civil cases can be compelled to testify.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Qzukk]

When your enemy knows how often your satellites pass overhead, he stops revealing his troop movements during your satellite passes.

Then your satellites don't pass by often enough.

When your enemy knows you are tapping his phone lines, he stops revealing his plans by discussing them over the phone.

Because it's a well known fact that phones are the only way terrorists make plans, unless they know they're tapped in which case they switch to untappable psychic powers.

All of this aside, secret or not, intel is only useful if you use it. I'm reminded of all the whining about the news leaking the US's ability to track bin Laden's satellite phone, as if the government was ever actually going to kill the guy.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Gablar]

That may be true but the fact is that the "terrorists" now know that their calling patterns are potentially being monitored. So if they were dumb enough to think that their calls were not being monitored before, now they know to be careful when to place a call and to who, or maybe just use pre-paid disposable phones or phones from the black market. Regardless whether the information was given to the NSA or not, is not a secret anymore, the smart criminals we are dealing with will assume they received it whether the NSA admits to it or not. IMHO if they were using this program for antiterrorism purposes, it's naive to pretend the terrorist aren't taking measures against it.

        It doesn't matter anyway; American apathy towards this is what's dictating the outcome of it. The only thing that will come out of this is a good precedent for more intrusion and monitoring. Piece of advice, play by the new rules or suffer the consequences (defamation, less employment opportunities and constant fear of the government). But who cares at least we will retain our standing as a superpower

Re:Proposed Strategy

[susano_otter]

Yes, and sometimes even using intel reveals too much about your collection methods. This is a classic conundrum of information warfare, and one which military leaders have famously struggled to resolve in all the major conflicts in recent history.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

I was maybe using "plead the fifth" in an overly broad sense since people know what it means. It doesn't exactly apply but it is close. If you make someone with a security clearance divulge classified information in the witness stand they would not only be incriminating themselves but they would actually be committing a crime on the stand. Like I said the government would either have to declassify the information or arrangements would have to be made for a special court that is authorized to hear top secret testimony. It can be done since the government does it whenever they need to try someone for espionage or leaking classified information but I wager the government would do everything in its power to obstruct such a court if they are the defendants and not the plaintiff.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

Yea but you can't be compelled to commit a crime in the process of testifying, and if Hayden were to say anything about this classified program in a public court room he could immediately be charged by the government for leaking classified information.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Dolly_Llama]

Perhaps, but we aren't talking about military missions

NSA is a DoD organization, so we still are talking about military missions. The key issue of contention is not really the type of activities that went on, but that the NSA did performed them inside the US on American citizens in contradiction to their own charter and the framework set up by the FISA after the Church committee, which itself derived from the revelations of previous domestic intelligence like COINTELPRO.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[NoTheory]

Er, well i guess that was my point. He doesn't have the option of taking the fifth, or not answering if he's sworn under oath. So the interested powers who are in charge of whatever wiretapping is going on are going to do their absolute damnedest to avoid putting any officials who actually know about this under oath, or they'll likely have to perjure themselves. The only legal way they're going to get away with not telling people is by not testifying at all.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[arunkv]

Sometimes keeping secret the fact that information is being collected is as important, or even more important, than the information itself.

Or as Sir Humphrey put it:

He that hath a secret to keep must keep it secret that he hath a secret to keep.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Fulcrum of Evil]

In this case the existence of the thing is NOT illegal until a court of law says it is.

So Bush can prevent this by claiming that it's a state secret? Holy brainfuck, batman!

Re:Proposed Strategy

[SpaceLifeForm]

Exactly. There are no secrets about this operation anymore.

It is just a ploy by the darkside to cover their ass after the fact. If all of the judges involved fall for the governments state secrets argument, then anything the government does that is illegal will always be covered up via the state secrets argument.

I'm optimistic that not all of the judges will fall for it.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Xyrus]

The point, I believe, is that there should be NO classified information because the act of GATHERING said information is prohibited BY LAW.

It wasn't illegal to bomb Normandy because we were at war. A REAL war as opposed to this farce we call a "war on terror". Building the bomb also falls into this context.

What doesn't fit is the government actively spying on its own citizens, without any oversight whatsoever. There is no just cause for this. There is no reason. In fact, it is blatantly against the law to do so without a warrant.

Classified or not, the law takes precedence. That's what it's there for. It's to prevent crap like this from happening in the firt place.

Um...wait...oh yeah. Sorry, I must apologize. That's the way it would work in a government that actually respected the great ideals this country was founded on. Let me rephrase for modern times:

Laws or not, the government takes precedence. That's what it's there for.

Or, in Joe Sixpack Fox News Lingo:

OMG!!1!! Terrorist are going to eat you!!!1!! Feddies will save U!!!!!1111!

~X~

Re:Proposed Strategy

[demachina]

I found the Criminal Information Protection Act which codifies classified information in a trial, but as I expected it is completely written in the context of the government being the plaintiff when they need to use classified information to convict a defendant of espionage, terrorism or leaking. You see the government will divulge classified information to nail you but they wont allow you to use classified information to nail them.

Having researched it I agree that the government will try to just use the state-secret privilege so Hayden wont even make it to the stand. If by some miracle the judge doesn't cave to it and Hayden does have to testify then I assume either CIPA will have to come in to play and be bent to this novel case, or Hayden will just refuse to answer any questions that would divulge classified information because it would in fact incriminate him in the process if he did it in a public court.

The Wikipedia article on the states-secret privilege is quite interesting and probably more interesting than the WSJ article.

Its not even a law, its just a precedent that was established during the McCarthy era where the Air Force used it, apparently fraudulently, to cover up the fact a B-29 crash was due to poor maintenance of the air plane, and was basicly negligence on the part of the Air Force.

"In United States v. Reynolds (1953), the widows of three crew members of a B-29 Superfortress bomber that had crashed in 1948 sought accident reports on the crash, but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission. The Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch could bar evidence from the court which they had deemed a threat to national security. In 2000, the accident reports in question were declassified and released, and were found to contain no secret information. They did, however, contain information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in the landmark case."

Just goes to show you that once you let your government establish an illegal and unconstitutional precedent, during times of war or paranoia, to screw you, they can continue to abuse it forever. The Bush administration has been successfully using the fact that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war to justify denying American citizens basic due process today, and that FDR spied on American cables in World War II to justify spying on Americans now indefinitely.

Another interesting invocation of the "state-secret privilege" was in 2005 in a patent suit brought against none other than AT&T. Apparently a company called Crater Corp thinks AT&T is violating its patents for "WetMate underwater fiber optic coupling devices" which I'm guessing is probably being used by the U.S. to tap and evesdrop on fiber optic cables on the ocean floor. I would assume it must be used for tapping otherwise it wouldn't be classified. Now the U.S. has used underwater tapping technology against the Soviet Union for a long time, both on copper and fiber optic cables, but I bet you the NSA in concert with the U.S. Navy is underwater tapping any fiber optic cable they can't eavesdrop on land with the help of U.S. phone companies. It would be an interesting case to tack in to this case against AT&T.

The "state-secret privilege" was also use to defeat a case brought by Maher Arar, the Canadian detained by the U.S. at a New York Airport on his way home to Canada. You probably remember reading about it here on slashdot. He was shipped by the U.S. to Syria where he was abused for a year or so before Canada finally managed to free him. His crime as best I remember was he signed as a reference on a lease for a friend of a family member

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Ian Wolf]

Not exactly. Not only is there a special court for matters of the highest security level, but the SJC absolutely can and likely will hear the case on the legality of this data gathering program. There certainly will not be any cameras or gallery. Hell, I'm not even sure which attorneys will be allowed to be present. I'd imagine the AG, but no idea how the plaintiffs are represented. All of this will take some time to come to a head though.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[KwKSilver]

Interesting concept. It would keep them real busy signing attestations. When I was in the army 30+ years ago, I think the existence of out pool table was classified. In the gov't. damn near eeverything is.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[NormalVisual]

Practically speaking, he could probably be charged now for his involvement in the domestic wiretapping situation if anyone in the government had some moral fortitude. There are any number of government officials right now that *could* be charged with a lot of crimes, but they won't be, because that's just not how it works. We have now an executive branch that feels it has carte blanche to completely circumvent the protections designed into our system of government, and a legislature and judiciary that appear to be quite content to go along with it.

When are the other two branches of government going to wake up and understand that this flagrant abuse of power by the executive branch represents a much greater threat to our national security than confirming that which everyone knows already?

Re:Proposed Strategy

[eraser.cpp]

And does catching this enemy justify perversion of American values like privacy? I think the problem America has in figuring out how to deal with terrorism is that the potential damage is very high, yet the probability is incredibly low. It's like 0 and infinity, how do you compromise that? I for one would prefer the small probability of danger to losing fundamental civil rights. Besides it's not like the government doesn't already have the ability to get this information, the only difference is that they used to need to go through an established balance of power (the judiciary in this case) to get it. FISA made it very easy to get the warrants, and even in a court that's entirely closed to the public. I don't believe there is any good reason for the NSA to no longer need to follow through this established balance of power. An executive with unchecked access to public records has, historically speaking, caused a lot of trouble in the past. If we make a mistake now, there will be no fixing it later. You will not resume any rights that you sacrifice for the extremely faint probability of danger.

Re:Proposed Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying that a state of war exists between the Bush administration and the American public, then? Nice move.

Great

[l5rfanboy]

I'm sure it's obvious to most any /.'er, but isn't this one of the largest (and longest-running) examples of why the lack of transparency in our government is a bad thing? "We're suing you for helping the government!" "No you can't, your prosecution relies on State Secrets." I have the feeling this type of situation is going to becoming more and more prevalent in the upcoming years.

Bah!

[Umbral Blot]

This is so much bullshit. One of the principles of democracy is that the people get a say in how the government is run; preventing people from knowing what the government is up to, and preventing them from suing the government when it does something wtrong, goes against this principle. We aren't quite to the maching on congeress phase, but we are getting there fast.

Re:Bah!

[Dadoo]

We do (sort of) have a say. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

Re:Bah!

[Firehed]

I think the idea of suing the government rather than dissolving and recreating it when it goes severely afoul is wrong enough already. The fact that we can't even sue is at least fourth degree bullshit.

Re:Bah!

[nuzak]

> We do (sort of) have a say. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

I'm sorry but that's not good enough. The rule of law is not something that should be lumped in with tax cuts and gay marriage and all the other happy fun wedge issues.

We can start with trying to vote out the current elite. But we need laws that hold the government accountable, we need to impeach after the fact (strips 'em of pensions and the rights to hold any other office), and so on. We cannot allow tyranny to be the natural result of a term-limited official.

Re:Bah!

[Tackhead]

> We do (sort of) have a say. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

Remember, Remember, the Seventh November,
Congress, Corruption and Rot.
I see no reason Dempublican treason,
Should ever be forgot.

Re:Bah!

[TheGratefulNet]

to put it in the simplest possible terms:

"this is not your father's america".

what we have, now, is nothing close to what the founding fathers envisioned.

Re:Bah!

[spun]

I'm reminded of an old political cartoon. In the first panel it shows an ugly rat in an excercise wheel in front of the US Capitol. He is running to catch a bundle of money dangled in front of him by a fat cat in a tuxedo. Behind him a mob bearing pitchforks and torches advances on him yelling "Throw the rats out!"

In the second panel, the mob has installed a cute mouse in the excercise wheel. The mouse is running after that same bundle of money while the mob walks off congratulating itself on a job well done.

Re:Bah!

[Intron]

Yes. I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished.

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

The president is also not up for election this November. So voting the incumbents out in November is going to apply only to Congress. Still, there's too much job security in Congress. Keep kicking them out until they realize they work for us.

Re:Bah!

[prurientknave]

slavery hasn't been abolished it's just been outsourced to sweat shops around the world. The people we enslave grace us by not being in our presence. From what I hear none of our puppet regimes around the globe have women's rights. Oh yea sure we have women and minority suffrage at home but now that voting means nothing, what's the point?

Re:Bah!

[greg_barton]

In November, you can vote out the incumbents.

And what if the election system isn't valid? What then?

Re:Bah!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"Yes. I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished."

I get so steamed when I see people posting crap like this. And the sick part is, you're not even joking. You've bought into the propoganda that attempts to discredit the founding fathers by claiming they were elitist slave owners just trying to protect their own wealth.

You're guilty of an ad hominem attack, attacking the sender in an attempt to discredit their message, which is a logical fallacy of the highest order. Just because the founders were unsuccessful in abolishing slavery at the signing of the Constitution doesn't mean they supported slavery, nor does it mean they didn't try to change people's minds about it. Just because women weren't immediately enfranchised with the right to vote (and incidentally, nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence DENY women the right to vote) doesn't mean the founders didn't respect strong roles for women.

Posts like yours attempt to take the founder's achievements out of historical context and use it to claim that the world they envisioned was one of injustice or any other derogatory word you could use. The founder's achievements were unparalleled in the history of the world, and they did it for the right reasons - it actually IS possible to look beyond your own interests and do things for the right reasons, and they did, and they jeopardized their lives to do it. They were almost certain they'd fail, and they knew the price for failure, but they did it anyway.

Don't try to cheapen what they DID accomplish, what they DID dream, by pointing out what they didn't do.

Re:Bah!

[CastroDemocrat]

We need a third party.

Re:Bah!

[UnrefinedLayman]

In the context of their world-view, the founding fathers did do well and succeeded in many of their goals. In the context of our world-view they failed to meet the expectations we have of calling a country free and the people equal. In the context of a future world-view I'm sure the people will believe that we have failed to meet their expectations of what it means to be free and have equality (through at least three hotly debated issues, homosexuality, abortion and immigration).

Contextually the criticism levied against the founding fathers is completely warranted, appropriate, and expected from a modern American. Whatever their goals, however noble their intentions, however good their hearts, the founding fathers did construct the supreme law of the land to allow slavery, deny women the right to vote, and a host of other things we find distasteful and it is the right thing to do to acknowledge those shortcomings and acknowledge that the people of modern eras have tried to bring greater peace and freedom to their country.

Your claim that women were not specifically barred from voting by the constitution is correct but misleading. The 14th and 15th amendments explicitly give the right to vote to men and explicitly do not forbid gender discrimination. The constitution is implicitly saying that denying suffrage for women is legal and acceptable and that there is no constitutional argument that would provide them with those rights, despite the very clear opportunity to prevent such discrimination and division. When it comes to the fine language of the law, what you don't say is as important as what you do.

Re:Bah!

[skarphace]

Just because the founders were unsuccessful in abolishing slavery at the signing of the Constitution doesn't mean they supported slavery...

So I guess them owning slaves means they didn't support slavery?

I agree with most of your points, the GP is an asshat but be clear, they participated in these actions and most likely agreed with them. It was just part of their time and ways so it's hard to blame them for it but nonetheless, they did.

Re:Bah!

[Intron]

You are absolutely correct about women's rights not being limited by the constitution. Whether the majority of the framers were for or against women's sufferage or slavery is another question. Certainly not all were on the same side. As for ad hominem attacks, I don't seem to be alone in that regard.

Re:Bah!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"So I guess them owning slaves means they didn't support slavery?"

Actually no, it doesn't. Read up on the opinions written by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington regarding the owning of slaves - the founders who did own slaves by and large owned them ONLY so that their positions as wealthy, powerful men would not be questioned. They were well aware of the contradiction between advocating freedom and owning slaves.

They were still politicians, and they weren't perfect. They had their flaws. George Washington was a famous philanderer. Thomas Jefferson liked to spend the nights with his slave women. Alexander Hamilton had a horrible temper that got him killed.

"and most likely agreed with them."

You should know that in fact they didn't agree with them. But they chose their battles: The founders knew that attempting to outlaw slavery in the Constitution would more likely result in NO Constitution EVER being signed, and getting one signed was far more important.

This is, ironically, why the 3/5 clause of the Constitution exists (allowing slave states to count each slave as 3/5 of a person for representative purposes) - if it had been a foregone conclusion that slavery was OK, it would have been a straight out 1. It was in fact that exact issue that almost caused half of the men at the Constitutional Convention to leave, because they knew that a Constitution outlawing slavery would leave the slave states with little to no Congressional representation.

Re:Bah!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"Contextually the criticism levied against the founding fathers is completely warranted, appropriate, and expected from a modern American."

This depends on the context. If, as you appropriately point out, you're measuring CURRENT standards of freedom and liberty against those achieved by the founders, you can say they missed something.

That is not the spirit of posts like "The founders envisioned a world with slaves and enslaved women." The spirit of such words is to say that the founders did NOT envision a world built on freedom or liberty, which is not the case.

"it is the right thing to do to acknowledge those shortcomings and acknowledge that the people of modern eras have tried to bring greater peace and freedom to their country."

I completely agree. I'm not saying they didn't construct a government that allowed slavery and denied women the vote - I'm saying that to say that was their legacy would be unfair at least.

As I responded to another poster, the founders weren't perfect. Jefferson for example had a very lowly opinion of women and wanted them kept completely out of politics. Not a very enlightened opionion, considering the guilt that he constantly carried for owning slaves.

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

We do (sort of) have a say. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

Great thought and I hope it works out BUT

1) You can only vote. At this point it appears to be up to a Neocon cabal whether or not they choose to count your vote.

2) The odds of someone other than Kang or Kodos winning are slim to none.

Re:Bah!

[Vengie]

The Rockerfeller republicans are still just that (Repbulicans) -- despite having less and less to do with the rest of the party. Give them a few more years and they'll break away. Civil liberties, small government, social liberalism and fiscal responsibility.

Re:Bah!

[Vengie]

FYI one of the reasons you're allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender in some circumstances is because if you were not, single-sex locker rooms in YMCAs, JCCs and public gyms would be unconstitutional. (i.e. sep but equal).

Re:Bah!

[e40]

. In November, you can vote out the incumbents. That's what I'll be doing.

What makes you think that will help?

Re:Bah!

[UnrefinedLayman]

I appreciate we're able to see fairly eye to eye on this issue. I think my objection was based largely in part on this idea:

I completely agree. I'm not saying they didn't construct a government that allowed slavery and denied women the vote - I'm saying that to say that was their legacy would be unfair at least.

