Judge Rules NSA Wiretapping Unconstitutional

strredwolf writes "CNN is reporting that NSA's warrantless wiretapping program has been ruled unconstitutional. This is the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. From the article: "U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.""

Comments

Trust us! We're the government!

[Kelson]

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

Basically what this argument boils down to: We can't tell you why we're justified, but trust us, we are. This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.

Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively.

Yes, retroactively. You can spot a suspect, set up an emergency wiretap, then a day later you can walk into the secret court and tell the judge why it was necessary to set up the wiretap. And you'll get the warrant. It's no hardship, unless you have reason to believe a judge wouldn't grant you the warrant.

This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately." End of controversy, they can still listen in on suspects, it's still done without revealing state secrets. Arguing that they need the ability to spy on people without warrants makes them look awfully suspicious.

P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?

Of course...

[HTH NE1]

It doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.

Re:Of course...

[Aqws]

This is a start.

Re:Of course...

[neonprimetime]

It doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.

I hope not. How else are we going to catch terrorists inside our borders? Oh wait, I know, we need to allow them to voluntarily have their phones tapped.

Nothing

[Salzorin]

Nothing for you to see here, please move along.

Finally.

[oddman]

One branch of the U.S. government acts in a sane and rational manner, not to mention appropriate regard for the Constitution.

Re:Finally.

[Incongruity]

Indeed. It just seems like a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security trumps the constitution or seemingly substantive claims that constitutional rights have been violated. Protecting us by depriving us of liberty is not really protection in the secure, unharmed sense... but that horse has been beaten so many times that I'll leave it at that...

Re:Finally.

[fyngyrz]

This is just a stop on the way to the supreme court. Don't be counting any chickens of liberty as yet. And remember: This is the supreme court that ruled that growth, distribution and use of pot within the borders of California was "interstate commerce", and it's not a lot different from the supreme court that ruled that retroactive registration of sexual and violent offenders wasn't ex post facto punishment, either.

Don't get me wrong -- I applaud the ruling. But the fact of the matter is that for matters of state and country, things typically progress to the supreme court, and lower court rulings mean very little in the long run.

Re:Finally.

[walt-sjc]

Don't worry, it's not a pattern. Insane court decisions are still the norm. 20 year sentances for selling some pot and 3 weeks for rape and attempted murder.

Re:Finally.

[mrchaotica]

It just seems like a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security trumps the constitution or seemingly substantive claims that constitutional rights have been violated.

No, it just is a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security (or anything else whatsoever) trumps the Constitution. Full Stop. No qualifying statements are required.

Re:Finally.

[FLEB]

Don't worry, they'll be gone within the week.

Re:Finally.

[Billosaur]

This is just a stop on the way to the supreme court.

Exactly. Circuit courts are just the testing grounds; the Supreme Court will be the proving grounds. However, given the shift in the Court of late, I'm not sure how this one will fall. Should be an open and shut case -- no warrant, no wiretap. But the SC always has to look at the spirit of things, not just the letter, and there might be enough Justices who see this as a necessary evil to make it a close vote.

Re:Finally.

[Red Flayer]

It just seems like a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security trumps the constitution or seemingly substantive claims that constitutional rights have been violated.

Just wait until this goes to the 6th Circuit Court on appeal -- that's exactly what they'll rule (as they have in the past).

Re:Finally.

[Rob T Firefly]

Don't be counting any chickens of liberty as yet.

Okay, so it's not a chicken yet, but it's an enormous egg with one hell of a lot of chicken potential.

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really have anything useful to add; I just think 'chickens of liberty' is an awesome phrase.

"AHHH! None of my chickens of liberty are hatching. Stupid NSA..."

Re:Finally.

[jnaujok]

Sorry, you can't blame this court for that ruling. The decision that growing a crop in one state for consumption in that state is Interstate commerce can be laid squarely at the feet of FDR and his court in 1942.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -- and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will vote to uphold the decision against the taps.
Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy will allow the government to continue the taps.

They are fairly predictable...

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong -- I applaud the ruling. But the fact of the matter is that for matters of state and country, things typically progress to the supreme court, and lower court rulings mean very little in the long run.

Not true, supreme court may have the final say but it may not have gotten there to be decided on in the first place if it hadn't first happened in a lower court ruling.

Re:Finally.

[MCraigW]

No, it just is a dangerous practice to be able to claim that national security (or anything else whatsoever) trumps the Constitution. Full Stop. No qualifying statements are required.

The administration's understanding is that what is being done is constitutional, not that they believe that national security trumps the Constitution.

Re:Finally.

[Politburo]

Actually, you can blame this court for continuing the precedent.

Yes, precedent must be considered. However it is not the end-all. If a specific Court affirms a precedent, they are agreeing with the reasoning.

Re:Finally.

[mrchaotica]

That's not true; Bush thinks he is above the law. And even if he did really think he was within his rights, he'd still be wrong.

Besides, your statement doesn't contradict what I said anyway, because I was speaking in general terms rather than specifically about the Bush Administration.

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there no distinction between laws being broken, and the possibility of laws being broken here?

If he grew it for private consumption, how can they prove he would sell it if the price of wheat rose, other than to raise they price and catch him selling it? And, how can they prove he would buy it if he hadn't grown it? Or conversely, how do they know he hasn't bought any regardless of whether he grows it himself? Aside from a paper trail of receipts, checks and an audit, they still might not be able to prove it.

I think this is one of the major problems with the Justice system in general. The inability to differentiate between the physical act of breaking the law, and the mental leap to the possibility of breaking the law.

If there was only some way to get that one overturned...

With regard to a decision like this, shouldn't this have been a big indicator that Federal and States rights now trump the *SUPPOSED* rights of the Private Citizen? Gee, that sounds awfully Totalitarian considering the time period for which this occurred.

Re:Finally.

[MCraigW]

That's not true; Bush thinks he is above the law.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/
"Bush and other administration officials contend his constitutional powers as commander in chief as well as a congressional resolution passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks provide the legal authority for the no-warrant surveillance."

So assuming that the Supreme court rules that this warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, what will happen? The various agencies presently doing the wiretapping will do it where it is legal. They will simply do it from overseas, wire-tapping incoming calls rather than outgoing calls, but all the same calls will be monitored. This will of course cost a great deal more than doing it from the U.S., and like everything done by the government, it will be paid for by the taxpayer.

Re:Finally.

[mrchaotica]

They will simply do it from overseas, wire-tapping incoming calls rather than outgoing calls, but all the same calls will be monitored. This will of course cost a great deal more than doing it from the U.S., and like everything done by the government, it will be paid for by the taxpayer.

Fine with me -- if people won't stand up to the government to protect their civil rights, at least they'll do it when they get fed up with too-high taxes!

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

The decision will likely be overturned on appeal. Some legal commentary has described the legal reasoning as not being worthy of a first-year law student let alone a federal judge.

Re:Finally.

[Anonymous Coward]

So assuming that the Supreme court rules that this warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, what will happen? The various agencies presently doing the wiretapping will do it where it is legal. They will simply do it from overseas, wire-tapping incoming calls rather than outgoing calls, but all the same calls will be monitored.

Doing that won't be legal either because in a lot of other countries there are laws against wiretapping too, especially by non-government officials (being a US government official won't help much there). If caught, those operatives can be prosecuted for illegal wiretapping, espionage and whatnot.

Re:Finally.

[Scudsucker]

I wish the word "direct" had been placed in the Constitution in a couple of places. Such as emminent domain only being used for "direct public use" and Congress having jurisdiction over things that "directly effect interstate commerce".

Re:Finally.

[Scudsucker]

But the SC always has to look at the spirit of things, not just the letter, and there might be enough Justices who see this as a necessary evil to make it a close vote.

Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has been rubber stamping outrageous law enforcment tactics for decades.

It's a righteous slap in the face for the Bush Adm

[postbigbang]

She did what she had to do. The Bush administration has walked over the constitution in so many ways, and it's delightful to see that the judiciary backs up the rights of the people to go about their business unfettered by the government's oversight of their private conversations-- without a constitutional warrant.

This is a hallowed day.

*Jaw drops*

[JGuru42]

It's such a small article but with all of the talk that has been going on about the "alleged" illegal wiretapping this simple story headline was more then enough to make my jaw drop open in awe.

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

Bravo, Judge Taylor, Bravo.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[JordanL]

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

If this case goes before the Supreme Court, I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS will also declare it unconstitutional. The Administration is directly marginalizing the oversight powers of the very branch of the government which these people represent. It won't be an activist judge thing.

And FYI, I voted for this guy.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Athenais]

I had the same reaction. Frankly, it scares me a little bit that we've reached the point where I'm *surprised* a judge was able to make the right decision. A part of me was expecting to see nothing whatsoever come of this lawsuit.

Now let's see if the government that ignores the constitution and rule of law will ignore the ruling of a judge as well.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[rolfwind]

This is especially good news following on the heels of that terrorist scare recently. I was expecting another knee-jerk pro-administration kick after they paraded that conspiracy around.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Anonymous Coward]

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

From the Associated Press (via athe St Louis Post Dispatch):

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[CtlAtlDelete]

"Activist judge" is just a label that Republican members of the legislative branch use when they disagree with a ruling from the judicial branch. The possibility that SCOTUS may eventually be asked to rule on this decision will not prevent Republican legislators from responding to this decision in any way they choose to. Much will depend on how much support the legislators think they will be able to count on from the American public for their positions on this decision.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[MarkGriz]

"And FYI, I voted for this guy."

Hopefully only the first time

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Alaska Jack]

"I can almost guarantee that the SCOTUS will also declare it unconstitutional."

And, buried way down here in the comments where the /. crowd will ever see it, I can almost guarantee they won't.

See, here's the thing. The program almost certainly isn't unconstitutional. Yes, the judge has ruled it so, but she produced almost literally no analysis to support that conclusion. She deals with the administration's 4th amendment exceptions arguments by -- almost completely ignoring them. The opinion is, after one day, already taking a drubbing by scholars on both sides of the political spectrum.

Now, here's the other thing: There is a very good chance SCOTUS might find the program *illegal*. But that's not the same thing as unconstitutional. Lots of things are illegal that aren't prohibited by the constitution.

