Slashdot Mirror
EFF Case Against AT&T To Go Forward
Tyler Too writes "The NSA wiretap lawsuit filed by the EFF will apparently be moving forward. A federal judge has denied the government's request that the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T be dismissed. Among other things, the judge ruled that 'if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security.' The case will now move forward, pending a government appeal."
AFAIK, the government has always gotten "national security" cases such as this thrown out of court, this change represents a very good historical first! The Right of Petition is still alive in the US!!!!
They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist; They came for the Socialists, and I didn'
It's nice to see the intended balance of power in our government begin to stabilize once more. When one or more sides start to get out of hand, the other side steps in! Sort of like rock-paper-scissors, but C-SPAN covers the matches. I eagerly await the incensed cries of "activist judges!"
A man once asked the Prophet, "What is a sin?" The Prophet Muhammed replied, "When something pricks your conscience, gi
As a consumer, I'm ready to look at these list of companies and effectively not do any business with them anymore. I certainly hope I can convince others close to me to do the same. Your dollar is stronger than your bitching to these companies, stick it to them.
It is nice to see the Judicial branch keep the Executive branch in check. What's even nicer is that the lower court will have the power to see if the Executive branch has been telling the truth without going to the supreme court. As a US citizen I am comforted by this news.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
A win for those who dislike governments breaking their own laws!
*does a little dance*
*realises that we still have a LONG way to go*
*frowns*
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Let me take your troll at face value for a moment... You want to execute those responsible for initiating a program intended to protect American citizens.
I guess you believe everything the government tells you, hunh? I think it's quite remarkable you can divine intent from a statement made by people who also intended for everything to go well in Iraq, despite lack of a plan.
I am no conspiracy theorist, but given what the Nixon alumni in this administration have already proven that they are capable of, I think trusting their stated intent is a bit like trusting a bamboo pole and kit string on a deep-dea fishing trip.
Most people haven't read a lot of judicial decisions, but it's no uncommon for them to have clever (if obfuscated) wording showing wit and distain for stupid plaintifs/defendants.
No one has been blackmailed or otherwise had any information misused.
Yeah, I mean it's not like they've been using it to discover reporter's confidential sources or anything.
Unfortunately, we will never know whether (and how often) the NSA's programs did indeed prevent attacks like 09/11.
It puts is civilians in the impossible position of having to judge the need for, and effectiveness of, secret programs aimed at secretive enemies.
And the hell of it is, the president himself has to lie to us. Imagine that you are the prez, and you receive some touchy classified information that says somebody is getting ready to body-slam us. You've got to convince America that we've got to act pre-emptively... but, you can't say how you know, or what all the real reasons are. What the hell would you do?
You'd have to construct a completely false but good-sounding premise for an action which is, in fact, completely honorable and justified.
I'm no fan of the current administration, but I'm forced to allow them the possibility that they've been put in that exact situation.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Yes, the Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, so are the rest of the first ten amendments to the Constitution (as was the 27th Amendment, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendm ent_to_the_United_States_Constitution). But by Article V of the Constitution:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."
In other words, since the Bill of Rights (and specifically the Fourth Amendment) was proposed by Congress, passed both houses with thr requisite supermajority and was ratified by a sufficient number of the legislatures of the states, it is valid "for all intents and purposes" as part of the Constitution -- i.e. it is the same as if it were written into the original language of the document in 1787.
This space for sale. Inquire within.
I think the basic fear is that the feds are going to be able to tap EVERY call going through there. Maybe not every call, but person X that they are watching (because the feds don't like X's political agenda) calls Y, who was also contacted by Z who had proven links to someone in a terrorist organization. The feds would then think they have free reign to use any method to find something that X may have done.
But if you haven't commited a crime, then you have nothing to fear. Or at least if you don't know anybody who has commited a crime, and also don't know anybody who knows anybody who has contacted someone who has commited a crime. At least we know that investigators never misinterpret or even blatently create false evidence to support their case. There were WMDs in them there blurry photos of Iraq.
True, however if you were to assume that the current political power balance was to continue then the judge could kiss any hopes of moving to the Supreme Court goodbye.
And since he was appointed by Reagan in 1985 to Federal District court, and George H.W. Bush to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1989, I'm going to guess that he's not a left-leaning judge (I couldn't determine for certain). He's currently Chief Justice for that court, and so the only place up at this point is the SCOTUS (or maybe a specialized court like FISA, but that's more of a sideways move at best).
So odds are that, yes, this could be considered a "career limiting" move. But that's like saying that Larry Ellison has pissed off Microsoft so much he's not going to become CEO there... there's really not much "up" left.
I'm a filthy republican that normally votes republican, but as I said to a republican fundrasier than called the other night, I have totally lost faith in the so-called republican president and his so-called republican lackey's in congress.
Anyway, a government of the people should at least tell the people what they are doing. When is the last time a sign that said speed checked by radar or patrolled by aircraft caused you to always slow down (if you exceed the speed-limit normally)?
Criminals and terrorists who are truely smart will not easily allow themselves to get caught no matter how much surveillance there is.
However the fact that the US Govt. taps international phone lines is not actually new. The current technique may be new. My cousin who lives in Australia and myself, both of Irish extraction were talking about the IRA. After about three or four uses of the term IRA, the telephone line went dead and for about 10 minutes neither one of us could call the other. We both got very strange disconnects when we tried to redial. This happened more on a number of different occasions, until we decided that instead of saying IRA, we would substitute another word. From our very limited experimentation anytime IRA was said more than a handful of times, the line would go dead. Coincidence, maybe, but oddly occurred only during conversations (long or short) regarding the IRA. This was about 14 years ago.
... who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed...
Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americans to live freely and not under surveillance? Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.
Would orchestrating a war in which American citizens lost their lives against an enemy who was not a threat to the US count?
or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Would arranging for members of the Bin Laden family to be flown out of the country during the no-fly period following the September 11 attacks count here?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News