I'd say their legacy is an accumulation of the things they did and that 99.9% of people have only good things to say about them. The other .1% has plenty of good things to say about them as well but isn't going to let the idea of tarnishing their reputation stop them from voicing an opinion or stating a fact from their legacy--and is probably smart enough to realize that such an opinion or opening of facts only serves to provide further illumination on the past, the present, and how things came to be this way. Such information is very unlikely to sway the opinion of someone who holds them in high regard to a primarily negative opinion. The true effect is that some people may lower their opinion of the founding fathers, but there is no way they will come to be seen as villians; to suppress opinions or facts on the idea that we mustn't forget others belies the insecurity of those others.

Regardless of the manner in which that information is presented, stating such furthers our own knowledge and understanding and should be lauded, not derided or hidden (as you imply it should be, in that it "cheapen"s their legacy).

Re:Bah!

[UnrefinedLayman]

Actually no, it doesn't. Read up on the opinions written by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington regarding the owning of slaves - the founders who did own slaves by and large owned them ONLY so that their positions as wealthy, powerful men would not be questioned. They were well aware of the contradiction between advocating freedom and owning slaves.

That's called a reason, not an excuse. It's like saying "I only beat my dog so the cat knows not to fuck with me." Truly honorable men do not trade others' lives for wealth and power.

Owning slaves was inexcusable and if they truly believed it was wrong then their legacy is tainted with hypocrisy. I know slavery is wrong, but if I were to make a great deal of money from owning one would it be considered acceptable to continue the practice? I would be no more excused for it than they should be.

Re:Bah!

[nuzak]

I get so steamed when I see people posting crap like this. And the sick part is, you're not even joking. You've bought into the propoganda that attempts to discredit the founding fathers by claiming they were elitist slave owners just trying to protect their own wealth.

While that may have been his intent, there's still another point that isn't an attack: that our progress hasn't been all backward. Of course, the very reason that such progress was made was due to the tireless efforts of those who went up against the entrenched positions of power, so it's not exactly a good point to make in defense of the status quo...

Re:Bah!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"I would be no more excused for it than they should be."

I'm not saying they should be. I was only replying to the idea they thought it was ok, just because they owned slaves. They didn't think it was ok, but that didn't stop them because they were, in the end, politicians. The only mitigating factor for them is that most of them stipulated in their wills that their slaves go free upon their deaths (and many of them freed their slaves long before they died). But they DID think it was wrong and their legacy is ABSOLUTELY tainted with hypocrisy.

I openly recognize that, although in your other reply to me it seems you feel I'm advocating HIDING their shortcomings. Nothing could be further from the truth, all I wanted was to keep them in historical context (not for the purpose of excusing them, but for understanding them).

Re:Bah!

[TheGratefulNet]

Yes. I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished.

I do see your point. there were questionable ethics or morals by those that we currently hold so legendary.

so lets say there was a peak shaped curve of some sort. the rights and freedom was at one level at time-0, then things did improve, slowly over time and so the curve went upward. but my point is that I feel - I do honestly feel - that we've turned a corner and headed downward and that rights of the people have, overall, gone down in literally a generation or two. that is what I meant by 'your fathers USA'. literally. our parents grew up in a country where corporations had much more limited rights, for example. today, the little guy will always lose when it comes to his rights vs that of big business (think mp3 and music or think health care and drug companies).

the war on drugs is another farce that our parents didn't have to live with. this is costing us, as a country, millions and has produced nothing of value in return. freedom has been taken away, often illegally, all under the name of 'WOD'. we are less free because of this.

war on terror. our parents didn't quite have that. there was 'fear of the commies' and 'what if they Pressed The Red Button?'. and yes, the politicians did use that to scare the population and keep this fear going for quite a while. but it was never at the level that its gotton to, now. we are much less free now, with all the airport 'security' hassles (that are not proven to even help one bit) and with the NSA getting more and more free-run of the country.

maybe I don't want to go 200+ yrs back. but I don't think that we've continued to move the curve in an upward direction. I don't know if it was 5 years ago or 10 or 20. somewhere in that general neighborhood, we started going backwards. (come to think of it, reagan comes to mind, along with nixon. I think it was about then that we started our decline.)

this is still 'not your fathers america'. not in spirit, at any rate.

Re:Bah!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished.

Slavery is back in fashion. Do a little research on prison labor in America - the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, bare none.

Not only is it immoral all on its own - it is anti-free market because the businesses that 'hire' the prison labor get the benefit of paying below-market wages - which their competitors do not.

Re:Bah!

[Smallpond]

I think the window of your own lifetime is affecting your judgement. When North America was first invaded by the Europeans, they were "free" to kill the native inhabitants, take and settle any land, build or take whatever they needed. As population density increases, the need for law increases, and the restrictions on individuals increase proportionately. Everyone remembers a less restrictive time and always has. The cattlemen of the Wild West complained about farmers fencing in the "free" range. Now that every square foot is owned, managed, and fenced the restrictions are becoming more abstract: threatening speech, gang colors, terrorist blogs.

There isn't much evidence that people have changed. Studies of teen violence, for example, show about the same levels today as in the 1950s. People follow the requirements of the culture in which they live, and break the rules when doing so is in their interest. There are just many more rules today. The idea of having to come to a stop on a deserted street in the middle of the night because a light is a particular color has always seemed ridiculous to me. I try to imagine Jeremiah Johnson's reaction. I think the traffic light would fare badly.

Re:Bah!

[TheGratefulNet]

The idea of having to come to a stop on a deserted street in the middle of the night because a light is a particular color has always seemed ridiculous to me.

I have used that exact analogy many times myself. exactly like that! (wow. are you me?) ;)

that's why I always like to follow my own set of rules. no one at light, its 3am and I'm not going to hit anyone - so why sit there like a mindless robot? (well, check for the mindless robots in the black-and-whites, first, before hitting the gas..)

the next step...

[geoffspear]

Why stop with the telecomms?

Classify all information about lung cancer as a "state secret" and you can get rid of all the lawsuits against tobacco and asbestos companies. Do the same with medical records, and *poof* there go all of the malpractice claims.

It would certainly save trying to ram all those tort reform packages through pesky Congressional committees.

Re:the next step...

[NoTheory]

I am kind of depressed that parent got modded funny. This is a valid point. The question at hand is really what is the purpose of classifying information, and what is a just use of the powers of classification. The Bush administration does clearly use it for their political benefit (Cheney's energy task force being the most egregious example). And i don't know whether a non-partisan case can be made for using classificational powers in this manner.

Re:the next step...

[Anonymous Coward]

Classify all information about lung cancer as a "state secret" and you can get rid of all the lawsuits against tobacco and asbestos companies. Do the same with medical records, and *poof* there go all of the malpractice claims.

They already do that with `unpopular' topics involving large corps and paid-off officials.

Re:the next step...

[DAldredge]

It's funny, the Dems think the ETF was bad but Hillary's health care meetings we OK while the GOPers think the exact opposite.

If it is wrong - it is wrong when the side you support does it too.

Re:the next step...

[NoTheory]

But that's the point. The only justifications are partisan ones. Behavior like this should be unacceptable regardless of who you are. Just because the Dems did it, like the Republicans before them, and the dems before them, and the republicans before that, does not justify current behavior.

Re:the next step...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop pretending to be "fair and balanced" and get back to farking your Dick Cheney love doll!

Re:the next step...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's funny, the Dems think the ETF was bad but Hillary's health care meetings we OK while the GOPers think the exact opposite."

It's funnier: you both seem to think everyone is either on your side entirely, or out to destroy you entirely.

If you take a moment to stop cursing "Hillary," you might notice that taking time to curse Hillary when nobody was arguing for her in the first place is a sign of an unhealthy obsession -- or, at the least, is a cynical attempt to bypass the actual issue of government espionage upon its own citizens.

Perhaps you feel that showing any sign of weakness will open you to disaster, and sadly, that might be true in current American politics. This might make you unwilling to admit mistakes and wrongdoings perpetrated by those you worship. I just hope you realize the dishonesty of such an argument.

Re:the next step...

[Anonymous Coward]

What congressional committees???

Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[eno2001]

Then you need to pull your head out slowly and cleanly and WAKE THE FUCK UP! George W. Bush is a criminal and needs to be impeached. NOW. Real Americans realize this. Idiot Americans don't. The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour. 9/11 was done by the U.S. government. WAKE UP NOW!

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[geoffspear]

The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour.

While I agree with your sentiment in the rest of your post, your grasp of history leaves a lot to be desired.

Unless you consider the War of 1812 to be a continuation of the Revolutionary War and hold the opinion that the US was still British territory until the Treaty of Ghent, which not even the British at the time would have asserted.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[slughead]

The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour. 9/11 was done by the U.S. government. WAKE UP NOW!

I woke up this morning, drank some coffee.. but since this got modded up I must still be asleep.

9/11 was done not by the US government but by Saddam Hussein! Wait that's not right either.

Couldn't there be some sort of middle-ground? Truth, maybe?

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, some Americans realize we are headed towards fascism but don't care. That is what they want. Don't forget, Hitler and the National Socialists were elected even after the publication of Mein Kampf, and they still went along with it. Same with Italy and Mussolini -- hell, many Italians WENT BACK after Mussolini came to power instead of fleeing FROM Fascism. Those who go along are not stupid, not duped -- they may just be evil. But so what? Majority Rule is always awesome... just look at South Africa -- its great now! :rolls eyes:

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[eno2001]

You are correct. I should have specified within the last 100 years.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[The-Pheon]

The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour.

Maybe you forgot that the United States was invaded by Great Britian in 1812? The Aleutian Islands were invaded in june of 1942.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Turninh him over to the Iraqi's for war crimes would be a more fitting punishment.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[pete6677]

Do you care to back up any of the lofty claims you just made (George Bush crimes and 9/11 conspiracies)? No, I suspect not. I'm guessing you'll just make an immature profane rant of a reply. Grow up little kid, your crap is getting old.

For the record, I am not a G.W. fan by any means, but there is plenty of real evidence to be used to bash Bush without resorting to hysterical fabrications.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[lawpoop]

"9/11 was done not by the US government but by Saddam Hussein! Wait that's not right either.

Couldn't there be some sort of middle-ground? Truth, maybe?"

I like the way you think! I am interested in finding this truthy middle-ground.

How about a real investigation, where high-ranking folks like Bush and Cheney testify under oath?

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[JavaLord]

Typically I don't respond to flamebait, however...

Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

The US isn't heading anywhere twards Fascism. The neocons are interventionalists, and imperialists via proxy. Really, this isn't anything new, because America has been fighting interventionist wars since Bush 1 was in office. Why do we continue to stick our nose in everyones business around the world against the advice of our founding fathers? While Hitler was a scourge to all of humanity, his legacy continues to haunt America, as America thinks they have some moral obligation to police the world, since when they didn't Hitler came to power. There is a collective guilt trip about not getting into WW2 earlier, and this leads to poor foreign policy.

Then you need to pull your head out slowly and cleanly and WAKE THE FUCK UP! George W. Bush is a criminal and needs to be impeached. NOW.

I'd hate to break it to you, but he's not a criminal. A weak president perhaps, but not a criminal.

Real Americans realize this. Idiot Americans don't.

Because anyone who disagrees with your personal beliefs must be an idiot. Isn't that the start of facist thinking? Perhaps you are heading twards facism, while the US is heading twards foriegn policy bankrupcy.

The only time an attack by a foreign power was ever carried out on U.S. soil was Pearl Harbour. 9/11 was done by the U.S. government. WAKE UP NOW!

I think you need to wake up now personally. I've watched loose change, and read the various internet theories about how 9/11 was done by our government. None of them lead to logical conclusions. Most are leftist propaganda. I can tell you why 9/11 happened with ease, they (the terrorists) were here, because we were over there. Bin Laden was unhappy with our continued support of israel, our military bases in the middle east, our propping up of corrupt regimes, and with our 1991 war in Iraq. He's said so in his statements. 9/11 happened for the same reason other terrorist events happen, an occupying force was in a foriegn land, the native people could not resist via standard military means so they resort to the weapon of the weak...Terrorism.

Instead of buying into these partisan theories, and coming up with arguements like "BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL!!!!@#! He is behind 9/11" go read the words of our founding fathers. Both Washington and Adams warned against our current foreign policy, and what it would lead to. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike the policies of Bush without coming up with fabricated stories based on hollywood logic.

Also, you might come to the conclusion that this isn't just a George W. Bush problem. It's a consistant policy from Bush 1, to Clinton, to Bush 2. They all thought America should policy the world, and Hillary will be the same way if she gets into office.

You may think most of this post has nothing to do with the original article, but in truth it has everything to do with it. If we weren't being the keystone cops of the world, we wouldn't have to deal with domestic terrorism from foreign fighters.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Nf1nk]

And you would still be wrong
http://www.militarymuseum.org/Ellwood.html
although this is a very small footnote in the history of world war II

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[eno2001]

You again? God you're a bore. Why don't you just ignore me and be over with it if you don't like my comedy stylings? That would be the more "mature" thing to do green wing.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[hrrY]

[quote]Why do we continue to stick our nose in everyones business around the world against the advice of our founding fathers? While Hitler was a scourge to all of humanity, his legacy continues to haunt America, as America thinks they have some moral obligation to police the world, since when they didn't Hitler came to power. There is a collective guilt trip about not getting into WW2 earlier, and this leads to poor foreign policy. [/quote] Actually, we didn't get involved with WW2 officially until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Also, on a more technical note; IBM was selling equipment to the Germans before PH so that they could more efficiently calculate how best to *ethnically cleanse* their country, and weapons logistics.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Phillup]

And... let's not forget that the Japanese actually occupied a portion of US soil during WW2 also.

The Japanese occupied Attu island as well as several others in the Aleutian chain during WWII. For an interesting read, check out the book titled "The Thousand Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians" by Brian Garfield.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[fahrbot-bot]

Bin Laden was unhappy with ... our military bases in the middle east...

Although, we're there at the invitation / permission of the local countries. Bin Laden should direct his anger about this point toward the host nations instead of the U.S., but won't for obvious political and ego/ethno-centric reasons.

Funny how it's always someone else's fault.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[truthsearch]

I'd hate to break it to you, but he's not a criminal. A weak president perhaps, but not a criminal.

He's responsible for the actions of the military. Here's therefore guilty of war crimes. His own lawyer told him so (2 years ago, IIRC).

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, is it possible to forget something that didn't happen?

Just to be clear, I'm taking the phrase "the United States was invaded by Great Britian" to mean that Great Britain initiated an attack, like Pearl Harbour.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[JavaLord]

Although, we're there at the invitation / permission of the local countries. Bin Laden should direct his anger about this point toward the host nations instead of the U.S., but won't for obvious political and ego/ethno-centric reasons.

This is very true. He is not right minded, but it doesn't change the underlying fact. If we were not there, they would not be here.

Also, I suspect that many other middle easterners hold the same feelings Bin Laden did. If you are American, do you enjoy it when Europeans tell us how we should run our country? How would you feel about a French military base in your hometown? How about a Russian one? Chinese?

Funny how it's always someone else's fault.

I don't want to come off as blaming the victim, I mearly wanted to point out the reasons for terrorism and why they lead to where we are today in America. 9/11 was not justified, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the reasons it happened.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Anonymous Coward]

So in the final analysis, you're saying we invaded Iraq because of America's collective guilt trip over WW2? Pardon me but that is a ridiculous oversimplification which completely ignores the tactics used by the administration to sell the war.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion that Bush is not a criminal. I hate to break this to you, but you're not a court. There are many who consider him a criminal, both in the States and abroad, including a number of groups attempting to prosecute him as a war criminal. Personally, I think he should be tried for treason and shot, as a warning to any who seek to piss on the Constitution... but that's just me.

"I've watched loose change, and read the various internet theories about how 9/11 was done by our government. None of them lead to logical conclusions."

Why didn't Secret Service pull Bush from that classroom the instant they knew the nation was under attack by people flying planes into buildings (ie, after the 2nd plane hit)? Their primary job function is to protect the President... they should've assumed the President was a target and a plane could hit the school any second.

The SIMPLEST AND MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION is they knew he wasn't really in danger. To believe otherwise is to accept that the Secret Service is beyond incompetent at their primary job function (or that they knowingly left him in danger, which is even more unbelievable).

Attacking "Loose Change" is easy. Read "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" and tell me there's no coverup.

I'm not saying they flew holographic/remote-controlled/pod-equipped drones into the WTC (there are some pretty wild theories floating around), but there is plenty of evidence of foreknowledge, such as insider trading. (Oh wait I forgot, the 9/11 Comission report declares the insider trading was investigated and found to be innocent. Too bad they didn't provide a shred of actual information to support that.. but we completely trust their unfounded assertions right?)

"Bin Laden was unhappy with our continued support of israel, our military bases in the middle east, our propping up of corrupt regimes, and with our 1991 war in Iraq. He's said so in his statements."

The famous Bin Laden confession video is a rather obvious fake. Aside from significant differences in facial features, he's wearing a gold ring (forbidden by Islam), and writing with his right hand (OBL is left handed). Google it and make up your own mind.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Darby]

America thinks they have some moral obligation to police the world, since when they didn't Hitler came to power. There is a collective guilt trip about not getting into WW2 earlier, and this leads to poor foreign policy.

Ummmmm.... No.

Most Americans were indeed isolationist at the time. You left out a fairly large and extremely powerful group though. Most of the Industrialists, the wealthy elite and the like (The Republican base in other words) supported Hitler wholeheartedly. Some like Henry Ford were gung ho supporters of the holocaust as well, although cetainly not all. Others like our current president's grandfather went as far as to actively support the Nazi regime while we were at war with them. It's critical to keep in mind that while horrendous the holocaust was not the only thing wrong with the fascists. The holocaust certainly had nothing to do with why we went to war with them.

So after Roosevely manipulated us into WW2 he put himself on the receiving end of the undying hatred of the Republicans since after that we were forced to go to war against the people that they most admired.

So now that they have managed to completely demonize anything with a hint of leftism and even moderate right wingers like the Democrats bear the brunt of their screeching mindless hatred. So it took them some time, but at long last they won what they were striving for.

So pretending that they are doing this becasue they feel bad about not acting against Hitler sooner shows a total lack of understanding of the history of these people as well as a complete lack of understanding of their reasoning.


I'd hate to break it to you, but he's not a criminal. A weak president perhaps, but not a criminal.


Sorry, but treason is a crime no matter what else you want to believe.


Because anyone who disagrees with your personal beliefs must be an idiot. Isn't that the start of facist thinking? Perhaps you are heading twards facism, while the US is heading twards foriegn policy bankrupcy.