In other words, about 90 percent of this entire /. thread -- including the high-moderated posts -- is being generated by kids who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

    - Alaska Jack

Re:*Jaw drops*

[JordanL]

She deals with the administration's 4th amendment exceptions arguments by -- almost completely ignoring them.

See, the thing is that the "exceptions" to the 4th amendment have basically been, "trust me, we think this is important stuff".

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The 4th Amendment protects citizens from searches unless they have either given permission for the search to occur, (oath or affirmation), or a probable cause has been found. The thing is that the Constitution requires a probable cause for searches without consent, and without a warrant, there is little way to show probable cause before the search.

I'm Libertarian... I'm not some teenage Liberal who's been brainwashed by the school system into believing that Republicans are the fourth sign of the apocolypse. But I completely disagree with the administration on this issue. A big part of Libertarianism is being secure in your person, effects and belongings, and this particular policy undermines that right.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[JordanL]

Over Kerry? Of course I voted for him the second time. I mean... c'mon... Kerry was the alternative.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Alaska Jack]

Well, you're kind of talking past me here. I'm not disputing what the 4A says; I'm merely pointing out that the court currently recognizes a number of *exceptions* to it -- similar to the way the courts have recognized that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is an exception to the First Amendment. But few of the people here at /. seem to grasp this.

More specifically, the court has explicitly recognized that the government has the power to conduct warantless searches in some circumstances. For example, you can be frisked at the border with no probable cause. You know those machines you have to go through at the airport, manned by government TSA employees? Also a warrantless search.

These exceptions are not the govt. saying "trust me, we think this is important stuff," as you say. It's been established that the gov't can, for example, search the contents of floppy disks that cross into the U.S. The current administration's position is: "If we can search stored data, we can, for the same reasons, listen in on spoken conversations." Sure, you can disagree with this. But it's a plausible claim. Now read through the comments and tell me any of the +1,000 super-insightful commenters understand any of this.

    - AJ

Re:*Jaw drops*

[zippthorne]

No, it's a term used to describe Justices who find things in the constitution that are not written, or use foreign law to support decisions (which generally involve more power resting in the hands of the national government.)
For instance, using a vague "right to privacy" not ennumerated, but apparantly implied by the constitution to justify allowing the federal government to overrule state laws regarding abortion, rather than resorting to the (actually ennumerated) 10th ammendment, noticing that the states are intended to have more power than the national government, and simply refusing to hear the case. It does not matter whether it was a good moral decision or not, because it was a very bad legal precident. If the constitution means only what 9 peoples whim dictates, then it will not be a viable check on government power much longer.

It should probably also be applied to justices who failed to strike down John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign finance "reform" law, which clearly violates the first ammendment in the months leading up to an election.

In short, it describes justices who rule according to their whim and then find a way to justify their decision. That it has mostly been liberal judges (though many of those appointed by republican presidents) and liberal issues is immaterial to the general problem, except that it seems conservatives are the only group that's really aware of the problem. (so naturally, the liberal excesses will be the ones more strongly remembered.)

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Guuge]

So you think that marginalizing the constitution isn't really that bad. It looks like Bush was right to take your vote for granted. What a terrible message you've sent to politicians everywhere.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Vengie]

Either they throw Katz and Kylo out the window wholesale or this program is unconstitutional. This is no sui generis dog sniff. Many phone calls are taken from the home -- which has infinitely more privacy protection than a phone booth. It is absolutely impossible to square the constitutionality of this program with the court's 4th amendment jurisprudence. It fails the wal-mart test (kylo) and Katz as well. She doesn't ignore them at all -- I read the entire opinion. They gunned hard for state secrets because they *needed* it.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Alaska Jack]

I'm not going to argue that, but you're missing the point of my post. Whether the so-called "reasonableness test" is met depends on the existence either of a warrant *or a warrant exception*. The opinion fails to explain why the government's actions do not meet the requirements to meet any of the exceptions.

    - AJ

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Vengie]

Warrant exceptions are fact-based and intensive and can only be granted on a case-by-case basis after the fact. You cannot create a warrant exception en masse. Have you studied criminal law?

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Alaska Jack]

"You cannot create a warrant exception en masse."

That's going to come as a surprise to the TSA.

      - AJ

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Vengie]

The TSA's searches are consent searches. You consent to be searched. If you do not give consent, they cannot search you. (They may also not allowed you to board the plane.) Since you are in a situation with wiretaps where you don't have the option of NOT consenting (i.e. your only option is to just not use the phone) it cannot fall under the consent-search doctrine. I know the distinction seems arcane and technical, but there is a very subtle line in search/seizure doctrine relating to consent searches. Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't withstand legal analysis -- but I understand where you are coming from.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[JordanL]

For instance, using a vague "right to privacy" not ennumerated, but apparantly implied by the constitution to justify allowing the federal government to overrule state laws regarding abortion

Actually, the 4th Amendment does provide a right to be secure in your person and effects... specifically from searches and seizures, but it is generally accepted that the 4th Amendment also implied a certain amount of Constitutional privacy.

Also, it was the 14th Amendment, not the 4th, which legalized abortion. The 14th Amendment was originally passed in order to grant equal rights to freed slaves and make Jim Crow laws unconstitutional, (not that it helped). I agree that it should have been a 10th Amendment issue, but SCOTUS basically ruled that because a fetus isn't a "person", the 14th Amendment allows them to be killed at the liesure of their mother.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Alaska Jack]

"it cannot fall under the consent-search doctrine"

I never said it did. I simply pointed out that there are several "en masse" 4A exceptions. The border crossing exception is one. Others, like the DUI exception, don't require consent. Unless I'm mistaken -- and I'll freely back down if I am -- the opinion doesn't deal with this issue. In fact, I can't even find a single mention of the word "consent" in it.

I'll give you the last word on this if you wish. In the meantime, for what it's worth, I note that today's editorial by the Washington Post says "The nation would benefit from a serious, scholarly and hard-hitting judicial examination of the National Security Agency's program of warrantless surveillance ... We harbor grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act outside of normal surveillance statutes that purport to be the exclusive legal authorities for domestic spying." However, as to the opinion in question, it notes "these are complicated, difficult issues. Judge Taylor devotes a scant few pages to dismissing them, without even discussing key precedents."

I differ from the Post in that I suspect (I shouldn't have said "almost guarantee" above, I'm nowhere near that certain) that the courts will find the program illegal but constitutional. But I frankly can't find anyone who thinks the judge's opinion was a fine piece of judicial craftsmanship. See Jack Balkin and Orin Kerr for more. Over to you ...

      - AJ

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Vengie]

No consent is needed for Terry stops. Legal border crossing requires consent. If you try to cross the border illegally you can be searched without a warrant since you've been apprehended in the midst of a crime. If you honestly care about this issue, go talk to someone that went to law school and have them explain why -- it's way above the level of a slashdot discussion. Either the program is unconstitutional or there will have to be a dramatic re-writing of 4th amendment jurisprudence.

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Scudsucker]

Over Kerry? Of course I voted for him the second time. I mean... c'mon... Kerry was the alternative.

An infinitely better alternative. So what's your excuse again?

Re:*Jaw drops*

[Scudsucker]

No, it's a term used to describe Justices who find things in the constitution that are not written, or use foreign law to support decisions (which generally involve more power resting in the hands of the national government.)

Nope, it really is a term used by conservative Republicans to assail decisions they don't like. The problem is conservative judges are "activists" too.

For instance, using a vague "right to privacy" not ennumerated, but apparantly implied by the constitution

What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" do you no-right-to-privacy-in-the-Constitution types not understand?

It should probably also be applied to justices who failed to strike down John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign finance "reform" law, which clearly violates the first ammendment in the months leading up to an election.

No, unlimited campaign financing is what restricts speech, because it crowds out other speech. That's the reasoning the courts have used on why restrictions on it are constitutional.

That it has mostly been liberal judges (though many of those appointed by republican presidents) and liberal issues is immaterial to the general problem, except that it seems conservatives are the only group that's really aware of the problem. (so naturally, the liberal excesses will be the ones more strongly remembered.)

You say "awareness", I say "hypocracy". See the above link.

Use encryption!

[Cybert4]

As the article says, the US is "secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries". I assume these are just telephone conversations.

I disagree with the ruling. If they want to get phone records, that's fine. As long as they don't strike down encryption, they can do what they want. Not just because I don't want to be blown up, but because the technological solution should win.

Re:Use encryption!

[ResidntGeek]

I agree with the last sentence in theory, but remember that your money is being spent on these programs. Would you pay for a legal problem just to allow the technological solution to win?

Re:Use encryption!

[Cybert4]

The money is not a huge amount. I do agree with money being spent to catch stupid terrorists who don't use encryption. I don't agree with catching "intellectual property" problems or drug transactions.

Re:Use encryption!

[sacdelta]

The problem isn't them tapping phones. It's them doing it without a warrant. For a warrant all they need is a sympathetic judge. And this can be done without the person being tapped knowing about it. It is still secret, but it is legal. The difference being is that there is a record of it (which can be sealed) that is not directly controlled by them.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[LiquidCoooled]

They can still listen in on specific suspects, NOT on the entire population/subscribers to an ISP.

This isn't the end

[amightywind]

It is easy for the ACLU to find some whacked liberal judge to make this ruling. The real test will be if they can get 5 supreme court justices to agree. My guess is no.

Re:This isn't the end

[Gr8Apes]

I don't know about that. Merely point out that the NSA can listen in on their 1-900-hotlips conversations without a warrant, and they'll change their tune.

Re:This isn't the end

[An Onerous Coward]

How is it "whacked," "liberal," or--the word that always seems to follow in these discussions--"activist" for a judge to rule against a defendant who claims to have irrefutable evidence, but is unwilling to present it?

Aw, hell. I've been pwned by a 13-year old Dittohead. I've really got to stop hitting the reply button.

Re:This isn't the end

[amightywind]

Would you believe I am 42. That I was able to decend to that pwnd level amazes even me.

Re:This isn't the end

[babbling]

It is the most ridiculous argument. I'm surprised they're crazy enough to even try it.