If you disagree that the sky is blue preferring to say that it's really red, then you aren't an idiot because you disagree with me, you're an idiot due to demonstrated idiocy.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Darby]

Although, we're there at the invitation / permission of the local countries.

Which are some of the most brutal dictatorships in the world today which we're there to help prop up. Don't ever forget that simple fact.

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the Alamo!

Re:Still Think the US isn't Headed for Fascism?

[http]

Let me be explicit about this instead of modding you down:
The allegations are not hysterical. They are attempts to piece together a coherent story of what happend on 11/9/2001 after realizing that the official US government line is clearly a fabrication, complete with contradictions and impossibilites. The government's attempts at perception control via disinformation (spin, for media-centric types) would be stellar if it wasn't for the fact that rational, intelligent people watched the propoganda also, and spotted the lies and contradictions and then asked, "OK, so what really happened?"

"Grow up kid, your crap is getting old."

Do you think that namecalling makes you look more mature than the grandparent poster?

Time to boycott...

[sidfaiwu]

...only I'm looked into a two year contract with Verizon, but as soon as that's up!

Re:Time to boycott...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the term: "Vote with your wallet." Economically speaking, you've just put an upper limit on how much you value governmental transparency and accountability. About $175 (per phone that you own).

Is a phone plan so dear, or convenience so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of tyranny and injustice?

Not that I'm pointing any fingers at you. I haven't phoned my congress persons and raised hell about this war on democracy and civil liberties. Every citizen who cares should.

Imagine, every Slashdotter (american, at least, since it's our responsibility), calling each of their congress persons. Just a short call. Let them know how you feel. Call often.

Slashdot congress. See if that gets their attention.

Re:Time to boycott...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the term: "Vote with your wallet." Economically speaking, you've just put a price on government transparency and accountability. About $175 (per phone that you own).

Is a phone plan so dear, or convenience so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of tyranny and injustice?

Not that I'm pointing any fingers at you. I haven't phoned my congress persons and raised hell about this war on democracy and civil liberties. Every citizen who cares should.

Imagine, every Slashdotter (american, at least, since it's our responsibility), calling each of their congress persons. Just a short call. Let them know how you feel. Call often.

Slashdot congress. See if that gets their attention.

Re:Time to boycott...

[sidfaiwu]

Actually, the comment was meant satirically. It is precisely the it's-too-inconvenient to take action sentiment in America that I'm mocking. I actually have written my representatives and the phone companies over this issue because I am appalled by their behavior. I guess my comment fell flat because there are no "satire tags" to place around it.

Hey government

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey government, fuck you! You don't work for us, why do we need you? I'm using encryption and will continue to, and will work around the government at every opportunity. I will work them out of my life because they're not a useful part of it anymore.

Re:Hey government

[gorbachev]

All that encryption will do you no good when the Government knows exactly who you called when and for how long.

Make too many calls to your cousin Ahmed in Pakistan and you're in the slammer even if you used 1,024,000 bit encryption keys.

Welcome, comrade...

[RiffRafff]

...to your police state.

Re:Welcome, comrade...

[pembo13]

All that's missing is Führer Bradley.

Re:Welcome, comrade...

[gorbachev]

Spasiba bolshoy, tovarish.

It's good to be home, again.

Re:Welcome, comrade...

[RiffRafff]

Riiiiiiiight. That was trolling? And just how would you moderators define a country that shuts down legal proceedings that it disapproves of?

Open your f*****g eyes.

Sheep.

Nothing to hide

[Toby The Economist]

Lovely comment in that recent /. article about that wiretapping equipment show -

The State broadly speaking may argue if we have nothing to hide, then why do we object to being watched?

If this is so, why does the State hide so much from *us*?

Re:Nothing to hide

[MrSquirrel]

Exactly -- if they think it's okay to spy on us then why can't we "spy" on the information they obtained from us? With a new non-civilian intelligence head, things don't look good for American civil liberties. I don't see any form of oversight keeping the government in check from abusing/misusing information. Power corrupts -- absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Re:Nothing to hide

[fotbr]

Power corrupts -- absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Except they see it as "Power corrupts -- but absolute power is really pretty neat!"

Recursive Iteration

[H3lldr0p]

But what if the fact that the information was handed over was itself a state secret? Then we get into a wonderful recursive cycle of classifing the classified classification into a new category of secret classfications. This is perfect for the government agentcies involved becuase they can continue to deny that they have denied any denials about programs that have been denied to exist.

See? It's all so simple for them.

Re:Recursive Iteration

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if the fact that the information was handed over was itself a state secret? Then we get into a wonderful recursive cycle of classifing the classified classification into a new category of secret classfications. This is perfect for the government agentcies involved becuase they can continue to deny that they have denied any denials about programs that have been denied to exist.

See? It's all so simple for them.

No comment.

Re:Recursive Iteration

[codegen]

becuase they can continue to deny that they have denied any denials about programs that have been denied to exist.

Did you happen to write for "Yes Minister"? That is a line worthy of Sir Appleby.

Disheartening corruption..

[Anonymous Coward]

And our hero in this time of need... Judge Judy! She'd sort these NSA punks out.. in a half hour, plus commercials!

Suits will dissolve?

[mobby_6kl]

And people related to them disappear?

Re:Suits will dissolve?

[gandreas]

At that point we'll clearly see that the emperor has no clothes!

Re:Suits will dissolve?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if the suits dissolve, it means all the lawyers will be nude, and then you'd *HAVE* to close the court proceedings for the safety of the public.

Augh! My eyes!

Either that or I picture the lawyers sort of melting like the Wicked Witch of the West when she got splashed with water.

He Could Lie

[eldavojohn]

Personally, if he answered "no", I'm afraid that wouldn't be good enough for me.

He could lie but you have to remember that there are people in the NSA with an axe to grind.

He could get up there and contemplate lying. But what if he lied and the information was leaked from the NSA or released after his death that the collections did occur?

Hayden is an important man. Important men (when intelligent enough) are constantly worried about how history sees them after they die. I would wager that his fear of the public finding out that he lied to his country, defied justice and decieved the very people he swore to serve would be a greater weight than the importance of covering up a breach of privacy on that same populace.

Re:He Could Lie

[AuMatar]

No they aren't. Important men are concerned with maintaining their power/money/influence. While a few are megalomaniacs, most don't give a shit about history. As such, they'll lie in a second if they think they can get away with it and the lie will help them. Hell, Bush lied about WMDs and started a war over it, you don't think Hayden will lie over a few wiretaps?

Re:He Could Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

"The number of times [the Patriot Act library records provision] has been used to date is zero." - John Ashcroft, 2002.

Re:He Could Lie

[diersing]

How important could he be if I learned his name from your /. post? We're not talking about a President or Prime Minister, he's a department head and department heads are most concerned with being burned at the stake to protect their masters.

Truth is, it doesn't matter a bit how he answers, a court needs evidence - evidence it DID happen or evidence it DID NOT happen. I realize witness testimony is evidence, but we're dealing with a conflict of interest (see Lay, Ken testimony pertaining to Enron).

By being forthright and offering whatever it is (allegedly) captured, show it to the court - if you're worried about state secrets, make the court swear an oath & seal the records. That way, no one with an "ax to grind" can influence - documents and logs don't have an ax.

Re:He Could Lie

[kevlar]

Hell, Bush lied about WMDs and started a war over it, you don't think Hayden will lie over a few wiretaps?

Lets clarify something here. Bush may very well have positioned the evidence for a slam dunk case about WMDs in Iraq. We know they were/are there. We know they existed. We (USA) gave the weapons to Saddam. Saddam used them. What Bush did not do is lie by the very definition of the word. There is a potential case against him that he intentionally inflated certain intelligence reports, but that is not a 'lie' by the definintion of the word unless Bush knew that certain reports were in fact not true or if he was intentionally trying to mislead people. This by no means should be taken as an endorsement of Bush or the Iraq war. This is simply an unemotional analysis of the events pre-Iraq2. The Bush Administration did not fabricate evidence, they merely ignored the evidence that did not support their agenda. This is not lying. This is the nature of intelligence. For every report saying Yay, there is a report saying Nay. The Presidential Administration exists in part to analyze that information and make decisions. One thing to keep in mind is that the Bush Administration had no problem getting Congress to support the war. Congress was not mislead. The intelligence oversite committee has access to all the same information the Bush Administration has access to. There were no secrets in this decision.

Having said that, some good examples of lies are:

Whitewater/Blowjob Investigation:
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman; Miss Lewinsky"
He did. He received multiple blowjobs and had playtime with cigars. Honestly, who gives a shit. It's not worth hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyer and court expenses.

Watergate Investigation:
Nixon: "I am not a crook"
He was. He was an accomplice and conspirator of a robbery in the Watergate building. A perfect example of a sociopathic personality.

Iran Contra Investigation:
Regan: "I do not recall"
Iran Contra: He did recall. He knew specific details about selling arms to Iran, he chose to play dumb.

This is by no means an endorsement of anyone. This is my $0.02 about why I do not subscribe to the belief that Bush intentionally mislead Congress and the American public. If blame is to be placed on anyone for the war, it should be on the NSA, CIA and Executive/Congressional branches of the government for crippling our ability to gather reliable intelligence in the field. Had 9/11 happenned during the Clinton Administration, I think this would have played out VERY similarly. Clinton does have more tact than Bush however, but tact doesn't prevent wars with mass murderers.

Re:He Could Lie

[orielbean]

I care nothing for his feelings of historical impact. Bush acts the same way. I want transparency and accountability in government. This is the problem here. State secrets will never see the light of day until FOIA requests unearth them from under the rocks of secrecy. Who is protected here? They better catch some terrorists soon with this outrageous nonsense.

Re:He Could Lie

[skarphace]

The Bush Administration did not fabricate evidence, they merely ignored the evidence that did not support their agenda. This is not lying.

A lie of ommission is still a lie.

This is the nature of intelligence.

No, the nature of intelligence is to find out which ones are correct and which ones are false by INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS. The nature of intelligence is NOT filtering out intelligence reports that do not support your agenda by someone totally not qualified to do so.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

This is my $0.02 about why I do not subscribe to the belief that Bush intentionally mislead Congress and the American public. If blame is to be placed on anyone for the war, it should be on the NSA, CIA and Executive/Congressional branches of the government for crippling our ability to gather reliable intelligence in the field.

You make some very good, well presented points, but you left several major critical facts out of your analysis.

We know for a fact that one of if not the most important goals of this administration since before they even got into office was starting a war with Iraq. We know for a fact that they knew the American people wouldn't go for it. We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.
We know for a fact that once said event happened that they immediately began agitating to attack Iraq even though there is no evidence of their involvement. We know for a fact that they intentionally misled people in an attempt to make them think Iraq was responsible for 9/11..

If you are not aware of all of these facts, then feel free to read it in their own words.

Add in the fact that the CIA specifically told them not to run with the known bad information that they had and they intentionally ignored it in order to make out Saddam to be a big threat and it's obvious that the situation is not even anywhere near as unclear as your argument would indicate.

Re:He Could Lie

[AaronBenage]

I would wager that his fear of the public finding out that he lied to his country, defied justice and decieved the very people he swore to serve would be a greater weight than the importance of covering up a breach of privacy on that same populace.

That's a nice thought...
Unfortunately, coercion to "play ball" and the retaliatory effects of making the truth public often outweigh honesty. Confirmation of any of these allegations would effectively incriminate Mr. Hayden, as well. After all, not only being an important and intelligent person (as you have pointed out), but also as Director of the NSA, he is certainly aware of the legal and social ramifications of this surveillance. Just because the President "told him to do it" doesn't mean he is innocent, and criminals often attempt to hide their involvment in a crime. By lying.

Re:He Could Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans have very little tolerance for someone inciting others to break the law.

In fact, I hear thats a no-no.

Re:He Could Lie

[lynx_user_abroad]

What Bush did not do is lie by the very definitionx of the word.

That kinda depends on what your sefinition of is is, now doesn't it?

Re:He Could Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, and of course, the people involved in this administration (ooh, but they were involved and pleade guilty in the iran-contra hearings -- we hear and obey, damn you emanual goldstein!) have nothing to gain by lieing.

don't fucking kid yourself.. we are bought and paid for serfs.
tools.

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

---Martin Niemoeller

Oh, but its ok, because we impeached president who got head from a fat chick, so we're okay...

Re:He Could Lie

[kevlar]

This conversation could no doubt continue forever, so this'll be my last post about it.

We know for a fact that one of if not the most important goals of this administration since before they even got into office was starting a war with Iraq. We know for a fact that they knew the American people wouldn't go for it. We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.

On the contrary, we know none of these to be facts. We know that Saddam tried to assasinate Bush v1 and that Bush v2 was pissed about that, but we "know" the later only by heresay.

The idea that Bush consciously thought that the only way he could get Saddam would be as a response to a "Pearl Harbor" style attack, is quite honestly insane in nature and it suggests that you believe 9/11 was not caused by Muslim extremists, but rather was a staged event. These claims have always baffled my mind and makes me feel like everyone who wasn't there to witness the planes hitting those buildings or ditching into oblivion at 600 mph in a field in Pennsylvania merely saw 9/11 as a special TV featured event. It was real. People really flew planes into those buildings. The fire really did cause castrophic failures in the buildings. The planes really were annihilated into vapor without a trace. People really did die and it really was a surprise attack by Muslim extremists. The evidence supporting these facts are overwhelming, right down to the phone calls from passengers who said it right before they rushed the cockpit and saved the Capital over a field in PA. There is no evidence to support statements that there was some sort of Right-Wing conspiracy to kill Americans so that we could start a war with Iraq. There is no evidence that supports the idea that Bush was even considering it. The entire concept of getting Saddam was never even heard of until well after 9/11/01. Hell, we knew Al Qaida likely attacked us, but we did not know for sure until Bin Laden was caught on tape admitting it in October of 2001. The ideas that you are subscribing to are new ones based on rumors and spun by people with agendas. They were created after America lost its sensativity to 9/11. Two-thirds of the country watched 9/11 as a re-run on TV after they woke up in the morning and had their morning pee. Its really easy to forget about "live coverage" and even easier to subscribe to bogus claims of conspiracies. It's difficult to forget the smell and incessant sneezing from the dust and smoke that burned, not for days or weeks, but for months at ground zero. The sonic booms from the airforce jets circling Manhatten that would startle me awake 3 times a night. The complete lack of airplanes in the sky on an otherwise beautiful summer day. The media blitz about shark attacks from the weeks before 9/11 because the media had nothing to report on. I remember every fucking detail about the days before and after 9/11. I don't remember a single detail suggesting that Bush had anything to be glad about. Just look at his reaction when Bush was told we were under attack. It took him about 15 seconds just to grasp the concept.

Re:He Could Lie

[jheath314]

Hayden is an important man. Important men (when intelligent enough) are constantly worried about how history sees them after they die.

By this impeccable logic, I suppose all men of high rank can be expected to be scrupulously honest at all times.

Now that we've got that settled, I can go back to channel surfing between reruns of Clinton's impeachment hearings and Bush's State of the Union address. In POTUS we trust.

Re:He Could Lie

[jthill]

unless Bush knew that certain reports were in fact not true or if he was intentionally trying to mislead people

Public skepticism was rampant. Active-duty generals were publicly contradicting his civilian war-planners' estimates. U.N. inspectors were publicly calling his evidence "shit after shit after shit".

And you call that "the nature of intelligence".

There's no arguing with that.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

On the contrary, we know none of these to be facts. We know that Saddam tried to assasinate Bush v1 and that Bush v2 was pissed about that, but we "know" the later only by heresay.


I provided you a link to the web page where the members of this administration stated exactly those facts in no uncertain terms. Go read the website. Then look at whose website it is. Don't say something isn't a fact after I present the proof right to you. It lowers you.


The idea that Bush consciously thought that the only way he could get Saddam would be as a response to a "Pearl Harbor" style attack, is quite honestly insane in nature and...

The idea that you are an American but do not care enough about your responsibilities to have even read the policy papers that the members of the current administration put out back in 1999 stating exactly what I just said is, unfortunately, not insane. It's all too common among Americans these days.

it suggests that you believe 9/11 was not caused by Muslim extremists, but rather was a staged event.

No, it does nothing of the sort. Reread what I said. I was very careful to state verified *facts*. All these facts demonstrate is motive on the part of the administration. Nowhere did I implicate the administration in anything except *using* 9/11 as an excuse to carry out what they had planned in the event of such an attack.
The facts arew what they are. The implication is pretty iron clad as well as they stated that they wanted to do exactly what they have done in that event.

Now, clearly the *facts* do suggest (this is the suggestion you mentioned above. You misinterpreted it as if I said it which clearly isn't true) the perfectly reasonable (you automatically came to it yourself once you were made aware of the relevant facts.) question as to whether there was anything else besides incompetence involved in the success of the attacks, but I don't have the answer to that.

These claims have always baffled my mind and makes me feel like everyone who wasn't there to witness the planes hitting those buildings or ditching into oblivion at 600 mph in a field in Pennsylvania merely saw 9/11 as a special TV featured event.

Then you go from making up the idea that I believe something different than what I directly and clearly stated to pretending that I'm claiming that the attacks never really happened.

This is the level of discourse in this country right now. Go back reread the conversation and look at how we went from me making a statement of a trivially verified fact which you don't even give enough of a shit about your own government to verify to you claiming that I'm claiming that the 9/11 attacks never happened.

Complete bullshit, Dude.

Re:He Could Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Be a patriot: Murder a Republican.

Ah. The legendary tolerance of the left. Nice.

Re:He Could Lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. The legendary lack of humor of the right. Nice.

Re:He Could Lie

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.

You know, I absolutely, 100% remember reading a statement like that on that website very shortly after 9/11 - and the paper was from the mid-to-late 90s. I distinctly remember emailing people about it at the time, it was such a shocker even for my own jaded ass.

But I can not find it anymore. Nor can google, and last time I tried, nor could the wayback machine. The only mentions of Pearl Harbor are either post-9/11 or innocuous.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

Funniest and most telling response to my sig EVAR

Be a patriot: Murder a Republican.

Ah. The legendary tolerance of the left. Nice.

Ah. The legendary lack of humor of the right. Nice.


Ah, the old, tired, but oh so inevitable demonstration of the deep seated fundamental flaw in the groundbreaking and for the most part brilliantly designed plan of the original American patriots provided for you entertainment by the foul spawn of that one tragic mistake.

To me, the saddest part of the whole thing is that while the Founding Fathers made, in our country, the jewel on the crown of Liberalism; we are now saddled with two delusional factions who are both involved in a no holds barred, no trick too dirty, no evil too bad to accept bribes to implement war on the very philosophy upon which we were once upon a time the crown jewel of.

To you shitbag ignorant as fuck RepugnatDouchebags: I'm talking Classical Liberalism. "We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal". The evil shit you're always screeching about, you know.

To you asshat DemoRepugnants: I'm talking Classical Liberalism. "We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal". The shit you're always trying to coopt.

The left and the right are defined by their opposition to individual freedom and historical American Values you idiotic ACs.

Re:He Could Lie

[Darby]

You know, I absolutely, 100% remember reading a statement like that on that website very shortly after 9/11 - and the paper was from the mid-to-late 90s. I distinctly remember emailing people about it at the time, it was such a shocker even for my own jaded ass.

The particular paper I'm linking the pdf from that same site (your googlefu could use some improvement. I got it on the first hit with this search: "site: www.newamericancentury.org would take pearl harbor iraq") lists its own publication date as September 2000. Page 63 of 90 has the actual pearl harbor reference.

The fact that it's still up on their website (assuming it's the same, I haven't gone that deep ;-) is proof of their hubris.

The fact that they've gotten away with it this far let alone the fact that they, most likely, will continue to do so is proof of nothing besides the cowardice of the American people.

Re:He Could Lie

[freedom_india]

If i remember correctly the day before and the week before 9/11, newspapers were full of news about the Pregnant Woman who disappeared (was apparently killed by her Fertilizer salesman husband).

There was no news about shark attacks in the front pages.

But i agree with the rest of your statements.

Re:He Could Lie

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yep that's it. I got it as my first hit too, but doh, I focused on the second mention of pearl harbor later in the document for some reason.

The internal timestamp is still in 2000, so although not 100% it does appear to be the same document, unaltered even today.

Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[w33t]

Does it seem plausable that someday voice communications could be handled completely by the people without the need for a big centralized entity like a government or a phone company?

I can see that VOIP is starting to show the potential of decentralized telephony. But could it go completely wireless? I know the technology would be tricky, but it's certainly plausable, yes?

Take for example the LP. Back in the day only very large companies could press records. The machines to mass produce these were expensive and bulky and they were very large. Additionally, after making the records you had to ship them - this required trucks: also expensive and bulky.

Fast forward to today. Anyone can burn a cd and anyone can send a song around the world. The means are here.

Cell phones require very little power and yet can transmit and recieve a signal from very far away. The base station is what currently makes this possible - but why couldn't something like a p2p cellular network be possible? Imagine if every car on the freeway as a node and if instead of a TV antenna on every house there were a repeater.

Perhaps this kind of technology could first take off in heavily populated metropolitan areas, where you are likely to be within mere feet of the next person with a cell phone. Everyone's voice and signals could route through each other.

I know this is a technical feat, but at one time so was creating microscopic holes in mylar with a laser using something as cheap as a meal.

Is this at least feasable?
--
Music should be free

Re:Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[plasmacutter]

"Does it seem plausable that someday voice communications could be handled completely by the people without the need for a big centralized entity like a government or a phone company?"

Every time a true p2p telephony system has come up the big telcos have had it legislated or sued from existance.

That said, it no longer matters, they have these machines connected to the internet sniffing all of your packets and reconstructing them.

Re:Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[Anonymous Coward]

Bandwidth, delay, reliability, load, MTU.

Re:Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[w33t]

and this is different from current cell phones how? ;)
--
Music should be free

Re:Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[jaypifer]

Possible but not plausible. The complexity of what you are suggesting introduces major problems. Imagine your phone intelligently signal hopping from car to car to slow node to nonstandard node to broken node. These could be overcome in theory, but why? Why not simply encrypt your VOIP packets and keep the same system?

Re:Kill the bells with decentralized telephony

[DiscoDave_25]

These are coming and it won't be long...

Known in the industry as piconets there are a number of issues to overcome roegarding the standards however they are not impossible to solve.

The reality will be a combination of P2P and base station architecture where the calls are bridged through other handsets for voice etc to the nearest base station but connect directly for data traffic to ensure the speeds stay high.

This means that there can be fewer base stations to serve the same number of customers. Of course we need to see bandwidth increase and this is only practical in population centres where there are enough compatible handsets to make this viable but it really is going to be the future.

A very serious issue...

[__aaclcg7560]

Even Fox Trot is affected by this.

Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

If the Government wants to find out who I talk to and when... it's pretty easy to get that information now as it is.

If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.

My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.

They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place. I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans.

But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would!

I asked the above question seriously, not rhetorically. And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense... the moment it became technically feasible to "violate" one's privacy, that privacy is already gone forever.

I think the lawsuits were already a non-starter, and now that the government is said to be stepping in, this matter will likely be put down so quickly, you'll be able to count the times the judge pounds the gavel on one hand.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[plasmacutter]

I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans. But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls?....And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense... this statement is nothing more than a more sophisticated way of saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear", the last portion really disqualifies you from saying anymore on the subject. It reflects absolutely no respect for the constitutional protections for the people of this nation. Point1: there are many "unenforcible" and antiquated laws on the books which can be used against you if the dominant party doesnt like what you are doing or who you are associating with Point2: even if it is not used for legal abuse, it can be used for closed door blackmail/threats to keep the opposing political groups and corporations "in line" Point3: We have had technically feasible ways to invade people's privacy en wholesale since the late 40's but you didnt see it happen because when they try they face the public wrath Point4: according to that statement above, why are they trying to invoke state secrets to hide their obvious breach of the constitution on multiple amendments? hmmm?

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out."

You should care because it's your rights being violated. Since you obviously don't care, you're one of the reasons we all lack the liberties we used to enjoy, and that this country was founded on. You're one of the reasons young people such as myself can't vote without wanting to commit suicide, because all the people running are complete WASTES of oxygen and space. Unfortunately, my generation (20-somethings) is too young to have all the wealth of the older generations, who apparently just don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. That's why we have all these corrupt politicians, and insane policies being enacted. You know what's terribly sad? People constantly quip "If you don't like the way things are done, you should vote!" Well guess what, assholes, we *can't* vote in good conscious because there is *nobody* running worth a shit. The only people in the running are people with tons of campaign dollars, and people my age just don't have the money to fund those people, because we're getting turned down for all the *good* jobs because we don't have 20 years of experience, but we can't get that experience because entry level jobs are being sent overseas, and the ones that aren't are soaked up by the gazillions of the baby boomer+ generation. You really are the scourge of America, at least a good example of it. At this rate, by the time I'm 35, social security (MY MONEY) will be bankrupt, I will have no civil liberties anymore, I will have no rights, my country will be subject to nuclear annhilation by the entire world (all pissed off at us for screwing them in the ass, repeatedly, for no reason), the country in quadrillions of dollars in debt, and nothing to show for it but tears.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[jaystrick]

> But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone
> calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would!

That's the point. Why make sweeping changes that will get everyone up in arms when you can do it little by little, one basic right after another. By the time mainstream America finally gets the gumption to protest about it, it's too late. The USA 'democracy' is brought down, not by terrorists, but by the ones we've 'elected' to protect us.

I can't think of many (if any) times that our government kept information from us about a project targeted at US citizens that turned out to be for the good of the people. Please, point one out if you know, because my belief in our government has gone the way of the Dodo.

Welcome to the Totalitarian States of America.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Proteus]

But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would!

Sure, it doesn't affect your life, but what about the lives of the current administration's (whomever that may be at any given time) political opponents? And no, this isn't tinfoil-hat talk: it's been done before by other administrations, and is a large part of why we have the wiretapping laws to begin with!

Further, what about abuses? Even if abuse isn't systematic, the government is made up of people: what if one person decided to record your phone records and extort you with them. Easy example -- "I see that you've been calling divorce lawyers. I'm betting your spouse would find that very interesting...". Or even s/divorce lawyers/abuse shelters/ in some cases.

It's not about "how much it affects our lives" -- it's that we have this thing called "due process". The basic idea is that the government stays the hell out of my personal life unless they have "probable cause" to go poking around. They want to tap my phone or get my phone records? Cool -- all they have to do is get a judge to agree that there's a reason for it, and they can even do that after they've started in most cases. So why'd they skip that part?

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[beck001]

COINTELPRO, do you know anything about history? You do not have to break the law, you just have to disagee with whoever is in power.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.

Great comrade! we are so happy you are wiulling to cooperate fully! Now please explain to us why over the past year you used the words "bomb", "kill", "damned", and "democrat" many many times.

We are looking foreward to your detailed explination over each offense. REmember it is not that important as only a terrorist would not have a satisfactory explination and it only carries a 16 year prison term for each offense.

Again, thank you. And please let us know when it would be a good time to come over and search your home. We want to make sure there are no terrorists hiding someplace in your house or maybe they are hiding guns, drugs, or tools of terrorism there.

Finally, we also are kind of interested in your last purchase on your Visa Platinum card, why did you need those items? Detailed explination please.

Gave a great day citizen!

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[element-o.p.]

Hmmm....."Totalitarian States of America"...."TSA"...I don't like where this train of thought is leading :(

<pulls tin-foil hat a little tighter around head>

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[koreth]

Jeez, the above should not be modded "Troll." A whole lot of people feel the way the poster does. I am not one of them, but even though I vehemently disagree with this point of view, I see that it's one whose popularity makes it very much germane to the discussion. Moderate based on whether something contributes to an interesting discussion, not whether you agree with it.

With that off my chest, I will try to answer the question. You should be concerned about this because once the infrastructure to spy on your calls is in place, and especially if it's kept secret, you have no way of knowing how it's used, and no control over future abuses. Let's say for the sake of argument that today, you're correct and the government is solely listening in on terrorism-related conversations. Fair enough. Now imagine that the next administration, or the one after that, is a bunch of flaming liberals (I am assuming here, perhaps incorrectly, that you'd put yourself somewhere on the right-hand side of the political spectrum). They feel that hate speech is a graver danger to society than terrorism. The next president issues a secret order to the spooks to start compiling lists of people with a history of making threats of violence against others.

Now all of a sudden the government is very interested indeed in your offhand comment, "I could just kill that guy!" You didn't mean it literally, but the speech-recognition systems that today are scanning for "Osama" and "fertilizer truck" don't know that, and your name is added to a list of people who might warrant future scrutiny. You have no way of knowing your name is on the list. All you know is that all of a sudden you're being pulled aside at the airport and given an extra thorough search.

Think that's unlikely? Then leave aside the hypotheticals and consider this: by allowing the government to have this capability, you're making a bet on the good faith of not just the current people in power, but on the good faith of every group that might be in power in your lifetime. If you've looked at any history at all, you know that sooner or later someone who you really don't trust will be in charge of the country. Do you really want them to have an undetectable, consequence-free, oversight-exempt way to decide whether or not they're interested in you? Are you one hundred percent certain that you will never do anything that someone might, even after the fact, find worthy of further scrutiny? I know I'm not.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans. But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls?....And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense...

this statement is nothing more than a more sophisticated way of saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear",


That's your interpretion/opinion, but you've missed my point. My point is that *I* don't fear what the Government is doing, I am NOT presuming to suggest whether *YOU* should or should not fear what they are doing. But you should understand they are going to do what they want anyway.

the last portion really disqualifies you from saying anymore on the subject.

As a US Citizen, I am eminently qualified to say whatever I choose to on this subject, under the First Amendment. Who the hell are you to say that I am not?

It reflects absolutely no respect for the constitutional protections for the people of this nation.


I am well aware of the protections granted under Consitution, chapter and verse. Spare me your lectures and condecension. I'm a lifelong American who loves this country and would lay my life down today for it if called upon (I'm too old to be in the military).

But you need to understand something: We are at WAR. And the enemies of our country do not give a goddamn about our liberties, or freedoms, our lives, and do not operate by any societal rules whatsoever. We therefore have to conduct ourselves under this reality, and understand something basic such as knowing that if an enemy combatant (or agent or participant, or whatever) is making a PHONE CALL to someone else, and either (or both ends) of that phone call happen to be in that country... the government MUST have that information, period.

LIKE IT OR NOT, NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS TRUMP CIVILIAN PRIVACY CONCERNS, PERIOD. DEAL WITH IT.

Blocking the government's ability to get the information it needs to potentially save lives or avert an attack, simply because you don't want the governement to know what you said to whomever is, in my view, giving indirect assistance to the enemy. YES, I SAID THAT.


Point1: there are many "unenforcible" and antiquated laws on the books which can be used against you if the dominant party doesnt like what you are doing or who you are associating with


So what? People can file lawsuits against you now if they don't like what you are doing. With a good lawyer, you can make anything "enforcible".


Point2: even if it is not used for legal abuse, it can be used for closed door blackmail/threats to keep the opposing political groups and corporations "in line"


This speaks to my original point: The government has the power, and can and will use it. Abuse or not, legal or not. As for me, it doesn't affect me. If it does you, too bad. Fight them all you want, but whatever the results are, deal with it and move on.


Point3: We have had technically feasible ways to invade people's privacy en wholesale since the late 40's but you didnt see it happen because when they try they face the public wrath


How would you know if it happened or not? I'm not a conspiacy theorist and don't wear a tinfoil hat, but seriously, how do you know what the government did or did not record since that time?


Point4: according to that statement above, why are they trying to invoke state secrets to hide their obvious breach of the constitution on multiple amendments? hmmm?


How about the survival of our country? If we don't do what is necessary to protect ourselves... if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.

I FOR ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE A TEMPORARY BENDING OF THE RULES BY THE ONES WE ALREADY PUT IN CHARGE (remember that you a

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[truthsearch]

But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls?

Names, please? Name one terrorist caught or one attack averted due directly or indirectly to the NSA having these phone records.

Can I have an estimate of how many lives have been saved so I can weigh that against the loss of privacy and/or potential abuses?

That's ok, I'll wait for the answer...

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

Names, please? Name one terrorist caught or one attack averted due directly or indirectly to the NSA having these phone records.

Can I have an estimate of how many lives have been saved so I can weigh that against the loss of privacy and/or potential abuses?

That's ok, I'll wait for the answer...


Here's one example:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/milleni um-plot.htm

You can Google for the rest yourself.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Totalitarianism isn't Free.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[pembo13]

If you're so unconcerned, why speak up at all?

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[plasmacutter]

the majority of this reply is clearly idealogical, no i don't propose you being gagged, and by the way people who moderate are not allowed to post replies in the same article, I would not have modded you troll

that said, i do want to address some things:

But you need to understand something: We are at WAR.
war against what? an abstract concept of "terror"? that concept is being ever expanded to encompass, at latest, journalists and whistleblowers.
The definition of war in the constitution is clear, war must be officially declared by congress against a sovreign foreign aggressor. Officially, the "wars" in iraq and afghanistan are over, and are now classified as occupations. Also, terrorists have no nation, but that does not change the fact that constitutionally you cannot declare war against them as they are not a nation, nor can you declare war against a concept like "terror".
So no, the government is not entitled to suspend habeas corpus as lincoln did, or to intern japanese like roosevelt, both of which, by the way, are looked upon with great sorrow by our people.

War is not pretty, and yes, the government is violating our privacy. Uncle Sam knows I'm having pizza for dinner. I COULD CARE LESS.

you you you.. this nation is made of more people than you, and a major theme in the founding of this nation and the constitutional guarantees provided is to protect the minority or the "unpopular" from the will/wrath/oppression of the majority.

I might also remind you that you are more likely to be involved in a non-terrorist related plane crash, die in a fatal car accident, be murdered in a home invasion, or (in my case) win a luxury car in a sweepstakes, than to be bombed or slain in a terrorist incident.

They are using your own fear against you. They can easily perform these same legal procedures within the law through visa, and I would be perfectly fine with that, but they refused.

We have no legal recourse against them at the moment because our elected officials are laying down on the job they are supposed to be doing in protecting and representing the american people and constitution, but that does not mean the telcos are immune. By voluntarily handing over this information they have violated federal laws and their own terms of service contracts, and as such should be held liable. There is no need to delve deeply into the issue, all that is needed is to confirm they did hand over those records, and they will be guilty as charged.

I will quote:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

I'm a populist and a social (though not economic) libertarian. As such they will definitely come for me first. so let me ask, when sir will they come for you.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[QCompson]

if we don't take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack (whatever manner or form it may be), THERE MAY WELL NOT BE A CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS WITH.

So you don't care if we lose some constitutionally protected rights in the war on terror, because otherwise the scary boogeymen terrorists will blow us all up and then we wouldn't have a constitution anyway, right?

Place a lot of trust in the government, do you? Wouldn't it just be better then to tear up the constitution and structure ourselves as a military dictatorship? I imagine you and you pizza-filled boring life would be safer then. Seriously, if you are willing to take EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE to prevent an attack, why not 24/7 martial law? Would you support temporarily abandoning our justice system? We could just shoot suspected terrorists on sight. I'm curious to hear just how far you're willing to go to "win" this WAR.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear the quote from Benjamin Franklin?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You may be at war now, but will you always be at war? Probably not. Will the paranoid government, once it has its way with one thing, give it up when things calm down? Probably not.

Canada's not perfect, but I'm glad I'm not in the US.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[elBart0]

I FOR ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE A TEMPORARY BENDING OF THE RULES BY THE ONES WE ALREADY PUT IN CHARGE (remember that you and I voted to put all these people in, no matter what party) THAN HAVE THE WHOLE RULEBOOK DESTROYED BY OUR ENEMIES.

What would ever make you think that our rule book, and our way of life, could or would ever be changed by terrorists from the Middle East? The only effects that have had on our society have been those inflicted upon us, by ourselves.
The terrorists didn't make us attack Iraq. The terrorists didn't make us monitor our own citizen. The terrorists didn't make us do any of the things that people are all up in arms about.
These are all things we did to ourselves. We made our own society more oppressive (and more like what they consider an ideal society) all on our owns. There is no terrorist in Washington DC holding a literal gun to the heads of our elected officials and their appointed agents. They made all of these decisions of their own free will, for what ever reasons they saw fit.
But, any changes to the rulebook, as you say, were made by Americans. And, while it is clearly difficult to prove, it certainly appears there were many changes.

Personally, I feel the best response to the attacks, would have been "real" security measures, rather than those which exist solely to raise the fear levels of citizens, and then to have continued on with our country with as few changes as possible.