Re:This isn't the end

[kalidasa]

If you disagree with Dick Cheney, you are by definition a whacked-out liberal. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:This isn't the end

[elzurawka]

the universal answer:
"The U.S. government said it was within the president's powers to order the eavesdropping, but argued that proving its point would require disclosure of national secrets."
how can proving that something is within the presidents power be a disclosure to national secrets? Are we not supposed to know what the man/woman we elect to lead our(your) country can and cant do while they are in power.

They do what they want, and if anyone questions it, they say that its would disclose a national secret, or be a risk to national security.

When will we leave Iraq? We cant say, its a risk to national Security.
Why are people being help without charge? Risk to National Security
Why cant we see the confiscated video of planes crashing into the pentagon? Risk to national Security
Why did you kick my dog? Risk to Natioanl security.

Its is the be-all and end-all to any conversation, and if you try to fight it, they tell you you are supporting the terrorists. Why is wanting to know what your ELECTED government is doing so bad?

Re:This isn't the end

[Foobar of Borg]

The real test will be if they can get 5 supreme court justices to agree. My guess is no.

Well, at leat not any more. Why else do you think they put Alito and Roberts on the bench? It tilts the balance so they can ultimately get away with this shit. I think you are right. Ultimately, this decision will be struck down since the Pres. will definitely appeal this up to the Supremes.

Face it people, as much as you hate to admit it, Bush is a 1337 h@x0r and our country is now pwnd.

Re:This isn't the end

[amightywind]

When will we leave Iraq?

When there is a stable government, or a blazing civil war.

Why are people being help without charge?

Because they are prisoners of war and should remain so until UBL is caught, after which they should be tried as war criminals.

Why cant we see the confiscated video of planes crashing into the pentagon?

I've seen the surveillance camera footage 100 times. What do you expect to see?

Re:This isn't the end

[voice_of_all_reason]

Because they are prisoners of war

Ah, so I guess we'll get around abiding by the geneva convention anytime now, right? I'll list a few articles to get you started:

Prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever.

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."

The Detaining Power shall grant all prisoners of war a monthly advance of pay..."

Re:This isn't the end

[amightywind]

I don't know if you've noticed. The Islamists ignore the Geneva Conventions. The conventions amount to an agreement between warring parties. Ignore the conventions and there is no agreement. They don't wear uniforms. They torture prisoners and release gloating videos of them, they hide amongst civilians, schools, mosques civilians. US prisoners get a Quran, three squares, prayer mat, and the direction to Mecca. Smackin' em around a little doesn't amount to torture. That is about as good as they deserve.

Re:This isn't the end

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't know if you've noticed. The Islamists ignore the Geneva Conventions. The conventions amount to an agreement between warring parties."

so you are saying every single muslin, and person with brownish skin we have detained is 100% guilty of the crimes you mentioned?
Are you sure of that? I mean..they'd kinda need a trial for us to determine that, wouldn't they? Or are all muslims in your mind "extremists".
Do you think the Japanese internment camps were OK too? I mean hey...we can't trust them towel-heads any more'n them slants..can we?

you, much like the government running this country, scare the shit out of me more than any small group of terrorists ever could.

Re:This isn't the end

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do we tell who the good guys are? How do I know if I'm one?

Re:This isn't the end

[amightywind]

Do you think the Japanese internment camps were OK too?

Ofcourse not. They were US citizens. Many fought in WWII with great distinction. The democrat Roosevelt saw fit to lock them up.

I think you seek to play the race card where it doesn't apply. Most Americans are proud that muslims are allowed to practice their religion here without interference. No, most muslims are not extremists, but neither have they been vocal enough in criticism of those who are. Do you think Christians or Jews are treated as well in muslim countries?

Re:This isn't the end

[elzurawka]

You forgot to account for why they kicked my Dog ;)

I dont expect to see anything, if there is nothing to see, why is it classified? Yes the released the 1 video that every one saw, they not all the video from other building accross the street, or anything else. How is there not 1 other video of teh plane crashing? If there is, please, post a link to it.

Re:This isn't the end

[Anonymous Coward]

So, your argument is: "Some enemies of the US Government don't respect human rights, so we too should not respect the human rights of anyone that the US Government deems to be an enemy." When we think about the worst periods of history, such as Stalin's Great Purges or Hitler's holocaust, we often like to think that, had we been there, we would not have co-operated. While it would clearly be suicide to actively resist the Gestapo or the NKVD, we like to think that we would not have been joining in. However, it is quite clear from your writing that you would be cheering the Nazis on -- that is what you are doing today. You advocate the suspension of justice and the permanent imprisonment of enemies of the state. Good God, man, do you know what you are saying, or are you just ignorant of history?

Re:This isn't the end

[TheRaven64]

The conventions amount to an agreement between warring parties.

Wrong. The Geneva Convention is a declaration of principle. It is a way of standing up and saying loudly and clearly to the international community that you believe in certain human rights, even for people who disagree with you. It is a powerful symbol; a statement that nothing, not even going to war against you, will challenge your beliefs in the fundamental rights of man.

By disregarding it, the USA has made it perfectly clear that it does not stand for inalienable human rights, it stands for 'human rights for people who agree with out opinion de jour.' It is hardly surprising that you no longer have the international support you gained as a result of the WTC bombings, but is still amazes me how quickly you squandered it.

Re:This isn't the end

[amightywind]

It is hardly surprising that you no longer have the international support you gained as a result of the WTC bombings, but is still amazes me how quickly you squandered it.

It pleases me that my government cares more about prosecuting a war against a deadly enemy than placating danty sensibilities in Europe. What would you know about unalienable rights if we hadn't taught you? This is a complete replay of the rise of the Nazis right down to the continental pacifism and denial. Israel is your Poland/Czechoslovakia.

Re:This isn't the end

[voice_of_all_reason]

I don't know if you've noticed. The Islamists ignore the Geneva Conventions.

Criminals ignore the law. Therefore, by your logic, the police should stop enforcing it and all go home.

Re:This isn't the end

[voice_of_all_reason]

Easy, you are presumed good (innocent) until proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. This is not a new concept.

Re:This isn't the end

[Darby]

It pleases me that my government cares more about prosecuting a war against a deadly enemy than placating danty sensibilities in Europe.

If you believe that that is what they are doing, then you are a fool, plain and simple.

This is a complete replay of the rise of the Nazis right down to the continental pacifism and denial. Israel is your Poland/Czechoslovakia.

It is a complete replay, except for the fact that Iraq was their Poland and once again Europe is trying appeasement. It won't work this time either.

Re:This isn't the end

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, this is flame bait? Did someone forget his medication or are people just forbidden to disagree with those hilariously referred to as ``moderators''.

So What?

[bbernard]

Not to seem too pessimistic here, but exactly what kind of enforcement is going to happen here? Is the judge going to order Bush arrested if they don't stop? Will the judge impound NSA's computers? Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it seems much more symbolic to me that actually useful.

Re:So What?

[fyngyrz]

No enforcement -- just like all the other laws he's broken, Bush gets a free pass.

But you... YOU had better weat that seatbelt, Mr. smart-ass.

Re:So What?

[Rotten168]

The only recourse to "arrest" the president is impeachment.

Re:So What?

[internic]

Not to seem too pessimistic here, but exactly what kind of enforcement is going to happen here? Is the judge going to order Bush arrested if they don't stop? Will the judge impound NSA's computers? Sure, it's a step in the right direction, but it seems much more symbolic to me that actually useful.

Look, I think Bush is a huge jerk and an incompetent leader, but I do expect that we will obey a court decision. His administration has become extremely "creative" in their interpretation of the law, I admit, but in the end this will come down to a decision by the SCOTUS on interpreting the constitution. I don't think there's much evidence to suggest that they would dispute that ability of the SCOTUS. Moreover, even the gutless yes men that surround Bush would, no doubt, inform him that not abiding by the SCOTUS decision would fundamentally undermine the rule of law, destabilize our government, and do great damage to the country. That's something that Bush does not want, no matter who bad a president he may be.

So, if the supreme court rules against them, the Bush administration will abide by the decision, or at least some creatively interpreted version of it. Perhaps more likely is that they'll do as they did in the Jose Padilla case and have a sudden change of heart at the last minute if they believe the decision will not go their way, hope to avoid having the decision actually made against them. I don't know if that would work here.

Re:So What?

[Mattintosh]

What if the president goes on a criminal rampage in plain sight? If he robbed a bank and took a few hostages, would the Secret Service jump in front of a SWAT sniper's bullet to save him? Would he get away without punishment? Somehow I doubt it.

Now for the next question: What if the president goes on a criminal rampage out of sight? What if he wipes his ass with the constitution? What if he destroys the few remaining shreds of democracy left in the current system? Would he get away without punishment? I'll leave the answer up to you.

Re:So What?

[bbernard]

"So, if the supreme court rules against them, the Bush administration will abide by the decision, or at least some creatively interpreted version of it. Perhaps more likely is that they'll do as they did in the Jose Padilla case and have a sudden change of heart at the last minute if they believe the decision will not go their way, hope to avoid having the decision actually made against them. I don't know if that would work here."

I can only hope you're correct. Unfortunately I think Bush and his team put their "ability to protect the country" above the law. While I can't point to concrete examples at the moment, that's the overwhelming impression I get. Mainly that's because this administration has no credibility with me, going all the way back to "read my lips--no new taxes." Wait, sorry, I mean going all the way back to "we will find the WMD's" and "there are direct links between Iraq and Al Qaeda (sp?)" and "they will greet us as liberators."

Re:So What?

[Siward]

Not to mention the fact that I feel sure his disobeying a court order (particularly made by the SCOTUS) would be a great way for his party to lose power in Congress and the Presidency for decades to come. Even if Bush is incompetent, someone in his administration would undoubtedly realize the far-reaching effects of doing something so ridiculously unpopular and stop the process, especially now that the nation is finally paying attention.

Furthermore, I feel sure that a President violating a Supreme Court ruling would result in calls for impeachment and removal from office. This President is already rather unpopular in the polls and his party is (to a degree) abandoning him because of it -- I can imagine that some Republicans would be faster to the trigger than Democrats in calling for his impeachment/removal from office if this were to play out.

Re:So What?