The more aspects of our country that we change, due to fear from terrorists, the more the terrorists win. The less impact their attacks have on our way of life, the more we win.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if they monitor me. Really, I lead a boring life. I care that they monitor:

- political opponents
- journalists who don't toe the government line
- executives with insider information

This information will be misused in all of these ways. I'd be very surprised if it hasn't already been used in 2/3.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to throw out something about the whole terrorism justification for a lot of things:

The object of terrorism is to sow fear among the people, doubts about the government, and change the populace's way of life. Since 9/11 what has happened? We are being told to fear, we doubt many actions of our government, and with all the added "protections" forced upon us we have changed our way of life.

The government can claim all they want to that they're protecting us from the terrorists and stopping the terrorists' goals, but in my mind I think the terrorists got exactly what they wanted.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[oh_my_080980980]

"I am well aware of the protections granted under Consitution, chapter and verse. Spare me your lectures and condecension. I'm a lifelong American who loves this country and would lay my life down today for it if called upon (I'm too old to be in the military)."

Wait, you have to be CALLED into service, you can't join up on your own? What a Pussy!

Any moron can say they love America but it takes a real patriot to join up and put their life on the line. You are a coward and a pussy. If you feel so strongly, put your money where you mouth is and join up. Put your words into actions. Otherwise, you're just masterbating at the mouth.

Nice Job Pussy.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200, as my mother used to say. The event you have linked to occurred before September 11, 2001. LONG before, in fact. Which just weakens your case: These people can be, and WERE, caught, without the extreme measures that our current government is attempting to use.

In fact, dozens of FBI agents already knew that 9/11 was being planned long before it happened, but the "big wigs" decided to ignore them. So it seems then, that what we need isn't more information and more invasive surveillance, but smarter leaders.

Doesn't it?

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[truthsearch]

"Ressam handed the Customs agent a Price Costco membership card in the same false name as his passport. As that agent began an initial pat-down, Ressam panicked and tried to run away."

What the hell do phone records have to do with that story? He was only caught because he freaked and tried to run. You can keep googling and get back to us, because you won't find any stories showing NSA analysis of these phone records have caugh anyone.

Also, the phone records were elegedly recorded after 9/11/2001. This story happened before 2000, so I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS JUST IN!!!!!

Terrorists usually plot from their living rooms. As a service to the people of this great country, the NSA will now install a small unobtrusive camera in your living rooms. This absolutely will not affect you if you have nothing to hide.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

Sorry, do not pass go, do not collect $200, as my mother used to say. The event you have linked to occurred before September 11, 2001. LONG before, in fact. Which just weakens your case: These people can be, and WERE, caught, without the extreme measures that our current government is attempting to use.

In fact, dozens of FBI agents already knew that 9/11 was being planned long before it happened,

And how was it that they found out? What measures of surveillance did they use?

Carnivore and other means of electronic surveillance have been in service long before 9/11, and long before this particular administration has been in office.

Which takes me back to my original point: The government has been "violating our privacy" long before we ever imagined. And, like it or not, sometimes this kind of "violation" SAVES LIVES.

but the "big wigs" decided to ignore them. So it seems then, that what we need isn't more information and more invasive surveillance, but smarter leaders.

Doesn't it?

 
We always can use smarter leaders, no matter what the situation. But to say we don't need more information and more invasive surveillance... sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me.

Part of winning any war may be directly attibuted to having the best and most available intelligence... no matter how or where it originated.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blincoln]

But you need to understand something: We are at WAR. And the enemies of our country do not give a goddamn about our liberties, or freedoms, our lives, and do not operate by any societal rules whatsoever.

It's pretty sad that you've bought into two of the most basic ways of manipulating a population that a government can use:

1 - Demonizing the enemy. There are certainly evil people in the world, but they are not the slobbering subhuman monsters you take them for. I would argue that most of them are actually very similar to any other person, they've just been fed a different line of propaganda specific to their part of the world.

2 - The "but we're at war!" line of horseshit. Yes, in a real war - a war with goals that can be met, like conquering the enemy and forcing them to surrender - the population must make *temporary* sacrifices. The "war on terror" is an Orwellian fantasy designed to allow those temporary sacrifices to become permanent subjugation of the population. It cannot be won, and that is the whole point - to continually grind away everything that makes America different than the militant theocracies that support the groups we are supposedly "at war" with.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

Have you ever joined (or previously served) the military, Mr. Potty-Mouth?

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"And how was it that they found out? What measures of surveillance did they use?

Carnivore and other means of electronic surveillance have been in service long before 9/11, and long before this particular administration has been in office."

But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the NSA wiretaps and phone record collection that began AFTER 9/11.

"And, like it or not, sometimes this kind of "violation" SAVES LIVES."

So you're saying the ends justify the means, then? Ok, I want to be rich. Do you mind if I come slaughter your family and steal your house? You do? But the ends justify the means. Wait, it's unjust for me to get rich that way?

Isn't it unjust to further infringe on my rights just to catch a terrorist or two? Freedom and liberty ARE NOT FREE, they ARE NOT EASY and they REQUIRE RESPONSIBILITY. THAT is why people like you so easily give up their freedoms: you can't stand responsibility and you can't stand the idea of living in a world without perfect and absolute safety.

You're willing to trade the danger of a terrorist for the danger of your own government using your own habits against you.

Is that worth a few lives? You may say I'm making a bigger issue of this than it really is - but I say I am not. Everytime we give the government more power, the less free we are. They're not going to go Totalitarian Dictatorship all at once - they're going to do it in pieces, just like this. I'm unwilling to try stopping them at the end of the road - I'd rather stop them somewhere as near the beginning as possible.

"We always can use smarter leaders, no matter what the situation. But to say we don't need more information and more invasive surveillance... sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me."

So we DO need more invasive surveillance? How much is too much, for you? Cameras in your bathroom at home? Forgive the hyperbole but it certainly seems as though that's exactly what you would find appropriate.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[QCompson]

Have you ever joined (or previously served) the military, Mr. Potty-Mouth?

Mr. Potty-Mouth is not the one so willing to give up other people's constitutional rights. You're willing to support an administration that infringes on our rights because you apparently believe we are in a very dire situation. A so-called war. But you don't feel strongly enough about this "war" to fight for it?!? Coward.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

1 - Demonizing the enemy. There are certainly evil people in the world, but they are not the slobbering subhuman monsters you take them for.


We certainly have a few bad apples in our military (as has been recently covered), and in our own society in general. Every society does.

But we don't cut peoples heads off with machetes (and then proudly hold the cut-off head by the hair and proclaim how "great" God is), or burn bodies and drag the charred remains through the streets, run people through "human shredders", gas entire villages with nerve agents, fly jet airplanes into office buildings, put explosives in sneakers, cars or our own clothing and go on suicide missions.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that many (if not all) of the above actions would certain qualify a person as a monster.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

I never said I was willing to give up either my own, nor anyone else's constitutional rights.

All I said (from the very beginning) was that our calls are being monitored anyway, and there isn't much that will be done about it.

Now all you loonies come out of the woodwork thinking I support that. All I am saying is you all are wasting your time fighting it, because the lawsuits will be put down by the government.

This is war. Crazy things happen in a war, like it or not, and this is one of them.

And to call me a coward? I already mentioned that I would be willing to fight myself - I AM TOO OLD TO DO SO. (Go back and read a previous post I wrote.)

It's pretty hypocritical to tell me I am a coward to not sign up for the military WHEN I AM NOT ALLOWED TO at this time, and if any of you have not done so yourself. Which is why I asked the question. And I am still waiting for an answer.

And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing. I NEVER SAID I AGREED WITH IT. All I ever said is that they should do whatever they need to do to win a war. Do I like it? Hell no. But it needs to be done.

Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode, and you can damn well bet I will be right there saying stay out of my business along with every one else.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[crabpeople]

"If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.

My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner."

So your a boring person and your life is ordinary so you have nothing to fear. Good job. Now the rest of us who may do the odd illegal thing, practice dissent, or jsut associate with interesting people, are screwed. It should be a crime punishable by death to be complacent and conformist. We really do not need these people who diddle away in their meaningless lives and who sell us out, their neighbors, at the drop of a hat.

"But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would"

Nice.. But you see their are far more deaths from heart attack every year than terrorists, so clearly the government should have the right to monitor your calls to see if youve been ordering from too many fast food places. right? am i following your line of reasoning? that the prevention of death is the number 1 priority of the usa now?

"What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!" -Patrick Henry 1775

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[blcamp]

But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about the NSA wiretaps and phone record collection that began AFTER 9/11.


WRONG. It started BEFORE 9/11.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/0 5/telephone_records_are_just_the.html

And that's a point I've been trying to make. People have been in a tizzy about it only now, but it's been going on for a long time.


So you're saying the ends justify the means, then? Ok, I want to be rich. Do you mind if I come slaughter your family and steal your house? You do? But the ends justify the means. Wait, it's unjust for me to get rich that way?


Apples and oranges. Or more like apples and baseballs. Everyone presumes the government is going to pre-empt our enemies only in order for it to become our enemy itself. Ridiculous, if you consider our own Revolutionary history.


So we DO need more invasive surveillance? How much is too much, for you? Cameras in your bathroom at home? Forgive the hyperbole but it certainly seems as though that's exactly what you would find appropriate.


I pasted in "invasive" by mistake. But I AM suggesting that more surveillance will certainly be useful in prosecuting the war on terror.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[QCompson]

And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing... But it needs to be done.

It doesn't matter whether you think it's cool or not. You support it. How do you not agree with it when you think it needs to be done?

I do apologize for calling you a coward. That wasn't necessary. Whether or not I or others have or do serve in the military, however, is hardly as relevant; we are not the ones convinced that this war requires measures as serious as disregarding the constitution. Age aside however, I find it very telling that you won't stand up and fight for american rights, because you think it is a hopeless battle. Is there anything the government would do during "war-time" that would cause you to protest?

Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode

Ha! That's a good one. What is your estimate, kind sir, of when we will win the war on terror? When exactly will terror be defeated?

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Harry Coin]

This is war. Crazy things happen in a war, like it or not, and this is one of them.

This is a war in the same sense that the War on Crime and the War on Poverty are considered "wars". That is, it's not a war at all. Congress has reneged on its responsibility to declare war, and you cannot fight against a word. If this were a "War Against Al Quaeda", there would be a lot more support. Instead we have a president who has assumed "wartime powers" in a never-ending (that is unwinnable) war. What are the criteria for victory in a "War Against Terrorism"? When there are no more people in the world willing to use violence to advance their causes? Again, this is a neverending war and a "True American(tm)" would oppose such a monstrosity.

And to call me a coward? I already mentioned that I would be willing to fight myself - I AM TOO OLD TO DO SO. (Go back and read a previous post I wrote.)

Really? Call your recruiter and talk to them! Believe me, the rules for enlistment have loosened considerably since the services started hemmoraging troops due to this idiotic campaign. If you're under 45, I bet they'd seriously consider enlisting you. I know you won't, but think it over. Of course, you're possibly nearing retirement, but you (think you) owe it to your country, don't you?

It's pretty hypocritical to tell me I am a coward to not sign up for the military WHEN I AM NOT ALLOWED TO at this time, and if any of you have not done so yourself. Which is why I asked the question. And I am still waiting for an answer.

Again, you're showing a pre-911 mentality. Please, try to enlist. The troops are becoming very jaded, and they need more people with your conviction. I did enlist, and served 8 in the USAF, so I feel entitled to ask you.

And it's also very interesting that everyone here just assumes I think it's cool what the government's doing. I NEVER SAID I AGREED WITH IT. All I ever said is that they should do whatever they need to do to win a war. Do I like it? Hell no. But it needs to be done.

Okay, you don't agree with it, but you think that they should do whatever they need to do? That's some really fine hair-splitting there. Your cognitive dissonance may be showing. Of course, as I said before, this war doesn't end. How could it possibly? So anything you surrender as an "emergency" measure is gone for good. Think about it.

Once we win, we go back to a peacetime mode, and you can damn well bet I will be right there saying stay out of my business along with every one else.

Again, how do you know when you've won? There's no Furher to commit suicide in a bunker. There's no borders to reclaim. There's no unified leader to surrender to us.

There have always been those who would use violence to create fear and control people. They're also a miniscule part of the world. Giving up the liberties that make this country great, and that many soldiers died to protect, in return for the illusion of safety from a minor threat will do more damage to this country than the murder of thousands and the destruction of its skyscrapers.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[nuzak]

> LIKE IT OR NOT, NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS TRUMP CIVILIAN PRIVACY CONCERNS, PERIOD. DEAL WITH IT.

Exactly how effectively does it serve national security to spy on everyone, hmm?

The rest of your argument is beneath debate. You should have realized you had a losing argument when you first tapped your capslock key.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Darby]

They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place.

Hope this helps. I pointed out the fundamental flaw in your thought process.
Are you truly so deeply naive as to think that this is all the want to know?

If you are, think this one through because it is extremely important and it is far and away your single most important responsibility to get these kinds of things right.
Take what you know of human history and human nature. Add a dash of what you know about politicians in general and this recent crop in particular.
Toss in the knowledge you have about the corrupting influence of power.

Now, after that, please go back and revise your thinking on this issue.

There are millions of people who will never know freedom if you don't start taking your responsibility as a citizen seriously.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Khammurabi]

If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.

I have one word for you: McCarthyism.

The fact that you spouted off something so bereft of critical thinking leads me to believe that:

1. You need a few history lessons
2. You're a youngling didn't live through the McCarthy era

When the government knows everything about you, it has the power to scapegoat anyone they choose to by latching onto a single fact about you and blowing it out of proportion. Whether you have or have not done anything wrong is irrelevant . The McCarthy era was about generating an atmosphere of fear and unwavering trust in the government by repressing anyone and everyone as it saw fit. No one was safe, no one spoke out, and nothing good came from it.

People treated anyone targetted by the government as social pariahs. Career? Dead. Friends? Gone. A person's life was destroyed for very little reason. The people who were targetted then did nothing wrong, and they still had their life destroyed by the government.

Just to bring you frame of reference more into focus. Let's play "How many steps away from the terrorists are you?" You post on slashdot, which has definite liberal bias. All liberals are against the war. Being against the war is unamerican and supports the terrorists. Therefore, you are supporting the terrorists. Is the reasoning inanely stupid? Yes, but it was stupid back then too and it still happened.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Darby]

But you need to understand something: We are at WAR.

No, you need to understand something. We are not at war. It is not possible to be at war with an abstract concept.

What we have is a situation where the government is making up an eternal war in order to take away our liberties. Take a look at all of human history. Every single time a situation anything like this has happened, there were people like you who were proven wrong to the torture and death of millions.

You clearly aren't using yours so don't care about them in the least. You also don't care in the least about those of anybody else.

Please don't profane this country by claiming you love it when you are indifferent at best. It really disgusts those of us who actually do love it. You sure as hell aren't willing to die for it. You are actively defending the people attacking it for Christ's sake. Save the Orwellian doublethinking nonsense.

If you actually did love this country and what it stands for you would not be complacent about an all out assault on exactly what it stands for. That's really a pretty obvious statement and clearly true by definition. You really should think through these things yourself.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[jaystrick]

But you need to understand something: We are at WAR. And the enemies of our country do not give a goddamn about our liberties, or freedoms, our lives, and do not operate by any societal rules whatsoever.

Odd.. After reading this statement, I didn't know who you were talking about, terrorists, or the people in charge of our government....

I FOR ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE A TEMPORARY BENDING OF THE RULES BY THE ONES WE ALREADY PUT IN CHARGE (remember that you and I voted to put all these people in, no matter what party) THAN HAVE THE WHOLE RULEBOOK DESTROYED BY OUR ENEMIES.

Please, I'd rather they follow the rules that are in place already and agreed to be just by all three sects of our government. They have the ability to quickly wiretap, they have the ability to trace calls, view phone records, etc. What they don't want to do is go through the proper channels to get the authorization to do so.

And speak for yourself about the "voted him in". The man is not competent enough to run a deep fryer at McDonalds let alone run a country.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Jon_A_Mnemonic]

The technology exists to spy quite extensively on people now. Not just their phone calls, but inside their bedrooms, in their cars, their movements during the day, pretty much everything. Once you give up a chunk of privacy here and a chunk there, it won't be long until we're living in a completely monitored society. Now, I'm no major lawbreaker or anything; they'd find my phone calls boring, and I like the missionary position when I have sex, which is boring too. But do I really want strangers hearing my conversations, or watching when I have sex, or knowing exactly when I leave the house, and where I'm going, and when I'll be back? Not really. Would we be safer if the government knew absolutely everything about everyone? Well, I'd be safer from terrorists, perhaps, yes. But I wouldn't feel safe from the government. If you trade your liberty for security, you deserve neither liberty nor security. If the terrorists succeed in turning our own government into a giant spying apparatus aimed at our own citizens, then it is safe to say that the terrorists have won.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[DM9290]

If the Government wants to find out who I talk to and when... it's pretty easy to get that information now as it is.

without a warrent? how do they do that?

If they want to actually listen... it's a waste of time but hey, what do I care? Knock yourself out.

May I listen as well? Its a waste of time but I'll be keeping a record just in case I ever need it for your protection.

My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.

You are making the argument that the government has the right to listen to something because it has no interest. What if you are ARGUING with your wife? Perhaps that is of interest. What if your wife mentions that she is pregnant. What if 9 months later... no baby is born. What if men in black show up and arrest you and your wife for having an illegal abortion. (there was no visit to the clinic.. so that creates probable grounds to believe there was an illegal abortion). What if you are charged and your name is put up in the local newspaper.

What if after an investigation the prosecution is dropped on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect for a conviction, but its too late.. the election in which you were a candidate has already happened and you were defeated because of the air of suspicion surrounding your lifestyle. (afterall you campaigned on a pro-life ticket).

Use your fucking imagination!

They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place.

And listening to your conversation is not relevant... so by your logic... the government OUGHT to listen to it?

What if come FUTURE president just wants to be "president for life", and decides to use the information to blackmail all of his (or enough of his) political enemies, and impose a dictatorship. Perhaps you did something you were ashamed of when you were a teenager.. perhaps you dont want that phone conversation becoming public .... perhaps that can be used to influence your future behavior.. Do you want to condemn todays children to a future of serving the executive branch as blackmailable pawns?

By then it will be too late.

I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations, nor do (I would speculate) 99.99% of Americans.

So now you are implicitly arguing that it is legitimate to spy on citizens to insure they are in full compliance with law?

You are also living in a fantasy world that the only thing people are embarassed or ashamed about is CRIME. People are embarassed about simple nudity!! You can't think of anything which could be used to deprive people of free will?

We are already speeding down that slippery slope, that the totalitarians insist on denying even exists.

Quite frankly, if some politician wants to call a gay sex hotline, that has nothing to do with his ability to be a politician, and yet it is the type of information he would do almost anything to keep out of the public light. Thereby making him a potential stooge for the Executive Branch, foreign powers, fundamentalists, criminals. This is a threat to the seperation of powers.

What if some less than honest NSA agent (suprise THEY ARE ALSO MOTIVATED BY GREED) decides to make some extra cash and mines the database for blackmailable behavior. The phone companies by themselves would not have the power, but the NSA can connect these records to tax records and god knows what else they've got.

I wont even contemplate what would happen if Al Quaeda or a foreign government ever figured out how to tap into all of these massive centralized data warehouses that you dataphiles seem to think are so wonderful.

But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwa

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[The Master Control P]

But you need to understand something: We are at WAR. And the enemies of our country do not give a goddamn about our liberties, or freedoms, our lives, and do not operate by any societal rules whatsoever. We therefore have to conduct ourselves under this reality, and understand something basic such as knowing that if an enemy combatant (or agent or participant, or whatever) is making a PHONE CALL to someone else, and either (or both ends) of that phone call happen to be in that country... the government MUST have that information, period.

Congress is the only body in the United States that can declare war. It never did so, therefore we are not at war. The military may be engaged in overseas actions, but without a congressional declaration it is not a war.

Do you realize how bizzare it is to read "The enemy doesn't care about our liberties and freedoms" and then "We need to abandon them to defeat the enemy" in the very next sentence? In particular when considering the overwhelming threat that these enemies present. How many people have been killed or wounded by terrorism in the last 15 years? Ten thousand in Israel, 3000 on 9/11, thousands by Basque separatist attacks in Spain, 50000 Iraqis and 2000 American soldiers killed in Iraq, thousands by separatists in Indonesia? Even if the number comes in at almost 120000, you realize that that means you're willing to sacrifice critical liberties to stop an "enemy" who has killed as many people total in 15 years as America's highway system did since mid-2003? Who has killed as many Americans in those 15 years as our highways have since last month? An enemy about twice as dangerous as being hit by lightning?

The reason you're willing to sacrifice your liberties to stop "Terrorists" and not to stop highway deaths (which are 180 times more likely to kill you), is because terrorist attacks are spectacular. They scare you, and when people get scared they turn off rational thought and abandon all other considerations in the pursuit of safety or perceived safety. The terrorists know this, and corrupt governments the world over know this.

The terrorists know that if they can just strike occasionally, repeatedly shattering the perceived safety, they can destroy a democracy by making it's people give up anything (and eventually everything) to anyone who promises safety. It worked in Israel. It's working on the United States. Terrorists terrorize because they know it works, and it works because people let it work.

Governments also know that a scared populace is a compliant populace, which will allow them to do nigh anything without risk of reprisal. Throughout history, evil leaders have either used existing enemies or otherwise created fictitious ones that served just as well to sow fear and help them take power. Robert Mugabe uses fear (and hate) of Whitey to keep himself in control of Zimbabwe. Fidel Castro uses fear of evil running-dog exploitative Capitalists. Hitler burned the Reichstag and blamed the Communists to get elected, then he told everyone it was das Jugen that were threatening them. And so the Bush administration uses the fear of Terrorists and terrorism to keep people scared and in line.

LIKE IT OR NOT, NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS TRUMP CIVILIAN PRIVACY CONCERNS, PERIOD. DEAL WITH IT. Blocking the government's ability to get the information it needs to potentially save lives or avert an attack, simply because you don't want the governement to know what you said to whomever is, in my view, giving indirect assistance to the enemy. YES, I SAID THAT.

We just have a fundamental divide here. I don't believe that giving up civil liberties in the name of fighting a nebulously-defined "enemy" which is somewhat more threatening than lightning and far less threatening than drunken assholes behind the wheel is acceptable.

And there was nothin

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[daspriest]

"I pasted in "invasive" by mistake."

So is that to say that your comments aren't original but cut and pasted from someone else.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[NormalVisual]

You seriously think a couple of goddamn psychopaths with boxcutters can destroy the United States?

Considering the way things are going, they may have already done it. Of course it won't have happened by their direct actions, but if the executive branch continues down the path it's taking, we're either looking at a totalitarian state, or if enough people get pissed off about it, a civil war that will make the 1860's look like a frat party, leaving the country extremely vulnerable to outside attack. Either possibility represents infinitely more harm to the U.S. than any terrorist organization could hope to do on its own - they're smart enough to know that they can't accomplish their goals without our government's assistance, and the idiots in D.C. are only too happy to help.

Re:Uncle Sam will get to collect all he wants.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>They want to know when, where and how the next attack on our country is going to take place.

Then why are they picking a means so poorly suited to the task?

>I don't break any laws as I conduct my telephone conversations

But do you do anything the government doesn't like? Big difference. Calling a reporter about official corruption, for example?

>I asked the above question seriously, not rhetorically. And folks, please spare me the privacy argument/nonsense.

Try to keep your contradictions from being in consecutive sentences. The "nonsemse" that the Founding Fathers deliberately wrote into the Constitution is the answer to a serious question about privacy.

Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone realize that the State Secrets legal tactic has been used by the Bush administrations than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED?

Ask yourself this:

DO WE REALLY live in a time more dangerous than the Vietnam War?

DO WE REALLY live in a time more subversive than the Free Speech Movement of the 60's?

DO WE REALLY live in a time more frightening than the Cuban Missile Crisis?

DO WE REALLY live in a time more threatening to our way of life than the 70's Oil Embargo?

State Secrets was ONLY used in the past when classified data could be revealed in a case such that it would greatly hinder or be a serious detriment to National Security. Now I ask you this: What is that danger? Is it Osama Bin Laden? Is it a terrorist in the Middle East who hates us even more for a War that wasn't justified to begin with? Who is our enemy?! Damn, this is the most infuriating thing!

WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. it's too complicated to explain to the "average" person
2. it doesnt sell ads

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because maybe the answer to all of your "rhetorical" questions is Yes.

Re:Really now...

[10100111001]

WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?

No one in the mainstream media is asking these questions because if they did they would lose their jobs. More than 95% of all the media we see (radio, newspapers, tv & movies) comes from one of five media corporations. These corporations are interested in maintaining and gaining power. They do not want the general population to start asking these questions, so they rarely allow any dissenting viewpoints to enter the mainstream media.

If you want to hear these and other questions being asked, you need to go to independent media sources.

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also used more "signing statements" (ie, to bypass McCain's anti-torture bill) than all previous administrations combined.

Re:Really now...

[hansoloaf]

Why do we need the MAINSTREAM MEDIA to "inform" us? We need a better grassroots-based effort to get the message out that our CONgress is hopelessly out of touch and completely in the pockets of corporate masters. http://unity08.com/ is one such example. We need more efforts like this to get everyone organized and assemble to address our grievances towards our current government like the original Framers did. But will the average American public care? That's the big question.

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, this kind of shit above is why nobody in the media is ringing alarm bells: nutcases (like you!) have been crying wolf so long and loud about these issues -- and even when they're quite legitimate complaints, mixing them in with weird, hateful, and completely unrelated detrius -- that anyone making a civil liberties stand at all is pretty much a de facto nutcase themselves.

Thanks a lot, guy and gals!

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that ex parte Quirin lawsuit that keeps cropping up? It's about FDR deciding to try German sabatuers in a military tribunal as a way of covering up terrible police work (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=10321288627 31). So, no, I don't think things are all that different now.

And, yes, George Washington argued with Congress over a democracy's need to have secret spy operations, outside normal legal channels.

Re:Really now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the Military Industrial Media complex!

Re:Really now...

[demachina]

"WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?"

After 9/11 the Bush Administration was extremely successful in their "You are either with us or you are against us" strategy which painted anyone who questioned the Bush administration's actions, including journalists, as unpatriotic, or practically terrorists themselves. This is a classic propaganda and nationalism card and they played it very well. This campaign along with the general mood after 9/11 completely terrified journalists out of questioning anything the Bush administration did. Its just now starting to wear off because a few journalists are realizing they were played for complete suckers by the Bush administration.

Rupert Murdoch built Fox News to completely destroy the liberal media and independence in the news room and it worked. He single handedly turned news networks in to sensationalist propaganda tools for the executive branch, witness Fox's Tony Snow is now the press secretary. The fact Fox sky rocketed to #1 news network after 9/11 made all the other networks try to emulate them, not refute them. CNN is now an embarrassing Fox News parody, they aren't even good at it, so they are tanking. I can't stand watching CNN anymore. One liberal media outlet down. The Daily Show is the only liberal news outlet left and its a comedy show, parody. The best thing that could happen to American media right now would be for Time-Warner to sell CNN back to Ted Turner so he could rebuild a news network to challenge the Fox propaganda machine.

TV journalists are hired and rise through the network ranks based on how photogenic they are and on how much of a sycophant they are to both corprate executives, and politicians, not based on their ability as investigative journalists. The networks White House Correspondents and the Pentagon correspondents are just regurgitating the stuff the White House and the Pentagon want them to say on the TV that night. They are thinly veiled propaganda tools of the government. They don't do ANY independent investigation.

Most media outlets are now owned by large corporations thanks to consolidation, and most large corporations have no interest in investigative journalists who attack the government or stoke controversy that might cost them revenue or political good will.

One of the more disturbing invocations of state-secret privilege by George W. Bush was on November 1, 2001, when he signed Executive Order 13233. This order allows George W. to unilaterally prevent any access to his presidential papers for 12 years after he leaves office, unless he and only he authorizes it. Even if the sitting president authorizes it, he can still veto the release.

If its upheld, this should prevent future Congresses or courts from even seeing incriminating executive branch documents to investigate or charge him with illegal or unconstitutional acts, until 2020. Future Presidents can see them but can't release or act on them unless George W. authorizes it. You have to figure that a few weeks after 9/11, George W. was about to sign some orders to do some things that future governments might consider criminal or unconstitutional and his lawyers created this executive order so he could unilaterally obstruct any future investigations, even when he is no longer President. What might those acts be? Massive domestic spying on Americans without court approval, a prison on Gitmo outside the jurisdiction of any court, arresting American citizens without due process, authorization of torture by the military and CIA, secret prisons, launching an illegal war in Iraq based on a web of lies, dramatic expansion of the Rendition program to snatch people anywhere in the world, in violation of other nation's sovereignty to send people to secret prisons to be tortured?

Rendition is particularly apt in a discussion of state-secret privilege. It was used to kill a case brought by

and so will the political careers of those...

[plasmacutter]

and so will the political careers of those attached to it.

I remember the government pulling the same crap with toxic waste mismanagement in the supposedly non-existant nellus airforce base (you know.. area 51).

the court rejected it, instead insisting on closed hearings.

Any intelligent judge would instead require the plaintiff lawyers sign secrecy agreements and move the case into closed sessions. Anything less would be partisan pandering.

Would these be these same bells

[WindBourne]

that said that they had nothing to do with the NSA? Or are they now acknowledging that CNN was honest.

translation, law don't apply to us

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for democracy and following the law. Any asswipe in government that says secrecy is needed isn't interested in national security. They are interested in having lots of power. It's pretty simple. Why are people surprised. Quit your whining. If you really care, then impeach bush already. Like I thought, ain't gonna happen.

In other I'll-scratch-your-back news...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12952860/

"President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye."

Re:It's All in How You Read it

[ethereal]

I'm sorry, but that headline makes me think of:

"HELP HOWLS OUT NOW"

Hopefully I'm not the only one.

Land of the free?

[Cicero382]

I don't mean to knock America, but really!

I left the UK in 2001 (just before 9/11) to escape crippling taxes and what I saw as an increasingly oppressive government. I considered two possibilities; the USA and Italy. My wife persuaded (OK, ORDERED) me that Italy was the best bet. On the face of it, at the time, it was the lesser choice. But now...

Forget the taxes, I'm still better off - I'd be even better off in the States, but it's the other thing that concerns me.

Since I've been here I've watched (from a safe distance) a dramatic reduction of the rights someone living in a democracy should expect, both in the UK and the US. Why are you allowing it to happen?

What *really* gets me is - why is it happening? I've asked this question on /. before. It's obviously nothing to do with terrorists and so forth.

It's getting to the point where I'm seriously considering making a tin foil helmet.

PS. Yes, I know similar laws are being considered here, but we have one major advantage. We just say "AAh, F*ck off!" (And that includes the police).

Re:Land of the free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Italy the nation where the former head of their version of the RIAA or MPAA was elected to the presidency, and promptly passed the most draconian copyright laws i've ever seen?

At least in the states we only get sued, over there they go to prison for a decade.

Re:Land of the free?

[phopon]

I don't agree with the American's mentality, but it is all about terrorism. If you scare people enough with death, they will give up all their freedoms in fear. It is sad but true. American's have surrendered their core values to the terrorists, core values that are impossible to recover.

Patrick Henry's famous quote of, "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!" has been said many times by liberal politicians. (liberal is ironic here because it should be the conservatives defending the opinions of our fore-fathers) But we live in a different time than Henry did. It is not the terrorism that is different, they had murder and were even in the midst of a war (declaring war) on their own land. But it is the mentality of the citizen.

We have grown to expect our government(other people) to defend us. We have no desire to go to war; to die for our country seems like a waste of our lives. This might be because of our fighting of wars that don't pertain to us: (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf1, Gulf2), but it does mean that we have shifted our values. We will no longer die for a cause, including freedom. This unwillingness to die for a cause means that it is the responsibility of the government to prevent us from dieing. This includes wire taps and the like. I know it sounds absurd, but if people get more angry about dieing than they do about violations of their constitutional rights, then we have a problem.

Re:Land of the free?

[ClamIAm]

It's obviously a complex issue. A big problem I see is the hijack of debate. In the US, for every age group, occupation, and interest, there is a member of the ruling class working and paying people to distract you from the real issues. The media focus on celebrity, crime, and wedge issues. Covert marketing/activist operations are funded by millionaires to infiltrate churches and other organizations to cripple them, thus allowing the extremists and fundamentalists to appear relevant and mainstream.

Re:Land of the free?

[Cicero382]

No, that is another Italy.

And they also say "F*ck off!" to stupid laws.

That aid will take the form of . . .

[mmell]

notifying Night Watch of the names and addresses of all plaintiffs attempting to sue a Bell company for complicity in NSA's wiretapping scheme.

Re:That aid will take the form of . . .

[tweek]

Gotta love a good B5 reference.

show me the proof

[Anonymous Coward]

The administration like to hide behind the line that there have been no attacks in the last few years and that these measures are necessary to prevent an attack. OK, I say, now how about actually *proving* that these tactics agains the Constituion have borne fruit? How about names and dates of cells busted up, individuals arrested, and attacks thwarted?

Show me the money, or at least the proof this has worked.

Re:show me the proof

[jank1887]

but showing you the proof from past events would endanger the present operations that are stopping even more attacks that are TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW!!

Re:show me the proof

[Tuirn]

Prove it. Oh wait you can't. It makes for a really nice talking point, but is utterly meaningless. Show me ANY evidence at all that this has caught or stopped ANY attack. Prove to me that it has a reasonable chance of to succeed and a very low chance of a false-positive. Otherwise it's worthless. Oh wait you can't. I'm sorry but this is just too much power to be kept in the shadows because of MAYBE it works. Do you really trust our government (or the people in it) to weild this power wisely with out any significant pubic oversight? How about in several years when the administration/congress changes? Will you trust them then?

Re:show me the proof

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I think the grandparent poster was joking.. at least that's how I read it. Extreme hyperbole.

Re:show me the proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote "no confidence" in the next elections.

Re:show me the proof

[jank1887]

I'm sorry, I forgot to end the post with !!!!111!!!!111!one! to emphasize the silliness.

yes, I believe secrecy is necessary in many instances. No, I do not believe oversight has been sufficient and the "who guards the guards" saying is perfectly valid regarding most of the "terrorism" related policies that have been put in place.

Won't get fooled again...

[Recovering Hater]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. These type of actions are nothing new. The government has harmed its own citizens secretly many times in the past. What about Operation MK Ultra? MLK? Trail of Tears? History repeats itself. *sigh* Now just add illegal NSA wiretaps to the list.

Can you hide crimes behind a veil of secrecy?

[metoc]

The big question is can using the "state secrets" privilege be used to permit illegal behaviour now that a secret court exists under FISA?

Re:Can you hide crimes behind a veil of secrecy?

[pembo13]

Yes. And I believe that is the underlying intention.

Bush? You mean President Clark?

[mmell]

Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos.

VOIP can't exist without centralized utilities

[drhamad]

Be it telephony, cable or power lines, VOIP can't exist without the centralized utilities. Laying lines is a massive expense with little in the way of reward. Only companies that can be gaurunteed some profit on them can handle it. And that's just the end user (lines to the house) part of it. You have to have bandwidth, and it's the centralized companies that have that. Decentralization only works when you have free or standard access to already laid (as in, by those centralized companies) lines/bandwidth.

Re:Yeah Asshole

[__aaclcg7560]

Gotta love AC lawyers without a sense of humor.

No place for "state secrets" in a democracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely no place for "state secrets" in a democracy, or even in a republic. If the public is to be able to perform their democratic duties properly, then they need access to all information.

It doesn't matter how much that information may compromise politicians, corporate leaders, or even other nations. This is one of the few issues where there is no grey area: either the citizens of a state have access to all government-held information, or the state is not a democracy/republic.

State Secrets Privilege was abused from the start

[molo]

The State Secrets Privilege was abused from the start. The landmark case that established it via the Supreme Court, United States v. Reynolds, was used to cover up the military's negligence. The B-29 crash did not involve national security, but rather a poorly maintained aircraft. Fraud all around. The State Secrets Privilege should never have been made in the first place and should be removed from legal precedent.

-molo

Who says that the truth is in the middle?

[chaboud]

This is one problem I have with the current mindset.

Why is it that the truth is in the middle between two seemingly extreme viewpoints? Why wasn't there facilitation of 9/11 by the Bush administration? There are a lot of unnervingly unanswered questions. Why wasn't Saddam responsible?

Okay... Sorry... That's just stupid.