[Rotten168]

I'd say that's untested constitutional matter, but normally the president gets impeached and then tried in Congress for any and all crimes. You cannot "arrest" the President, as he is the leader of the executive branch and that would give mid-level bureaucrats quite a lot of power.

Re:So What?

[DM9290]

"Moreover, even the gutless yes men that surround Bush would, no doubt, inform him that not abiding by the SCOTUS decision would fundamentally undermine the rule of law, destabilize our government, and do great damage to the country. That's something that Bush does not want, no matter who bad a president he may be."

And how exactly do you know what Bush wants?

You take an awful lot for granted.

Re:So What?

[mcmonkey]

What if the president goes on a criminal rampage in plain sight? If he robbed a bank and took a few hostages, would the Secret Service jump in front of a SWAT sniper's bullet to save him? Would he get away without punishment?

Actually, that is exactly what would happen. As long as the president is the president, the only legal recourse is impeachment and removal from office by congress.

Now once the president leaves office, then prosecution could proceed on the bank job.

Unless, of course, he swings a deal with the VP--I'll resign and then as president, you pardon me.

That's why the mid-term elections coming up are such a big deal. Congress is supposed to be the check/balance against presidental power, and it's been 5+ years since any one in either house, of either party has done that job. That's what the senate race in CT is about.

Re:So What?

[Foobar of Borg]

What if the president goes on a criminal rampage in plain sight?

You know, I could actually see that happening if the Democrats win control of the House and Senate in '06. W, knowing that he will soon be impeached (at least, I can hope), gets massively coked up and goes all Columbine on people in DC while singing "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park". Afterwards, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, et al come up with tons of talking points to excuse the W's indiscriminate slaughter of people in DC.

e.g:
Coulter: Well, less than 10% of DC residents voted for George W Bush, so over 90% are un-American, godless traitors who have committed treason. The penalty for treason is death and Bush was simply carrying out his prerogative as head of the Executive branch by executing those traitors. And Bill Clinton is a rapist.

Re:So What?

[Dhalka226]

What if the president goes on a criminal rampage in plain sight? If he robbed a bank and took a few hostages, would the Secret Service jump in front of a SWAT sniper's bullet to save him?

Yes. That's the Secret Service's job, and their only job. And don't believe for a second that even if it happened exactly that way that the Secret Service wouldn't take the scene over before any SWAT member, much less a sniper, got anywhere near it.

The president is immune from prosecution for as long as he is president, that's just the way it is. The second part of your question --

Would he get away without punishment?

-- is a political question, not a legal one. If the situation you described actually happened, he would undoubtedly be impeached, after which he would be tried for whatever he did at the bank and almost certainly tossed in prison.

But things are not so clear-cut here. I doubt he would be impeached, and if he were, I very much doubt he would be removed from office for it.

Re:So What?

[Rotten168]

No, he is not "immune from prosecution". It's just that he can only be prosecuted by Congress.

Re:So What?

[Scudsucker]

The president is immune from prosecution for as long as he is president, that's just the way it is.

Bill Clinton might disagree with you on that one.

Re:So What?

[Blackhalo]

Hypothetically speaking, assume that "W" is impeached and removed from office? Yay, President Cheney. . I feel better already. Who's next? Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, on to the cabinet? I am not amused. Of course, post Jan 14th, things could get moderately better. My opinion though is that the Dems are little better in regard to this erosion of personal liberties, that appear to be funded by corporations and special interest groups.

The most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it mean that any arrests and prosecutions made as a result of information gained from these wire-tappings are deemed unconstitutional and their respective cases dropped and verdicts overturned? What happens to the people whos freedoms were violated by this unconstitutional act? .. sorry that's more than one question

-Sj53

Re:The most important question

[Tackhead]

> Does it mean that any arrests and prosecutions made as a result of information gained from these wire-tappings are deemed unconstitutional and their respective cases dropped and verdicts overturned?

Oldthinkers unbellyfeel AmSoc!

Or to phrase in in Oldspeak: Your question is moot -- when one starts from the principle that one does not need a warrant, it logically follows that one does not arrest, nor does one prosecute, because there is no case to be brought before any court, and no verdict need be overturned, because no verdict need ever be handed down.

In Newspeak: Poster oldthinker, unbellyfeel Amsoc. Refs unwords "arrest" "prosecute" "constitution" "case", "verdict". Assign oldthinker MiniLuv reference subgroups educamp, joycamp.

Re:The most important question

[Sturm]

Pay attention children. This is what happens when you try to hold the bong and type at the same time.

Re:The most important question

[supabeast!]

"Does it mean that any arrests and prosecutions made as a result of information gained from these wire-tappings are deemed unconstitutional and their respective cases dropped and verdicts overturned?"

Maybe - but if they're being held in secret outside of the USA and denied legal counsel, it doesn't really matter.

Re:The most important question

[Nukenbar2]

I'm sure that all of that was already found to be inadmissible on 4th amendment grounds even before this ruling. Just because the government could or could not do something, doesn't mean that it is admissible.

Re:The most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

the irony is that the poster of the parent thread was holding the bong...

Re:The most important question

[AHarrison]

I really wish I had mod points. Bravo.

Re:The most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

what arrests? as far a si know, the only thing this program has done is scare insiders who report on the all the underhanded stuff the administration plots out behind closed doors.

Re:The most important question

[Maximilio]

Not very well read, are you? That's OK. People who are understand exactly what the parent poster is saying. If you somehow missed the most important political novel of the 20th century I'm sure you'll have time to pick it up before it's banned.

Accountability

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so it's unconstitutional... now what? Who's going to be held accountable?

Good compilers know enough to optimize out a test if nothing will be done as a result of that test. Seems to me that the U.S. courts could've gone the same route and just skipped the trial.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Philip K Dickhead]

I wonder how long before the Judge is found dead, "of apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds"?

Ok...This is what happens next

[Anonymous Coward]

As provided for under Section VI of the Patriot Act, President Bush will now declare U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor an enemy combatant, have her stripped and dog piled in Gitmo.

Land of the free, eh?

No shit, sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Judicial review is the JOB of the federal court system.

Is there a -1 Obvious mod option for morons like you ?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[EggyToast]

P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?

That's already the case. Pretty much everyone who has rallied behind Bush and his administration for the advances of executive power that he's pushed for criticized Clinton for the same attempts. They granted the line item veto, only to have Clinton use it once and have it taken away. Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing. Clinton's ties to industry were scrutinized; Bush's are clear, yet it's OK because it shows he supposedly knows what's going on.

Directly related to FISA and the wiretapping, Clinton's administration conducted a few physical searches w/o warrants, which was legal at the time. When it was discovered, and a law was passed saying that a warrant was needed... they stopped.

It's just a case of "When our guys do it, it's OK, but if your guys do it it's not" syndrome. What they really want to have happen is have a law that only takes effect when members of a certain party are elected. So there would be a "Republican Only" law that only works when the president's party is Republican. And so on.

Congratulations!

[Saint Aardvark]

Welcome back, you guys.

Signed,
The Free World

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

America is the world.

Re:Congratulations!

[Red Flayer]

Welcome back, you guys.
Signed,
The Free World

Not so fast, there, bucko -- this will go to the 6th Cicruit Court on appeal, who consistently rule in favor of national security over civil liberties.

Re:Congratulations!

[mrchaotica]

This was just a district court decision; it still most likely has to go to the Supreme Court. Also, we've still got the damn "U SAP AT RIOT Act" and whatnot to deal with.

In other words, your congratulations are premature.

Re:Congratulations!

[elrous0]

It will be overturned. Cheney and his cronies would never have let this judge live to make this ruling (or not found a way to intimidate the plantiffs into dropping it) if they weren't confident of that. If it even makes it to the Supreme Court, you can bet Roberts and Alito will do exactly what the administration appointed them to do: give the president absolute, unchecked power.

-Eric

Re:Congratulations!

[Mister Whirly]

They'll just dig up something from the hours and hours of illegal tape recordings of the judge's phone conversations to blackmail her with...

This is Pat Riot, weeping for America

[Travoltus]

It's over. *sob* It's all over. *sniffle*

Dear God, America is doomed. We'll be speaking Arabic in 10 years tops. It was that bloody Constitution that did us in. Thanks to a bunch of freedom loving ninnies, America has been bound and gagged in the face of Ay-rab brutes and now we won't stand a chance of knowing what they're doing.

Oh, wait. Didn't President Bush stacked the US Supreme Court? Yippee! We may yet crush the deadly scourge of freedom and preserve the security of our Union! But that won't always save us; maybe what we need is to suspend the Constitution until the War on Terror is over.

[end neo con parody]

Re:This is Pat Riot, weeping for America

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you could trade places with Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[fohat]

The current administration will never admit mistakes such as these. You are absolutely correct about the warrents.

Ever since I heard about the wiretapping issues, when I talk to my friend over my cell phone, I sometimes say hi to the NSA just for fun. They never respond though...

I am so glad to hear about this decision! I hope that the message has been sent now: We will not tolerate being spied upon for no apparent reason.

State secrets?

[Overzeetop]

FTFA

"The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets."

What about the President's authority is secret? Is there some part of the constitution that you have to be TS/SCI to read? If the law exists that allows the President such powers, then let's take a look at it. I think the "state secrets" trump is going to fail them this time. It's not about the purpose for what's being done, but the authority to do so, and this judge has (thank goodness) made a sensible call that the President does not have the power to authorize this invasion of privacy, even to combat terrorism or while thinking of the childern.

Re:State secrets?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Is there some part of the constitution that you have to be TS/SCI to read

I'd tell you, but you don't seem to have codeword clearance.

Re:State secrets?

[kalirion]

It's actually very simple - there are two U.S. Constitutions. There's the Constitution we all know and love, and then there's a super top secret one for the NSA, CIA, and a few organizations you're not cleared to know about.

Re:State secrets?

[Mister Whirly]

I have a copy of it. You can get one too. Go to Office Depot, they sell them in packs of 500 - and it comes in a variety of colors.
http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?level=SK&id=84 1195&No=10&Nty=1&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial&Ne=100 000%205%201&Ntt=paper&N=100123&uniqueSearchFlag=tr ue&y=0&x=0&Nr=100000&Ntk=all&An=text

Re:State secrets?