Still, my point is that the middle between two opposed viewpoints shouldn't be where we assume the truth lies. It just allows someone who is willing to say or do anything shift the frame of assumption away from what may very well be the truth. Most of us will never know the truth about most things, so let's not let a few people skew the collective perception through deception.

Now, your larger point, that we should have a serious investigation, is something that I'd like to see coming from more people. It's a rather obvious point, once stated, but one that we don't make nearly enough noise for.

Re:Who says that the truth is in the middle?

[lawpoop]

You are right. I agree that usually the truth is something that is widely removed from the public mindshare. ( As an example, look at anything about the nature of the cosmos that science has revealed -- the structure of the solar system, gravity, DNA, etc. ) Anywho, triangulation, or the truth being 'between' two sides, is a false conception. The idea of triangulation just means that you have to pit someone who is more extreme in their views against your adversary. Then, since both sides have to agree to meet in the middle -- where the truth supposedly lies -- you get what you want, which was between your adversary and your extremist buddy. I don't think its part of the current mindset, it's just the way that people have always been.

However, I've painfully discovered that most people, excluding nerds and geeks, care about what truth and reality are. They only believe what they have heard from a 'reputable' consensus source, such as the TV. What that means is that people who are interested in the general public being somewhat aware of truth and reality is that we have to use the techniques that work. I am merely giving lip service to the idea of 'truth in the middle' so I can get my adversary to agree to an under-oath investigation. It is reasonable after all, right?

I agree, it is a compromise. But nobody wants to be unflinchingly truthful. You will never get anywhere as an extreme truthteller. People as a whole live in the gloom between the bright light of truth and the darkness of ignorance.

Re:Who says that the truth is in the middle?

[pembo13]

I agree, it is a compromise. But nobody wants to be unflinchingly truthful. You will never get anywhere as an extreme truthteller.

On slashdot have truer words rarely rarely been spoken.

Re:Who says that the truth is in the middle?

[slughead]

I agree that usually the truth is something that is widely removed from the public mindshare.

Welcome, fellow libertarian!

The sad part is, it fits.

[mmell]

Thankfully, we don't need to worry about the Psi Corps, but President Clark, err, I mean Bush, well . . . that's another matter.

Re:The sad part is, it fits.

[tweek]

I'd take Clark over Bush any day. At least he was being controlled by the Shadows. With Bush, I think he really thinks he's doing the right thing.

Re:The sad part is, it fits.

[blincoln]

I'd take Clark over Bush any day. At least he was being controlled by the Shadows. With Bush, I think he really thinks he's doing the right thing.

My take on that part of the B5 arc was that Clarke and his government weren't so much controlled by the Shadows as they were willingly working with them because they thought they were doing the right thing.

E.g. Clarke and "the ascension of the common man." The diplomat who justified the non-aggression pact with the Centauri because "we will know peace in our time."

I've always figured that that part of the story was JMS taking a break from re-telling Lord of the Rings in space to work in a re-telling of the lead-in to WWII in space. But watching it now is almost painful because when it was originally aired I never thought I'd really hear people welcoming totalitarianism in the name of "security" and "safety."

Re:The sad part is, it fits.

[tweek]

I never thought I'd really hear people welcoming totalitarianism in the name of "security" and "safety."

I just finished rewatching the entire series (as of a week ago) and it was REALLY creepy to see the parallels. Interestingly enough, my wife and I thought the same thing when we rewatched DS9 in its entirety. Maybe some themes are just eternal.

Hell Ben Franklin thought the same thing with the "those who would give up...." quote.

No wiretaps involved here

[steveg]

There are wiretaps involved with the NSA's FISA violations, but there has been no accusation of domestic wiretapping in the suits against the Bells.

The Bell suits all have to do with turning over call records, not wiretapping. Wiretapping is *live* monitoring of the contents of telephone calls, and the legal bar to performing a wiretap is considerably higher than "trap and trace" or "pen register" monitoring. The massive turnover of call records is equivalent to trap and trace and pen register, and according to the PATRIOT Act, all the authorities have to do to get an order authorizing these latter types of surveillance to to atest that such monitoring is "necessary to an ongoing investigation."

So when the NSA claims that those requests for records was legal, they're probably right. The question to be asked, of course, is *should* it be legal, and that's a whole different question. Congress had the chance to fix that, but they passed the renewed PATRIOT Act, so I guess that means that *they* thought it was OK.

And there may be actual domestic wiretapping going on, but we don't know that since if there is, that story hasn't yet broken.

Re:No wiretaps involved here

[plasmacutter]

but they didn't get that order, have not proven it's "necessary to an ongoing investigation", and atop that it is not they who are on trial, it's the telcos, who are violating their own TOS/contractual agreements with their customers, along with federal internet privacy laws.

It is not a question of weather or not domestic spying is illegal, it's a question of weather they turned over the records of their customers voluntarily without court compulsion, which they are not allowed to do on multiple grounds.

Re:No wiretaps involved here

[steveg]

Good point. If there was no court order (and are we sure there was no *secret* court order?) then even the PATRIOT Act wouldn't make it legal.

But there's still no wiretap involved.

Re:No wiretaps involved here

[dragonsomnolent]

I recall a conversation I had with Sprint. I had purchased a long distance calling card for work purposes (my fualt for not having the boss pay for it), and when I called customer service to get a record of the calls to prove I used it for work, I was told I needed a court order, just for the call records (who I called, how long I talked). Why shouldn't our governement be held to the same standards, especially if they can get a warrant 72 hours after beginning a wiretap (far more intrusive than a call record), from a secret court that does everything behind closed doors? (Another point entirely, why should the government have a court that the people never have access to?) Call me nuts, but moving to Switzerland keeps looking better all the time.

Vote!

[posterlogo]

I know that people are a bit disillusioned right now with the going-ons in government, and feel waiting until Nov 2006 or 2008 to vote is not enough to deal with the immediate threats and violations of the constitution. A unoffical poll of Slashdot posters would demonstrate a near-unanimous discomfort with the wiretapping, but some of the same people would not be willing to vote out the perpetrators. I ask that everyone here put their money where there mouth is. In this particular matter, there is one party that is thrilled to be spying on Americans and questioning our patriotism, the party of "with us or against us": the Republicans. Though it seems almost certain that the violation of the bill of rights offends most republicans (just look at gun-control attempts), in this case the mob mentality has overruled just about any one Republican's personal moral choices. The solution is to not vote Republican: if you are truly uncomfortable with the way the country is headed, it is necessary to realize that the neo-con movement has usurped the moral authority the Republicans once had.

Re:Vote!

[tweek]

Don't think for a minute that Dems wouldn't do the same thing if they were in power and the Repubs would be bitching about it. Make no mistake that the parties involved are exactly the same but they are just the minority.

Re:Vote!

[Reverend528]

Don't think for a minute that Dems wouldn't do the same thing if they were in power and the Repubs would be bitching about it.

You're missing the important distinction. The democrats would raise taxes to fund the illegal wiretapping, whereas the the republicans don't raise taxes and fund it by sinking our country deeper into debt.

Re:Vote!

[killjoe]

There were periods in history where the dems ran the govt. They controlled both houses and the presidency. They never did anything like this.

They had the opportunity and the means and they didn't do it.

I guess I don't believe that they would do the same thing.

Feel free to change the subject and tell me how they would have instituted a socialist govt run by the UN though.

Re:Vote!

[Keebler71]

As long as this will be a civil discourse, I'll chime in as to why, as an independent conservative who always votes republican, will continue to vote republican. First, I don't actually believe the claims of the left that the Patriot act or NSA surveillance has diminished the civil liberties of americans in any substantial way. I believe that the democrat's approach to foreign policy would put us further at risk. While the dems are keen to point out how spend-happy this repub congress is, I know that they would spend even more money on the very government programs they accuse the repubs of bloating - with the exception of the military (recall that their objection to prescription drug plan, NASA, no child left behind, and Katrina and 911 reliefs were that they were UNDER funded. I'm not trolling... And quite honestly I can't stand most of the personalities of our current gvt...Just trying to articulate that there are a lot of people like me who don't think things are so bad and/or believe the dems would just do worse.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

"First, I don't actually believe the claims of the left that the Patriot act or NSA surveillance has diminished the civil liberties of americans in any substantial way. I believe that the democrat's approach to foreign policy would put us further at risk."
Sir, why are you so fucking stupid? Honest question!

Re:Vote!

[Keebler71]

Sorry I don't respond to AC's as I assume you have no intention of actually reading my response.

Re:Vote!

[NormalVisual]

There were periods in history where the dems ran the govt. They controlled both houses and the presidency. They never did anything like this.

Perhaps you should read about FDR's presidency. Perhaps you should read about how the Democrats actively conspired with the Republicans to sharply curb access to Presidential debates for other-party participants. Perhaps you could read about how they provided federal protection for a FBI sharpshooter after he murdered a woman holding a baby, and actively prevented the state of Idaho from prosecuting him under their criminal statutes because "he was just doing his job".

This isn't a slam on Democrats. For every awful thing I could say about any given Democratic administration or Congress in the last 60 years, I could say something equally awful about any Republican administration/Congress. The point is that government is not now, has never been, and will never be something that can be relied on to generally act altruistically in the governed's best interests. Governments are mostly made up of men that tend to gravitate toward power, and power-hungry individuals simply are not to be trusted.

Re:Vote!

[Brietech]

I find it odd that many people have a knee-jerk reaction to defending any suggestion of government wrongdoing (most likely about as many as have a knee-jerk reaction to assume government wrongdoing). Why is it necessary to have an infallible government? No, not EVERYTHING the government does is evil or nefarious, but a lot of it is still wrong or misguided. The government is just made up of people, like everything else, and people tend to do lots of stupid and illegal stuff (especially Americans! Look at our incarceration rates!). Saying, "Well, the government wouldn't do anyting bad, so everyone should just shut up already" is a terrible attitude to take.

Re:Vote!

[killjoe]

"Perhaps you should read about FDR's presidency. "

Right so you want to go back to WWII and make a comparison to what is happening today. Right.

"Democrats actively conspired with the Republicans to sharply curb access to Presidential debates for other-party participants. "

GASP. Well that proves it then. Denying third party candidates access to a televised debate is as bad as rigging elections, waging an illegal and unjust war, curbing freedom of all americans, torturing people, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civillians.

"Perhaps you could read about how they provided federal protection for a FBI sharpshooter after he murdered a woman holding a baby, and actively prevented the state of Idaho from prosecuting him under their criminal statutes because "he was just doing his job"."

Aaah yes, back to ruby ridge. The last shelter of the republitard.

"The point is that government is not now, has never been, and will never be something that can be relied on to generally act altruistically in the governed's best interests."

So I guess you are calling for absolute anarchy then. Let me know when you get someplace with that ok?

The problem with you is that you only see the world in black and white. To you denying access to a debate is exactly like torturing people or rigging elections. To you there are no gradients.

Re:Vote!

[NormalVisual]

Right so you want to go back to WWII and make a comparison to what is happening today. Right.

I was actually talking more about the attempts to stack the Supreme Court, shoving the Emergency Banking Relief Act through Congress without a *single* member actually having read the legislation (gee, sounds kinda like another piece of more recent legislation), instituting a peacetime draft more than a year prior to Pearl Harbor that lasted until Nixon's presidency in 1973 (what was that about standing armies the Constitution said again?), and circumventions of due process that had nothing to do with the war.

Denying third party candidates access to a televised debate is as bad as rigging elections...

It's not "just as bad", it *is* a form of rigging elections.

...waging an illegal and unjust war, curbing freedom of all americans, torturing people, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civillians.

Yeah, Vietnam began and really got rolling under Johnson too. An undeclared war with no clear benefit to the U.S. was wrong then under Johnson, and it's wrong now under Bush. What's your point? You think someone's political affiliation magically makes them immune from abusing their office?

aah yes, back to ruby ridge. The last shelter of the republitard.

Ah, ad hominem attacks - the last shelter of those who can't think critically or argue their position successfully. I note that you had nothing of substance to offer regarding the point I made there. I also note that apparently while you read enough of the last paragraph of my post to quote me and get off what I'm sure you felt was a stinging rebuke, you apparently didn't grasp the content, which was to say that I think *both* parties are crooked, neither can be trusted and I don't care to associate myself with either one.

I just find it rather funny that you don't actually address *any* of the points I brought up, refer to me as a "republitard", and then have the unmitigated fucking gall to tell ME I only see the world in black and white? Whatever... [rolls eyes]

Re:Vote!

[killjoe]

You don't have any points. You are just babbling on about non sequitors. I said Bush should be impeached and that impeachement will be a deterrent to others who would do the same thing.

You then said that the guilty should not be punished because other people would do the same thing. You said this because you are unable to discern gradients. You see the world in black and white where saying some third party candidate should not be in one debate is the same thing as actually rigging an election.

So it's not a ad hominem to say that you are a republitard. You are incabable of thinking about this matter (or any matter whatwoever) because you lack any capability of judging actions. To you jaywalking is the exact same as murdering and raping a 13 year old girl. They are both crimes. Furthermore you don't think that people should be held accountable for their actions because other people would do the same thing in their position. Lat but not least you are calling for anarchy which only fools and retards are for.

Talking about this subject with you is like talking about colors with a dog.

Re:Vote!

[couchslug]

What will have me giggling like a schoolgirl is that when the next Democratic administration cycles into power, they will inherit the tools the Republicans put in place. Wanna place any bets on how much power they will give up?

Re:Vote!

[NormalVisual]

I said Bush should be impeached and that impeachement will be a deterrent to others who would do the same thing.

You never said any such thing. This little gem of a thread started when you replied to a poster that suggested that a Democratic administration would have done the same thing as the Republicans have done given the opportunity. You replied with, "There were periods in history where the dems ran the govt. They controlled both houses and the presidency. They never did anything like this." Remember saying that? I gave you concrete examples where they did, and you went off on your little rant and personally attacked me without even the courtesy of addressing the points I made. You still continue to attack me, and still don't have an answer. You're either unable or unwilling to support your position, and therefore it's pointless to continue any debate.

In the future, try to stay on topic, get a dictionary and look up big words like "non sequitur" before using them incorrectly, and don't put quite so much faith in your ability to divine others' political beliefs or critical thinking skills, because you're provably not very good at it.

I'm done with you.

Re:Vote!

[killjoe]

"You never said any such thing. This little gem of a thread started when you replied to a poster that suggested that a Democratic administration would have done the same thing as the Republicans have done given the opportunity."

The subject started with me talking about impeaching bush.

"I gave you concrete examples where they did, and you went off on your little rant and personally attacked me without even the courtesy of addressing the points I made."

That's because you were comparing a ridiculusly off topic and irrelevent item during world war II to what is happening today. Again this is because you lack the ability to discern gradiation and complexity. You are incabable of thinking about things without jumping to ridiculus conclusions based on completely silly notions.

"You're either unable or unwilling to support your position, and therefore it's pointless to continue any debate."

As I said it's pointless to try to talk to a dog about colors. You are a stupid person and one whose ideology has completely blinded you to the looking at the actual facts in front of you.

Keep on believing that Kerry would be just as bad as the worst president ever and keep on beliving that the democrats would have also waged the same unjust war, tortured people, killed tens of thousands of innocent humans in a foolish attemtp to invade and occupy iraq, locked up people without representation or charges.

A fucking republitard is what you are. People like you make me sick.

Re:Vote!

[NormalVisual]

Please don't consider this a continuation of the initial debate, since I basically said before I feel it'd be a waste of time to try to actually reason with you, and I still believe that. However, you really do need to be straightened out on a couple of things:

The subject started with me talking about impeaching bush.

No, it didn't, and nowhere in the responses to this article have you mentioned it except to try to tell me that you did. If you think you have, please provide a URL. Never mind, I'll save you a bit of trouble and provide a link for your most recent post mentioning impeachment. Please note that this was posted under an entirely different article from the one we're currently discussing, ergo, the subject at hand did not start with you talking about impeaching Bush. This is what is often known as "revisionist history", where the individual or group changes their version of history to better fit their worldview or to prevent themselves from being cast in a poor light. Either that, or you've just got a really poor memory.

I'll also spell this out for you in very small words, since you didn't catch it the first two times: I am neither a Democrat nor a liberal. I am neither a Republican nor a conservative. I do not subscribe to the platforms of either party. I do not believe that either party has the best interests of the country at heart. I believe Kerry would have made a poor president. I believe Bush *is* a poor president. We probably agree on more subjects than you're willing to consider, if you'd bother to look past your political prejudices and assumptions that everyone who disagrees with the Democrats is a Republican.

Re:Vote!

[posterlogo]

There is a party in power NOW, in the white house, the judiciary, and congress. At it's most basic, my point is that there is someone to blame right NOW, and it is the Republican party. I disagree with those who say the dems would do the same -- so much of what has happened is the last 6 years is totally unprecedented even in analogy. GW has used signing statements to basically set himself up as a dictator who does not have to be subject to the constitution, who thinks it's "just a piece of paper." Saying "well the dems would have been worse" is a pathetic cop out. That is just conjecture. What we know for sure is that the reps are bad NOW. Vote them out, or we WILL be putting up with more of this, if not worse.

Re:Vote!

[killjoe]

I said you were a republitard. That's different from a conservative, a republican, a democrat or a liberal. Republitard is a person who is unable to think clearly, unable to grasp complex subjects, unable to think about things in a non black and white manner.

We have already established that you don't like any governments you are an anarchist.

For example you think Kerry would have made a poor president. You have no reason to believe that. You just believe it because either somebody told you to or you think you should. You think Bush is a poor president. So to you they are the same. The fact that you think Kerry would probably be a bad president and that Bush is actually a poor president carries the same amount of weight. Notice that you are unable to put any gradiations on the poorness either. To you the speculative kerry presidency would be exactly the same as the actual presidency of bush. Both "poor". You are unable to conceive of any other difference. That is a republitard in a nutshell.

By the way. Here is a puzzle for you. When was the last time democrats controlled the presidency and both houses? I'll give you a hint. It was not World War II, It was after that.

So why don't you go and show me how the last time the democrats were in power there were wars based on lies, state instituted concentration camps, torture, holding people without trials or charges, and massacres of brown people.

w0w

[neogold]

This idea makes my stomach turn. Once everyone knows who you are you dont know who you are. And if you dont know who you are, you become a drone... i gues this is all that we want yea? i duno you tell me.

What Will It Take?

[ewhac]

Government and corporations, working hand in hand!

There's a word for that, you know...

Let's review:

• The United States Government is spying on you;
• The United States Government lied to you to get you to agree to go to war;
• The United States Government is sending your children half way across the world to be killed;
• The United States House and Senate are refusing to their jobs of representing you and advocating for your rights and interests;
• The United States Government has undermined your reputation among nations by abandoning global cooperation and diplomacy and acting unilaterally;
• The United States Government has endangered your safety by antagonizing and attacking foreign people, thereby turning them into extremist people;
• The Federal Government and the governments of several states are eliminating your right to self-determination via voting by systematically ignoring all evidence placed before them of voting irregularities and compromised electronic voting machines;
• Etc., etc., etc....

In case you haven't been paying attention for the last seven years, it may interest you to know: You are being systematically fucked. The press has been bought off; they will do nothing to help you. There is only one person left who can do something about it...

But, you see s/he's too busy, and can't be bothered, at least not yet. See, there was the American Idol finale a couple weeks ago where whatshisface (or was it whatsherface?) won, thanks to your attentive help and eager phone calls. Oh! And, and missing the final episodes of Survivor, Will and Grace, The Amazing Race, and House were simply unthinkable! And then there was "March Madness" back in... uh, March, I guess...

"Public corruption? Senate scandals? Incompetent emergency management officials? Mendacious Attorney Generals? Fuck that! I need to know if Natalee Holloway is still dead..."

See? Very very busy. So if something important is going on, it will need to be really important before we get his/her attention and they start to act and save the United States. It will need to be shocking so that we grab his/her attention. And it will need to be big so that they understand the importance of acting now. In fact, it will need to be so big that it will swamp out all the other "important" stuff for months.

And so, the question we all need to ask is:

What Will It Take?

Schwab

Re:What Will It Take?

[whathappenedtomonday]

here's another interesting definition of fascism along with some more info. For example the 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession with National Security
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14. Fraudulent Elections
What Will It Take?

more better informed people who care?

+1, correct

[rodentia]

Yes, the *state secrets privilege* was established in the 50's precisely to limit liability claims against pet military procurement contractors, not to guard secrets. The current case would seem to be a tailor-made situation for the invocation of these dubious privileges.

This reminds me

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me that there's a country out there called The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, aka North Korea. Somehow the "people's democratic" part is sounding more and more in line with the idea that the United States is founded on the beliefs of democracy. Maybe I'm too Orwellian, but I see this democracy as some being more equal than others.

We have no checks and ballances against a government, if the government doesn't abide by the laws. We have all sorts of laws that supposedly allow us to keep checks on the government, which is necessary in maintaining a fair and healthy government, but when the time comes to do so the current administration (more than all other administrations combined since the 50's) plays the "national security" card. This card is essentially the bypass to all democratic process. It nullifies the fact that we have laws to keep the government in check, it nullifies the fact that our representative government represents us, it nullifies the pretense that the government must abide by the law in the first place, and it generally screams totalitarianism.

I don't think, at the moment, that the U.S. government is fascist or totalitarian or whatever other repressive name you want to give it. But it's moving in that direction, whether the people in power are aware of it or not (I suspect they are aware) and it's dangerous. Very dangerous. I just wish more people retained some level of similarity to the passion for freedom that our forefathers had. Recently, the closest thing to this passion seems to be the freedom to change channels and view any TV station you like, provided that it's a U.S. TV station that follows the FCC rules about what is or is not decent.

Back on topic to the wiretaps, many people, including my mother, insist that there's nothing wrong. We're not criminals, so why worry? There's nothing to hide really. Only the terrorists need to hide something. Even if there was an inconvenience, it would be small, and is in order to fight against a possible attack. So we have a whole bunch of small, relatively harmless evasions of our rights. By the time we have enough of these, it will be too late. Martin Niemoller always comes to mind.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Swap out trade unionists, jews, socialists and so on with chatchy phrases like immigrants, terrorists and human rights activists.

Re:This reminds me

[NormalVisual]

many people, including my mother, insist that there's nothing wrong. We're not criminals, so why worry? There's nothing to hide really. Only the terrorists need to hide something.

Oh, and the government too.

In a previous post...

[erroneus]

...I stated that it's time to take a stand. And from what I've seen so far, the US Congress is also pretty pissed off about the way the executive has been skirting the checks and balances that this republic depends on. Bush does whatever he wants, claims it's legal and when anyone attempts to validate the claim in court, he claims executive priviledge or state secrets. He hasn't replaced ALL of the supreme court judges yet but I wouldn't be surprised if another judge was replaced pretty soon with the turnover in presidential appointees lately. And once he has enough of his cronies on the bench, THEN he might let a couple of issues actually reach the courts for decision.

I keep hearing that line from Star Wars, Episode 1 --- "...I will MAKE it legal!"

Re:In a previous post...

[blincoln]

I keep hearing that line from Star Wars, Episode 1 --- "...I will MAKE it legal!"

That, and "I *am* the Senate!"

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

For being intelligent and putting effort into a /. post... something which rarely happens.

Your tax dollars at work...

[hrrY]

You get what you pay for. In other countries they have a certain *way* of dealing with this stuff; third world countries in particular... but here...we vote to pay the salaries of people that lie to us and create a detriment in rights and privelleges that we have enjoyed and expanded on for decades. And then we come to places like here in an attempt to find perspective that we have always had. Almost everybody knows what has to be done, but we won't do it because it's easier to brew contempt, than to nullify what it is spawns that contempt. The land of the 4x4 philosopher.

Comforting to enemies

[Anonymous Coward]

Even posting this on Slashdot is conforting to our enemies.

Re:Comforting to enemies

[pembo13]

The little green men have been attacking you again in your sleep I see.

Re:State Secrets Privilege was abused from the sta

[Anonymous Coward]

While the origin may be true, there IS classified material whose exposure of the specifics would destroy some of our capability, and would probably directly lead to the death of many of our nation's supporters.

Such as . . .. A listing of our "buried" spies.

If those names were revealed, the spies would vanish (POSSIBLY be thrown out of the country they are in, but probably just killed), we would lose the intelligence capabilities their presence creates, and our nation's security would be directly reduced.

The original use may have been abusive. Without knowledge of the material which was with held, I have no way to know for sure. The need is real. The inherent problem in that you have to reveal the secret for people to evaluate the need for secrecy is that it encourages the abuse.

EFF's bungling again

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that EFF took this as a press-release opportunity and not as a get-to-the-bottom-of-it opportunity. From EFF's first press release on their lawsuit, they believed the NSA would try to shut the case down with state secrets (and, when the NSA filed the paperwork to do so, it said "NSA is not required to demonstrate specific harm when invoking this statutory privelege, but only to show that the information relates to its activities" (http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/DeclKeithAlexa nder.pdf). Knowing that, the EFF made sure that *every* brief it filed shows, in several places, that the lawsuit relies on information relating to the NSA's activities. Is it possible they wanted the case shut down?

"If state secrecy can prevent us from preserving the rights of millions upon millions of people, then there is a profound problem with the law," says [EFF spokesman, well before even filing the case]" (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70126-0.ht ml). Sounds a lot like "Dr. Felton, don't publish the paper and make a big stink about it, that'll make headlines." Reminds me of something I read on Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=200 41206134029429 -- "Page Four is filing the lawsuit. ... Page Five is staging a press conference or working with their allies at the network news magazines to generate incendiary coverage about their lawsuits").

EFF's lawsuit was originally about telecommunications laws that specifically prohibit phone companies from wiretapping for the government without first seeing the government warrant. If EFF had stuck to that, it wouldn't have triggered the state secrets issue. Instead, they made sure *every* document they filed brought up state secrets, and they followed *every* court paper with press releases. Now they're shocked, shocked, that they're getting shut down.

Moral of the story: don't turn your own lawsuit into a circus.

Excuse me while I ignore the EFF.

US gov't needs practice

[MrNougat]

They just want to have a dry run at such lawsuits before their own gets going full speed.

So amend the suit...

[Loki_1929]

The best defense against this sort of action which I can think of would be to amend the suit to add charges of criminal conspiracy between the Executive branch of the Federal government and the telecos. Allege that a pattern of controlled, organized, criminal behavior has been occuring, thus invoking the criminal enterprise definitions from RICO. At that point, so long as you can sustain the criminal conspiracy charges, you can argue that successful invocation of the "state secrets" privilege would be a furtherance to the interests of the criminal conspiracy by one of the parties thereof.

It's a bit of a long shot, but it's about the only thing you could put forth to fight the government on something it calls national security.

Re:So amend the suit...

[ridgecritter]

This would be worth a try...RICO is a pretty big hammer.

Spelling...

[Aqua_boy17]

"'The plaintiffs, who accuse Bell phone companies of privacy violations and are seeking billions of dollars in damages..."

You spelled lawyers wrong.

Another step to totalitarism

[flibuste]

Dissolve any lawsuit against invasion of privacy through "State secret"

Get rid more and more of freedom of speech everyday.

Arbitrarily deport and detain people to lawless countries to interrogate them freely.

Use torture on presumably innocent people.

Best recipe for growing a fascist country. Good job Bush and good luck fellow americans!

Why do you folks keep saying 'Britain'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come back, proud Canadians
To before you had TV,
No hockey night in Canada,
There was no CBC (Oh, my God!).
In 1812, Madison was mad,
He was the president, you know
He thought he'd tell the British where they ought to go
He thought he'd invade Canada,
He thought that he was tough
Instead we went to Washington....
And burned down all his stuff!

And the White House burned, burned, burned,
And we're the one's that did it!
It burned, burned, burned,
While the president ran and cried.
It burned, burned, burned,
And things were very historical.
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies
Waa waa waah!
In the War of 1812!

Us hillbillies from Kentucky,
Dressed in green and red,
Left home to fight in Canada,
But they returned home dead
It's the only war the Yankees lost, except for Vietnam
And also the Alamo... and the Bay of... ham.
The loser was America,
The winner was ourselves,
So join right in and gloat about the War of 1812

And the White House burned, burned, burned,
And we're the one's that did it!
It burned, burned, burned,
While the president ran and cried.
It burned, burned, burned,
And things were very historical.
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies
Waa waa waah!
In the War of 1812!

In 1812, we were just sittin' around,
Mindin' our own business, puttin' crops into the ground.
We heard the soldiers coming and we didn't like that sound.
So we took a boat to Washington and burned it to the ground.

Oh... we... fired our guns, but the Yankees kept-a coming,
There wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and the Yankees started running,
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, oh, oh....
They ran through the snow and they ran through the forest,
They ran through the bushes where the beavers wouldn't go.
They ran so fast, they forgot to take their culture,
Back to America, and Gulf and Texaco

So, if you go to Washington, its buildings clean and nice,
Bring a pack of matches, and we'll burn the White House twice!

And the White House burned, burned, burned,
But the Americans won't admit it
It burned, burned, burned,
It burned and burned and burned
It burned, burned, burned,
Now, I bet that made them mad
And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies
Waa waa waah!
In the War of 1812

  - The War of 1812 by the Arrogant Worms

warning offtopic, feel free to mod down.

[plasmacutter]

alas i cannot pm an AC (don't even know a way to pm a non-ac)..

do they pay actuaries well in canada? I have been seriously considering moving there, and am interested in my prospects for employment in my planned career path.

Re:warning offtopic, feel free to mod down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Post a resume...actuaries make good money here and we have a booming economy now that the border is closing up in fits and spurts. There were worries that things would get bad but the "inexplicable" keeps happening: a rising dollar and good jobs. We are seeing a slowdown of outsourcing to the States so the cross-border issue may work in our favour.

We have many issues for sure but we have health care, lots of oild (in alberta anyway). And we love moderate minded Americans (or any nationality) of any creed or race.

Come on up.

Re:State Secrets Privilege was abused from the sta

[molo]

You can know for sure. Here are the declassified documents:

Declassified case appendix which contains the allegedly sensitive documents, via Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/reynoldspetapp.pdf

Also that kind of under-cover spy information has not been what the SSP has been used for. Read the Wikipedia articles about Siebel Edmonds for an example of the modern abuses.

-molo

Why no Russia jokes now

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia they...
used to do the same thing.

Not so funny now.

plaintiffs...seeking billions

[dougman]

When I see "plaintiffs...seeking billions" I see Lawyers seeking billions who will get me a three dollar credit on my long distance bill and cost me twenty dollars in taxes.

Regardless of where you come down on the issue, the way the lawyers are going about this makes me want to puke.

No way to defend? No kidding.

[necro2607]

"As it stands right now we have no way to defend against these lawsuits"

No shit. That's the whole point. You fucked up. You're now liable for some serious legal action. GJ HF TTYL ^_^

Is it just me, or is it getting fucking old hearing about huge corporations avoiding responsibility for anything at all costs?

You aren't a target?

[DeadCatX2]

My point: I hardly think the Government is interested in what I am asking my wife to make for dinner tonight, or whether I need to pick up anything at the store on the way home to help in making said dinner.

You're absolutely right.

However, if you're a member of the opposing political party trying to maintain your incumbency, or seeking to gain an incumbent's seat, I would bet dollars to pesos that they are interested in what you're saying.

They could be (and are) interested in someone else, but you feel that's okay because it's not you? Personally, I feel that just because they aren't interested in me doesn't mean it's okay.

And with no judicial/congressional oversight and no accountability, there's no way to know if I'm right or wrong. And I am afraid I'm right.

Nonsense

[brian0918]

Hey, if you want your precious freedom, move to another country, like Cuba or Pakistan. In America, we do the patriotic thing and give up our freedoms to save our own asses.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you cut your nose off to spite your face. If you are "fighting for freedom" then it's awfully stupid to give it up for the sake of that fighting...

Will this even help anything?

[bigtrike]

The thought that this type of thing is even necessary is based on the flawed assumption that terrorists are trying to be covert in the first place.

Several of the 9/11 terrorists were wanted as suspects and living under their real names for at least 9 months in Los Angeles. One even purchased a car in his own name and was listed in the Los Angeles white pages.

Even if a massive reduction in privacy would help save a couple lives, I'd personally rather not live a life without liberty. We're mocking the sacrifice made by hundreds of thousands of patriots who have died to protect our liberties by giving them up without much of a fight.

Let's put it this way

[phorm]

If the government wasn't pulling wiretaps through the Bells, etc, then there would be absolutely no need for them to be involved, either to declare state secrets or otherwise. It would be just a lawsuit against a private company that would get settled out in court.

Can anyone think of any reason at all for the government to use this power were they not involved in that actions at hand, or those related to?

Instead of thinking

[future assassin]

about filling up your wallets; fight back with your wallets. The Gov. cant stop you from bringing Bell to the ground by not buying services from them.

The Other Shoe

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies (I'm sure there's some here, some where) and Gentleman (ditto), Please consider that this measure has been waiting in the wings since long before this whole controversy started. It is impossible to believe that the telecoms involved weren't given assurances by the whatever quasi-governemntal agency that they could proceed with immunity. Both parties, the telecoms and the governemnt, wouldn't want to play this card until it was absolutely necessary, but to think that this is a new concept that has just materialized is naive at best. Both parties had reason to want deniability...Neither, it seems can escape it. So...Consider that you are dealing with a methodical adversary...

Never ascribe to malice...

[jefu]

"Never ascribe to malice that which may be adequately explained by stupidity."

(/incompetence/ignorance/...)

I don't think Bush lied. I think he is just rather stupid and refused to listen. By all accounts, Bush is unwilling (or even unable) to listen to people who express views that are contrary to the ones he holds. There are stories of people getting fired, temper tantrums in Cabinet meetings....

In such an environment, where you are a high level staffer in the White House, and you know that you're likely to lose your cushy job if you tell the shrubbery something he doesn't want to hear, what are you likely to do? Tell him what he wants to hear and tell those who report to you that you don't want to hear anything that you might have to pass on that will piss the boss off. Eventually, everyone who wants to keep their job gets the message and starts sending the right information up the chain. And many of them, who work in positions that have high level security clearances know that whistleblowing will not be a good thing. So everyone toes the party line (just as in Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and similar situations). This way, the president never has to lie - everyone else is doing it for him.

Personally, I'd rather have a president who lies about a blowjob than an incompetent - or worse yet an incompetent who refuses to listen to anyone more competent.

Re:Never ascribe to malice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know people keep saying Clinton only lied about a blowjob. The fact he got a hummer from a fat chick is not an issue. The fact that he lied under oath (perjury) to deny a citizen their right to a day in court is a problem. That the case was based on a law that he personally signed with great fanfare makes it all the worse. Apparently you believe it is okay for someone to lie as long as they agree with you politically.

a term-limited official

[r00t]

We botched that one.

It should have been: no person may be elected to an office which they have held at any time in the past year

A person be could elected President every other term. He could do a 12-year president-senate-house cycle. He couldn't just sit in the same job continuously.

Re:a term-limited official

[Anonymous Coward]

> A person be could elected President every other term.

The 22nd amendment forbids more than two presidential terms total. Doesn't matter if they're consecutive or not.

Re:a term-limited official

[r00t]

No shit. We botched that one.

Yeah, "Vote"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having Asshole B is going to be a ton better then having Asshole A... voting doesn't work, democracy doesn't exist, if you think it does, just take a look around.

The boxes......

[stfvon007]

mailbox - failed Bush has ingnored our compaints and views.

ballot box - failed. too many people uneducated about current affairs to make the system work, and a poor showing by the democratic canidate.

Jury box - failed government is denying our ability to use it to protect our rights.

Only one box left.

Mainstream Media dismiss dissenting voices

[Anonymous Coward]

The most striking recent example of that is the historical Stephen Colbert routine
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917 758574879

that has been struck by a dead silence of the mainstream media. Only when hundreds of bloggers talked about it around the net, and thousands of angry mails were sent to newspapers, did some media talk about this routine, only to dismiss it.

Let's sue the judges

[thoughtlover]

It appears that South Dakota may be on to something...........

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/ local/14638294.htm

Don't like your outcome? Exhausted all your appeals? Then sue the judge!

Re:He Could Lie Surely you jest!

[callingalloldhippies]

If the U.S. Govt. should be famous for ANYTHING anymore and frankly appears to be...it is LYING!

The International Community has lost respect for us.

I love my country but "I" have lost respect for us!

What happened to our Bill of Rights, The Constitution, Honesty and Integrity?

From the White-house to our local courts, he who can afford the finest LIARS {oh, excuse me. I meant}Lawyers, wins.