[Dolly_Llama]

What about the President's authority is secret? Is there some part of the constitution that you have to be TS/SCI to read? If the law exists that allows the President such powers, then let's take a look at it.

Playing devil's advocate, it isn't the authority that is secret, it's the particular exercise. The administration's position is that to put a secret program up for judicial dissection would expose the secret bits to people who aren't supposed to know about it and thus render it useless. Or worse, get the people involved killed.

cue the obvious comments

[gEvil (beta)]

Damn activist judges, legislating from the bench! What's that? There was no legislating involved here? She was just ruling based on the laws that are already on the book? Well, she's still a damn activist judge!

In COBN3T AM3PNKA

[Philip K Dickhead]

I Soviet America, NSA rules judge!

Re:In COBN3T AM3PNKA

[vistic]

COBET AMAPNKA is I think closer...

COBN3T AM3PNKA is more like "Sovizt Amzrika"

Their masters

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the ACLU lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers.

Great! Now they can get their instructions from their masters without worrying about those idiotic anti-terrorest groupies getting in the way.

I for one...

[MufasaZX]

I for one reject our NSA wire tapping overlords. Halleluiah for "activist" judges! =P

Impeachment

[elzurawka]

I think that this is the best news this year. This means that the wiretaping *should* stop, and if it doesnt, who ever is doing it, will be breaking the Law

This has clearly been against the constitution since it began, and since it was not appoved by congress, shoudl never have been done. Does anyone know of a amendment to the constitution giving the president the right to disregard the consitution? If this continues, and bush still knows about it, then it is definatly reason enought to impeach him, if there has been enought so far.

also check out BBC and CBC

Re:Impeachment

[elzurawka]

Check this out for more information on why this should happen. There are pages and pages of inforamtion as to why this President should be impeached, and i dont understand why he is getting off scott free, and Clinton went all the way through to the sent. Clinton did now start any wars on a lie(this is arguable), but bush has been proven to have lied for the reasons for starting the Iraq war. Hopefully once the democrats win back congress, this may happen

Re:Impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of the constitution does the wiretaps violate? Please quote the appropiate section on wiretaps. If it's not in the Constitution, then it can't be unconstitutional.

If you were in your favorite spot, under the bushes behind your neighbors house smoking crack like usual, and you heard him talking about his plans to go to his girlfriends workplace and kill everyone, you obviously wouldn't warn anyone. That would be "unconstitutional".

I guess now you'll also be insisting that anything learned from this program must be completely ignored, that we must free those "so-called" terrorests in england, and disable the additional security set up at the airports. They were discovered mainly by this "illegal" program, so you should insist that they be freed to do whatever they like. You should proud of your efforts, after they have succussfully killed 10,000 people.

Re:Impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

Wheee, I can post anonymously and make stupid comments too. Enjoy wiretapping? Good. Move to China.

Re:Impeachment

[jthill]

Does anyone know of a amendment to the constitution giving the president the right to disregard the consitution?

No amendment needed. Everything that civil law forbids he does using his authority as Commander in Chief. Oh, by the way: Congress *did* approve it. They "sort of, stumble[d] upon it", unconsciously. It'll be this way until He declares the war over.

Re:Impeachment

[elzurawka]

"Which part of the constitution does the wiretaps violate?"
The right to free speach and privacy? I belive thats in there somewhere. Is this not the core of the consitution? FREEDOM?

"If you were in your favorite spot, under the bushes behind your neighbors house smoking crack like usual, and you heard him talking about his plans to go to his girlfriends workplace and kill everyone, you obviously wouldn't warn anyone. That would be "unconstitutional"."
A, i dont smoke Crack, B, that is something that was done unintentioanlly. If i had decided, hey, my neighbour is kinda suspicous, im going to tap his phone, get a parbolic mike, and sit in the bushes record everything he does, to see if MAYBE he is goign to do something illegal, then even if you heard him "talking about his plans to go to his girlfriends workplace and kill everyone" you could tell everyone, have him arrested, but you should still be charged for breaking the law. What ever happened to "The ends dont justify the means"
WHile we are at it, lets just break into everyone house and see if they are doing anything illegal? Maybe they ahve a bomb? or some crack? or an unliscenced gun? you can't be sure, so lets just screw the constitution, and search everyone. That sounds about right.

Maybe, just maybe, they could so some realy work, take the extra few days to setup a congressional committee, im sure if its REALLY REALLY important, you can get something togethr, and if you cant, then taht is a problem on its own. Get the warrent and tap waht you need at that point.
Im not saying let the poeple out who have done wrong things, they ahve done wrong things, and Americas screw up should not result in them going free. What i am saying is that america need to stick to its own rules of Freedom of Speach, and all the other things that they keep telling the world they are fighting for, while they take them away from their own Citizens. Do it legally, do it right, and tehre is no problem. Just because you are the president, does not mean you do not have to listen to laws.

Re:Impeachment

[himurabattousai]

Let us forget the whole "Bush lied; people died" mantra. Please do remember that Saddam Hussein made a habit of thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and that instead of following up on all its condemnations of his actions, the UN just laughed at his antics. Also remember that the 15 UN resolutions against Hussein carried the threat of force if he violated the terms of appeasement, and that is what they were. The removal of that man from power was necessary. President Bush just played the hand that he knew would win, and whether or not it was the right hand to play is somewhat debatable. Personally, I think he should have pointed to those resolutions and let the chips fall from there.

As the list of impeachment motivations moves closer and closer to the present day, the picture becomes less blurry. As Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, all actions eventaully come back to him. It is the ultimate extention of unit commanders being responsible for the actions of the men under their charge, and anything less than the President coming down full on the asses of those who committed war crimes is unacceptable. Even if he didn't sanction these actions, allowing them to happen implies tacit approval. That is no less grounds for impeachment than if he gave verbal or written authorization for such actions.

Even so, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the treatment of foreign nationals or enemy combatants. The protections in the Constitution only extend to legal residents of the country. The wiretapping fiasco, above all else, shows the President's willingness to ride roughshod over one of the most important parts of his own oath of office--to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In a sense, he has declared war on the citizens of his own country by violating the laws he is supposed to hold sacred. Such acts are more than borderline treasonous, and if anything, they should be first and foremost in any impeachment hearings. They represent the exact kind of behavior that impeachment is supposed to neutralize and remove from power.

Re:Impeachment

[elzurawka]

"Please do remember that Saddam Hussein made a habit of thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and that instead of following up on all its condemnations of his actions,"
Lets not forget how many UN resolutions teh US has Vetoed? How many world court dicissions they ahve ignored(Guatamala to name 1) The UN is only right when its conviniat for the USA. Lets also not forget that yes, in the past Saddam defied the UN, true, but also lets not forget the UN EXPLICITLY said that you USA has NO RIGHT to attack iraq at that point, for that reason, and yet they chose to do so anyway.
If the USA doest have to listen to the UN, then who said Iran has to stop uranium enrichment? North Korea has to stop missle tests. By america doing what it wishes, they are opening the door for others to do the same, and they can all say, if america doest have to listen, why do we?
Yes, the US constitution does not say that, but the US HAS signed the Geneva Conventions, and now has gone agaaint what they have pleged. If this does not count as a war crime, then i dont know what does. If not even 1 American Soldiar/Officer/Legislator/etc is not charged with anything at the Hauge, then justice is not served.

Re:Impeachment

[elzurawka]

"It'll be this way until He declares the war over."
ummm, didnt that happen over 3 years aog?

Re:Impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading this decision kind of scared me. There is an obvious problem of state secrets and how the courts might as well not exist for those harmed during "shhh don't tell anyone" actions of their government. Its just a convinent loophole to continue shady activities unsupervised. I won't start spewing cliches like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "absolute power corrupts absoltely" or many timeless lines from master yoda.

It seems there were two conditions that had to work togeather to make the ACLU win this case.

• Lack of ACLU greed in discovery process
• Prez admitting to it (Thanks to the media)

My concern is that in reality the whole case for me revealed the current system of court oversight of many defense related activities amounts to "If a tree falls in the forest and you don't tell anyone it fell then it didn't really fall"

IE its disconnected from reality and in a general sense thats ususally not a good thing. Especially concidering all the crap that happened with the prez and their assertions about Iraq and what history has shown governments around the world do when making the case for war to their people.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" - master yoda

Re:Impeachment

[Mister Whirly]

"Please do remember that Saddam Hussein made a habit of thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and that instead of following up on all its condemnations of his actions, the UN just laughed at his antics."

So to show Saddam that the U.N. must always be listened to, the US decided to "thumb their noses" at the U.N. and start an illegal war. Now Saddam knows the U.N. is to be respected...Too bad the US doesn't...

Now go back a few years when we were fighting against our real enemy Iran. Guess who put Saddam in power, trained him, and sold him weapons, including the biological agents like the ones he used against the Kurds? If you said the US and Great Britain, you win a cigar.

Re:Impeachment

[erotic piebald]

The right to free speach and privacy? I belive thats in there somewhere. Is this not the core of the consitution? FREEDOM?

Privacy? No. Invented by the Supreme Court in some abortion case, as I recall.
BTW: speech, believe, that's.

Re:Impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't start spewing cliches like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "absolute power corrupts absoltely" or many timeless lines from master yoda.

good :)

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering" - master yoda
:(

Re:Impeachment

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Even so, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the treatment of foreign nationals or enemy combatants. The protections in the Constitution only extend to legal residents of the country.

I admire the rest of your post, though I wanted to draw attention to this statement..

Take a look at the Bill of Rights (which contains the clauses used to find this program unconstitutional) and tell me which one contains the words "resident" or "citizen."

Funny... none of them do. Our founders held those rights to be inalienable - self evident - for all humans. They didn't want our government to be allowed to violate anyone's rights, including people who aren't Americans.

I realize our current legal establishment doesn't look at the issue that way, but they ought to. Those are human rights, not American Citizen's rights.

Re:Impeachment

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Privacy? No. Invented by the Supreme Court in some abortion case, as I recall.

No, the Supreme Court decided that privacy was necessary for free speech to have value - that is why they are so closely linked. You wouldn't speak freely about alot of things if you didn't think you could do so without retribution (which means in this instance, privacy and anonymity are closely intertwined concepts - you can't really be anonymous if you don't have privacy).

You can bet on this.....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

This has been anticipated and all the pardons have already been written and just awaiting a presidential signature at the right time.

Yeah yeah people have been talking about how f*cked the government has become but the nice thing about the United States is that it DOES eventually correct itself and justice usually comes.

The absolute and correct interpretation of how disastrous this presidency has been is now beginning. Worst administration ever and that has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It just IS.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[mrchaotica]

but the nice thing about the United States is that it DOES eventually correct itself and justice usually comes.

I'll believe that when Bush gets impeached and removed from office. His crimes are multiple orders of magnitude bigger than Nixon's, and unlike Nixon, Bush doesn't even have the decency to resign!

Re:You can bet on this.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon's "decency" was probably more about making a graceful exit, knowing he would likely be removed from office anyway...

Re:You can bet on this.....

[mrchaotica]

That's exactly what I meant.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[dave562]

The issue is that Bush won't be removed from office. The guy's father was the head of the CIA. His family has ties with huge corporations and powerful people across the globe. The man walks on water as far as a good portion of the country is concerned because he represents "Christian values" in this heathen country filled with people who want freedom and not God driven decrees of right and wrong.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[lawpoop]

Well, he might resign if he gets impeached. Nixon didn't resign out of conscience; it wasn't until he was impeached and it was clear he would be convicted that he did resign.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[workindev]

I hate to break it to you, but disagreeing with you politically isn't a "crime".

Re:You can bet on this.....

[houghi]

Better hurry p, because he only has to hold out till the next elections and with the complexity and the tricks that lawers can do, it won't be a problem to get him that far.

The only reason he might get impeached if his staying on somehow influences the voting people.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[mrchaotica]

I'm well aware of that. However, ignoring FISA, the Geneva Convention, and myriad other laws is.

That's what Bush needs to be impeached (and then prosecuted in the US, and then prosecuted in international court) for!

Re:You can bet on this.....

[workindev]

I'm well aware of that. However, ignoring FISA, the Geneva Convention, and myriad other laws is.

Notwithstanding today's ruling, which will surely be debated for years to come on appeal, Bush is certainly not guilty of any of this. This administration has provided detailed legal justifications of the actions they have taken, and now it is up to the other branches of the Government to balance it out. The only thing the administration are guilty of is testing the limits of their executive power, which is hardly new and hardly illegal. All three branches of the government have been testing the limits of their power since the inception of this government, which is on of the reasons why things work so well in this country.

That's what Bush needs to be impeached (and then prosecuted in the US, and then prosecuted in international court) for!

Well, no. The Constitution provides for the articles of impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors", not for political revenge. The only Constitutionally approved process of removing an elected official from office who endorses policies that you disagree with is to vote them out in the next election, which you might be glad to know won't even be necessary in 2008.

For the record, I have misgivings about what the Republicans did to Clinton in 1998. While lying under oath is clearly illegal, I'm not sure if it classifies as an "impeachable offense".

Re:You can bet on this.....

[cheezedawg]

The absolute and correct interpretation of how disastrous this presidency has been is now beginning. Worst administration ever and that has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It just IS.

I proudly voted for President Bush twice, and I think that history will count him as one of our better Presidents in a while. Certainly not the best, but pretty good.

If you want to see disaster, look at the Jimmy Carter presidency. He is hands down the worst president of my lifetime. His bumbling incompetence contributed to the creation of the first militant Islamic theocracy (Iran) and the birth of modern-day Islamic terrorism, not to mention some of the worst economic policies imaginable. He somehow managed to do so much harm in only four years, but his incompetence is a "gift" that keeps on giving (like from his interview with Der Spiegel the other day- thanks a lot, Jimmuh).

Re:You can bet on this.....

[mrchaotica]

Bush is certainly not guilty of any of this.

Just saying it doesn't make it true.

This administration has provided detailed legal justifications of the actions they have taken

And those "detailed legal justifications" are a load of bullshit.

The only thing the administration are guilty of is testing the limits of their executive power, which is hardly new and hardly illegal.

You're right: testing the limits is not illegal. However, going beyond them is, and that's what this administration has done!

All three branches of the government have been testing the limits of their power since the inception of this government, which is on of the reasons why things work so well in this country.

Hardly! The only reason why things work relatively well in this country is that the limits are well and rigidly defined. In fact, I would say that it's wrong for the government to want to test the limits! "Power corrupts" axiom aside, the real job of our government is to minimize itself.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[workindev]

Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Indeed. A lesson that many left wingers need to learn. By the way they talk, it seems they believe that saying the Iraq war is "illegal", that there were no WMD's, and that Bush has committed an impeachable offense will make those falsehoods true.

And those "detailed legal justifications" are a load of bullshit.

Like it or not, the FISA act did give an avenue for warrant less wiretaps if they were provided for by statute. You may disagree with the administrations claim that the September 2001 Joint Resolution is such a statute, but that hardly is the final say on whether these detailed legal justifications are wrong. As I said before, this matter will be debated and appealed in the courts for years to come.

The best case for the administration is for the courts to side with their appeal and rule their actions as justified by law. The worst case for the administration (and the country, IMO), is for the case to reach the USSC and it be ruled as unjustified. In that case, the wiretaps stop and the country loses an important tool to fight terrorism. Hardly a case for impeachment, as you claim.

You're right: testing the limits is not illegal. However, going beyond them is, and that's what this administration has done!

Once again, you are exceedingly premature in your assessment. Your partisan bone to pick aside, this matter can only, and will only be settled in the courts.

Hardly! The only reason why things work relatively well in this country is that the limits are well and rigidly defined. In fact, I would say that it's wrong for the government to want to test the limits! "Power corrupts" axiom aside, the real job of our government is to minimize itself.

I disagree. The founding fathers didn't include checks and balances into our Government because they thought that everybody would play nicely within well and rigidly defined roles. They added checks and balances because people and governments have always, and will always test the limits of their power. This isn't new, and it isn't unique to the current administration or government. The judicial branch is always trying to usurp authority from the legislative branch, the executive branch is always trying to usurp authority from the judicial branch, and the legislative branch is always trying to usurp authority from the executive branch. It is up to the other 2 branches of the government to ensure that these powers remain in balance, and that is exactly what is happening in this case. This is a good thing. One branch rolling over and playing dead while the other two branches encroach on their authority is a bad thing.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[Scudsucker]

Indeed. A lesson that many left wingers need to learn.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

By the way they talk, it seems they believe that saying the Iraq war is "illegal"

International law aside, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should have all resigned on the spot once it was demonstrated that Saddam had no WMD's. They've spend hundreds of billions of dollars, gotten thousands of U.S. soldiers killed, and tied up our military for bogus reasons. They should have resigned, but we haven't even gotten a real appology. To hell with them and anyone who makes excuses for them.

that there were no WMD's

There weren't any, even the Administration has admitted so. Didn't you get the memo?

and that Bush has committed an impeachable offense will make those falsehoods true.

Lying about a blowjob is impeachable, but lying the country into war and blatantly violating the consitution is not? The hypocracy of the GOP knows no bounds.

Like it or not, the FISA act did give an avenue for warrant less wiretaps if they were provided for by statute.

Problem: there hasn't been anything of the kind.

You may disagree with the administrations claim that the September 2001 Joint Resolution is such a statute, but that hardly is the final say on whether these detailed legal justifications are wrong.

Um, no. SCOTUS already ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF was not a blank check for the administration. End of story.

The worst case for the administration (and the country, IMO), is for the case to reach the USSC and it be ruled as unjustified. In that case, the wiretaps stop and the country loses an important tool to fight terrorism.

Complete, unadulterated horseshit. The government was already able to spy on susptected terrorists to their hearts content under FISA. As other posters have pointed out, thousands of FISA warrants have been issued since 1978, and only four have been denied. And, if they were actually serious about protecting Americans from terrorism, they'd do something about security for ports and chemical plants.

And as far as "testing the limits of power", that's something they need to do with the legislative branch and have it sorted out by the courts, a la the PATRIOT act. Not act in secret, ouside the bounds of any legislative or judicial review. Or claim War Powers when no war has been declared.

You sir, are a fool. As someone said of this Administration, I wonder if you are trying to get the Founding Fathers to spin in their graves so fast that they form a combustion engine.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[workindev]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Wow. Congratulations. You managed to work in a meaningless cliche on the first line of your post!

International law aside,

Yup, better put that aside, because according to UNSEC #687, this war was not only justified, but required under international law.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should have all resigned on the spot once it was demonstrated that Saddam had no WMD's. They've spend hundreds of billions of dollars, gotten thousands of U.S. soldiers killed, and tied up our military for bogus reasons. They should have resigned, but we haven't even gotten a real appology. To hell with them and anyone who makes excuses for them.

Well that would have been silly because it has never been demonstrated that "Saddam had no WMD's". On the contrary, the ISG concluded that Iraq was most certainly in violation of the UN requirements regarding WMD disarmament.

There weren't any, even the Administration has admitted so. Didn't you get the memo?

You'd better re-read that memo. The only thing that the Administration has admitted is that the prewar intelligence was flawed, which is why the President commissioned The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Administration has never "admitted" that the justifications for going to war were invalid, because they certainly were not.

Lying about a blowjob is impeachable, but lying the country into war and blatantly violating the consitution is not? The hypocracy of the GOP knows no bounds.

If you will note my grandparent post, I don't think that Bill Clintons perjury offense was impeachable either. But at least his offense was real, not a made up, I-don't-like-the-person-in-charge fantasy. Like I said before, the Constitution provides for impeachment in the case of "high crimes and misdemeanors", not for political revenge.

Problem: there hasn't been anything of the kind.

Problem: you have no authority to speak on that issue, only Congress and the courts do. And, well, they haven't finished speaking yet.

Um, no. SCOTUS already ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF was not a blank check for the administration. End of story.

Nonsense. SCOTUS ruled in Hamdan that the AUMF didn't change article 21 of the UCMJ. End of story. The AUMF clearly did give the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent further terrorist attacks, and SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that AUMF gave the President authority to conduct anything that was a "fundamental incident of waging war", which intelligence gathering clearly is.

Complete, unadulterated horseshit. The government was already able to spy on susptected terrorists to their hearts content under FISA. As other posters have pointed out, thousands of FISA warrants have been issued since 1978, and only four have been denied.

So what? This information immaterial to this claim or this issue. This discussion about what authority the President has been given to prevent further terrorist attacks, not about how many warrants have been issued since 1978.

And, if they were actually serious about protecting Americans from terrorism, they'd do something about security for ports and chemical plants.

Nice red herring. And I would argue that you don't have the slightest clue what "they" are doing about security for ports and chemical plants.

And as far as "testing the limits of power", that's something they need to do with the legislative branch and have it sorted out by the courts, a la the PATRIOT act. Not act in secret, ousid

Re:You can bet on this.....

[Maximilio]

His bumbling incompetence contributed to the creation of the first militant Islamic theocracy (Iran)

Obviously he failed as an educator as well. If you had even spent 20 seconds learning anything about Iranian history, you would have discovered that the roots of Iran's issues lie a little further in the past. Try here. Iran had an elected democratic form of government before we decided it wasn't doing what we wanted it to with our oil. Ahem, I meant their oil. Considering that 99.99999999999999999999% of the reason we had an economic crisis in the 1970's stemmed from our overreliance on cheap, imported oil, dumping those long-festering issues on Carter's head have to count as the most disingenious crap I've ever heard.

Doubly so, considering the lengths to which Carter went in his effort to extricate us from a purely idiotic situation where we were funding maniacs who wanted to kill us by buying the oil they made. Oddly enough, the fact that our nation remains in that idiotic situation can be dumped squarely on conservative heads, as those same people have openly conspired to keep us chuffing away at oil like there's no tomorrow, intentionally lowering efficiency and deriding conservation efforts as (as best I can understand it), "wimpy."

At any rate, the damage Bush is doing to our country right now makes anything Carter might have fictionally wrought pale in comparison. Carter took over from six years of bumbling Nixonitude (and it was in Nixon's term that the energy crisis really got its start, remember!) capped off with a completely whorish two or so years of Ford stumbling over furniture. Anyone would have a hell of a time cleaning up after that idiot crew.

Bush, on the other hand, took the fruits of the greatest economic expansion of the last 50 years and squirreled it away on pure self-aggrandizement. Eight trillion dollars in debt, bogus war on phony enemy, no end in sight, a complete wreck of our national credibility . . . you name it, the Feckless Fratboy-In-Chief has done it, and screwed it up but good.

Re:You can bet on this.....

[workindev]

Obviously he failed as an educator as well. If you had even spent 20 seconds learning anything about Iranian history, you would have discovered that the roots of Iran's issues lie a little further in the past. Try here. Iran had an elected democratic form of government before we decided it wasn't doing what we wanted it to with our oil. Ahem, I meant their oil.

No, the root of the Iranian revolution was the fact that the Carter administration kept promising the Shah that the US fully backed him, but only managed to send an aircraft carrier to float in circles across the Indian Ocean and then turn back without helping a bit. Had Carter been able to provide any kind of tactical support to the Shah, we would not have seen the rise of a militant Islamic theocracy and the complete destabilization of the region.

Not to mention the spectacle that he called "Operation Eagle Claw", which turned out to be one of the most embarrassing military "missions" we have ever suffered through because of his incompetence. If you want to talk about our "national credibility", there is a shining example of how we can embolden our enemies while making ourselves look like complete idiots at the same time. No wonder Islamic terrorists started attacking American interests after that -- we couldn't even land a helicoptor without taking some of our own men out.

Considering that 99.99999999999999999999% of the reason we had an economic crisis in the 1970's stemmed from our overreliance on cheap, imported oil, dumping those long-festering issues on Carter's head have to count as the most disingenious crap I've ever heard.

Doubly so, considering the lengths to which Carter went in his effort to extricate us from a purely idiotic situation where we were funding maniacs who wanted to kill us by buying the oil they made.

No, 99.9999% of the reason we had an economic crisis in the 1970's was because Carter failed to offer any real solution to the problem other than some philosophical "We need more confidence" garbage. His disastrous appointment of William Miller to the FED made a bad situation much worse, and his "solution" to that problem was to fire his Treasury Secretary and appoint Miller in his stead. His reluctance to then appoint Volcker to the FED, and his subsequent tight-handed control over Volcker only managed to create another recession without any relief from stagflation. It wasn't until Carter lost and Volcker's hand was freed that any real economic relief came. Other than putting on a sweater, what did he do to stop inflation, reduce energy dependency, and lower unemployment? You'll probably have to think pretty hard on that one.

Oddly enough, the fact that our nation remains in that idiotic situation can be dumped squarely on conservative heads, as those same people have openly conspired to keep us chuffing away at oil like there's no tomorrow, intentionally lowering efficiency and deriding conservation efforts as (as best I can understand it), "wimpy."

No, the world remains in this "idiotic" situation because energy is one of the most fundamental resources required for an advanced civilization to operate, and no matter how much we try, we need it in order to function. Blaming conservatives for this is quite puzzling because they are not the ones fighting to block every effort to fully utilize our own energy resources because Bambi might have to look at an oil rig that is 50 miles away.

By the way, energy efficiency is the highest it's ever been in history, and CAFE ratings have been raised to their highest level ever under Bush. So much for your "lowering efficiency" claim.

At any rate, the damage Bush is doing to our country right now makes anything Carter might have fictionally wrought pale in comparison. Carter took over from six years of bumbling Nixonitude (and it was in Nixon's term that the energy crisis really got its start, rem

Re:You can bet on this.....

[cheezedawg]

Obviously he failed as an educator as well. If you had even spent 20 seconds learning anything about Iranian history, you would have discovered that the roots of Iran's issues lie a little further in the past.

I didn't say that Carter was the root of the Iranian revolution, but its hard to deny that his incompetence contributed to it. Khomeini himself in a biography written by his brother said that it was our lack of US intervention in the revolution and our pathetically weak response to the hostage crisis that encouraged him to expand his rhetoric and shore up his newly aquired power. Its no surprize that Islamic terrorists were emboldened to start attacking US interests when we couldn't even manage to land a helicopter in the desert to rescue our hostages. That was a huge propoganda victory for the Islamists- one that we are still suffering from today.

Considering that 99.99999999999999999999% of the reason we had an economic crisis in the 1970's stemmed from our overreliance on cheap, imported oil, dumping those long-festering issues on Carter's head have to count as the most disingenious crap I've ever heard.

Doubly so, considering the lengths to which Carter went in his effort to extricate us from a purely idiotic situation where we were funding maniacs who wanted to kill us by buying the oil they made.

What effort? You don't solve the energy demands for a growing economy by putting on a sweater and telling people they aren't confident enough. Carter did nothing but direct a disasterous monetary policy and raise taxes, both which compounded the external factors that were affecting our economy.

had an elected democratic form of government before we decided it wasn't doing what we wanted it to with our oil. Ahem, I meant their oil.

Like it or not, but the Shah was the constitutional leader of Iran before the Mossadegh's dubious rise to power.

Oddly enough, the fact that our nation remains in that idiotic situation can be dumped squarely on conservative heads, as those same people have openly conspired to keep us chuffing away at oil like there's no tomorrow, intentionally lowering efficiency and deriding conservation efforts as (as best I can understand it), "wimpy."

What a load of crap. It takes a lot of energy to grow a modern economy. This isn't the "conservatives" fault, it's a fact of life, and oil happens to be one of the cheapest ways to get it. If you are looking for somebody to blame for our dependence on foreign sources of oil, look at all of the opposition coming from the left at any attempt to increase our domestic oil production.

Bush, on the other hand, took the fruits of the greatest economic expansion of the last 50 years and squirreled it away on pure self-aggrandizement. Eight trillion dollars in debt,

You conveniently left out the fact that our GDP has grown to $13 trillion, and our 65% debt-to-GDP ratio is right in line with historical averages. In fact, I would be worried about the impact on future economic growth if our debt was much less than 60%.

bogus war on phony enemy,

Which enemy is "bogus"? The pre-2003 government of Iraq that was directly supporting dozens of terrorist organizations, developing illegal weapons in contravention of its UN mandate, and had been trying to direct terrorist attacks against us for the better part of a decade? Or the "government" of Afghanistan, which was harboring and protecting al Qaeda? Or how about al Qaeda themselves? Are they bogus too?

no end in sight, a complete wreck of our national credibility . . .

Unfortunately, there is no end in sight, and that is largely due to people like you that steadfastly refuse to admit that we are even at war.

Andrew Jackson will return!

[Anonymous Coward]

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" -- Andrew Jackson's reply to the Supreme Court on the subject of indian removal.

The lesson learned: judges can strike down anything, but unless it's enforced, the decision is moot. Will the NSA stop? No. Will the government ensure they stop? No. What can anyone do? Nothing.

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[DarkAudit]

This story is apocryphal, but possibly true: A man in the Old West is convicted and sentenced to hang. When the attorney informs the judge of his intention to appeal, the judge replies, 'Go ahead and appeal, but in the meantime the prisoner is to be hanged.' And he was.

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[kthejoker]

In violation of the prisoner's right to due process. So the judge did something illegal. And was likely not charged with manslaughter, given that it was the Old West, etc etc.

But the fact remains, that's an illegal act. (Although only after 1867, when the 14th Amendment was passed.)

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[JBHarris]

The US Department of Justice has these fellows they call US Marshals. They are the Police of the courts. They are fairly well trained..and could force this ruling to be followed. Remember kids, laws mean nothing until someone with a gun tells you to follow them.

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[Nimey]

Guess who is in charge of the DoJ. Hint: it's in the executive branch.

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[slcdb]

The problem with former President Jackson's remark, is that it's not up to the Judges to enforce laws. That responsibility rests with the Executive branch. In fact, that's really where the branch gets it's name from: they are supposed to execute the laws of the state, and that means enforcing them in a way that is compatible with the Constitution.

Willful failure to enforce, of the kind espoused by Jackson, at the very least amounts to a breach of the executive's inaugural oath to uphold the law, and may even be tantamount to treason.

So, to answer your question, "What can anyone do?" Impeach the motherfucker.

Of course, with regard to the NSA's illegal domestic spying program, we're not at that stage yet. The ruling may be appealed, so may have to go to a higher court. And, Bush hasn't yet indicated that he'll ignore the ruling. The White House's most recent comments on this issue seem to indicate that they're willing to back down. I think they do see the writing on the wall, and I doubt they think fighting it will be worth the risks.

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[falconwolf]

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" -- Andrew Jackson's reply to the Supreme Court on the subject of indian removal.

It wasn't just John Marshall and SCOTUS but congress as well. Jackson said he was the commander in chief and if they wanted to stop him they'd have to get their own army. And thus thousands of Cherokee died on the Trail of Tears.

Falcon

Re:Andrew Jackson will return!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, remember who the Commander in Chief of the US military is.

PS. CAPTCHA - unrest. How apt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 34,200 for Unconsitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you mean: Unconstitutional

This is great, but I'm not so optimistic

[vishbar]

I have a feeling that it'll go to the Supreme Court and, because of the 5 conservative judges on the court, Judge Taylor's ruling will be massacred.

There's still a ray of hope...SCOTUS ruled reasonably on the Guantanamo Bay case, hopefully they'll do it here too.

Re:This is great, but I'm not so optimistic

[Kelson]

I have a feeling that it'll go to the Supreme Court and, because of the 5 conservative judges on the court, Judge Taylor's ruling will be massacred.

That depends on whether the judges end up leaning more toward political conservatism or judicial conservatism. From a strict constructionist point of view, one would expect them to agree with the premise that a wiretapping program requires due process of law. (Of course, there may be some argument on whether the program qualifies as due process.)

Supreme Court rulings often break down in ways you wouldn't expect (the recent ruling on eminent domain, for instance) because the judicial positions described as conservative and liberal don't always line up with the political positions.

Re:This is great, but I'm not so optimistic

[MobyDisk]

Are those judges conservatives, or republicans? Because the last 6 years have shown us that republican != conservative, and democrat != liberal. (As though that was ever the case, but this administration is the most blatent example)

Nothing? Bah. Can you hear the Devil now?

[Travoltus]

He's sneezing.

Correct, but...

[paranode]

It was the Clinton administration in the 90s that expanded the FISA law to easily allow warrantless searches and wiretaps.

Re:Correct, but...

[postbigbang]

And who put it to use? The paranoid Bush administration.

The New Hampshire Motto is right: Live free or die!

Re:Correct, but...

[mrchaotica]

Who cares (aside from partisan dumbasses (and everyone who is partisan is a dumbass))? Government abuse of power always sucks, no matter what ideology the perpetrators subscribe to.

Re:Correct, but...

[paranode]

They've done it since FISA was introduced in the Carter administration.

Re:Correct, but...

[paranode]

I agree, but it is partisan dumbasses who want to pretend this thing was introduced within the past 6 years. This ruling is long overdue.

Re:Correct, but...

[postbigbang]

Please cite a source.

Re:Correct, but...

[paranode]

Here's one:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610- 7772r.htm

Re:Correct, but...

[crawling_chaos]

This was introduced in the last six years. If the Bush Administration had simply gone to FISA courts for warrants, as the previous administrations had, this ruling probably would have gone the other way. As someone else has mentioned, getting a warrant isn't hard and can even be done retroactively under FISA. The Bush Administration is claiming by yelling "Boogah! Boogah! Terrah!" they can magically invent new laws on their own.

Meanwhile, Bin Laden is a free man, even with the illegal wiretapping.

Re:Correct, but...

[paranode]

On the contrary, FISA itself issued a ruling in 2002 that said the president had these powers. Carter used them during Vietnam and Clinton used them as well. Who knows who else used them.

Re:Correct, but...

[squiggleslash]

That's really cool. FISA was expanded by Clinton, and Carter immediately sprung into action fifteen years earlier and used these expanded powers.

That makes perfect sense.

Re:Correct, but...

[kthejoker]

Did you seriously just cite the Washington Times? Dude, they're a Moonie paper. Consider the source.

Re:Correct, but...

[spun]

Carter used them during Vietnam and Clinton used them as well.

Ah, well, that makes it okay then. /sarcasm

Why would you even make that comment? What's your objective? This is not a partisan issue...

Re:Correct, but...

[The Angry Mick]

It was the Clinton administration in the 90s that expanded the FISA law to easily allow warrantless searches and wiretaps.

You're absolutely right. Obviously, we should punish Clinton. No need to question the continued use of those powers, or to question their constitutionality, or even, god forbid, try to get them repealed. We just need to punish Clinton.

Once we do that, things will be different. The world will magically become a better place. Warrantless wiretaps would be unecessary because theft, murder, rape, corporate fraud, Al Queda, child molestation, pornography and plagiarism would all vanish. And every child would have a magical pink pony to ride across fields of marshmallows to the Gingerbread schoolhouse that doesn't teach evolution.

Re:Correct, but...

[Princeofcups]

> It was the Clinton administration in the 90s that expanded the
> FISA law to easily allow warrantless searches and wiretaps.

Please read my sig.

jfs

Re:Correct, but...

[flyneye]

on a side note,
                the news reported that this judge was a Carter appointee.

Re:Correct, but...

[Knara]

I'm embarassed that so many times I don't catch that someone is citing the Washington Times instead of the Washington Post. Good thing other people are paying more attention than I am.

Re:It's a righteous slap in the face for the Bush

['nother poster]

Guys, this still has to go through the appelates and the supreme and I doubt they will side with a musty old piece of parchment over a government that's "doing what's best for it's citizens".

And if they can't...

[Cryptnotic]

...then the next step will be to ammend the Constitution.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[JGuru42]

This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately."

Can you please tell me when the President or the administion has admitted to doing the wrong thing?
Of course, I mean besides small gaffes such as poking fun at a person who was legally blind for wearing shades that would help extend the eyesight he was.

Our country would be a lot different if we had a president of either party who would admit to a mistake without being forced into it.

Divisive Issues

[MandoSKippy]

I was listening to a local radio talk show when this issue came up. The host, a right-leaning Bush mouthpiece used the if you are against this program, then you are pro-terrorist. I actually called in and explained to him about the FISA court, and how it is retroactive, and most people (including myself and those I have spoken to) don't have a beef with the program itself, but more so the warrantless methodology used by the administration. The talk show host, quick on the reponse as most of them are Asked "So you would have activist judges like the judges who ruled that goverments can take your land and give it to corporations making the decision on whether you are wiretapped?" He was basically using a tactic that many policial folks, use another unrealted issue to hide the issues with the one we are talking about. Well, I responded quietly and firmly that he was using an unrelated case, AND in that case the Supreme Court did not rule it that goverment can take your land and give it to companies, but instead ruled that nowhere in the constitution does it state that people are protected from this, and as long as the process is lawful (which in Conneticut at the time it was) it wasn't the Supreme Court's decision to make. This is a correct judgement, and has lead to many newly passed state laws protecting citizens from this behavior. His response was "What are you a lawyer or something?" to which I replied, no just an informed citizen. My point? I am sick an tired of divisive issues like this being hidden in the terrorism crap... you are any NSA wire tapping, you are pro terrorism... that's BS. We just want security WITH protections of our rights. Some actually informed news people who could communicate the issues instead of getting all hot button on the issues wouldn't hurt as well.

Re:Divisive Issues

[QuantumRiff]

History is such a fun thing to watch being repeated... Just sit back, read the news, and everytime there is the word Terrorist, replace it mentally with "communist" or "japaneese spy" or "Indian." Man, why don't we teach more history in the schools? Honestly...

Re:Divisive Issues

[Quiet_Desperation]

He was basically using a tactic that many policial folks, use another unrealted issue to hide the issues with the one we are talking about.

Why do you hate children and kittens?

Re:Divisive Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Which talk show host was this? Sounds like you completely owned him.

Re:Divisive Issues

[Poppler]

We just want security WITH protections of our rights.

You're missing the point. They're not interested in protecting you from terrorists at all, they're interested in chipping away the Bill of Rights. Stopping terrorism is just a pretext for a power grab.

Re:Divisive Issues

[MandoSKippy]

TO be honest, your response is another example if devisiveness. Your response makes an accusition about the administration and and does more of the "us against them" crap that is so common in American politics and on American news media. There are always shades of grey... I do think there is a value in wiretapping suspected terrorists, and that is important to protect our country, I just want it done within the law. Do I like the administration? No I do not... I just am taking a point of view that it's the system that is corrupt, not the administration. Attack the systems that forces the us against them stuff... watch some Jon Stewert, he summarizes these points much better (and much more entertaining) then I do, and think about it when you jump into political discussions... are you just one side of the debate? Maybe the debate needs to be addressed and then we can be a country again....

Re:Divisive Issues

[sheldon]

God what are you some pinko communist abortion wanting gay loving pond scum terrorist sympathizer?

How dare you try to be reasonable and informed!

Re:Divisive Issues

[kthejoker]

What you observed is called a "straw man" argument, and all talk radio (and television) personalities use it to their advantage. Every last one of them, liberal or conservative or anything in between. Because straw men lure people down a path towards extremism.

You call in to complain about wiretapping, and suddenly you're having to defend every judicial decision ever passed down. And so you do, because you are The Loyal Opposition. And then you lose, because you tried to hold up the straw man.

PS you should've said, "Yes, I'm a lawyer, just like Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, half of our Senate, and all of our judiciary. What about it?"

Re:Divisive Issues

[MandoSKippy]

I have heard that reality has a well-known liberal bias...

Re:Divisive Issues

[oyenstikker]

They teach the facts at school. They don't teach you to think about them.

It seems that one of the goals of the public school system is to teach the kids to think that government control, power, and regulation are good things, and will protect you from the bad guys.

Re:Divisive Issues

[MandoSKippy]

Nice thing about this talk show it was local, and when I burnt a hole through his argument, and he came back with the incredibly witty "Are you a lawyer"... my answer of "no, just an informed citizen" shut him up about the topic. Local guys don't have the technique down enough to always win. (Note I did say the informed citizen line with a bit of smuggness... probalbly reaching too far for him to pick up on) They completely dropped the topic after I called in... it was quite humerous actually... normally when a claller makes a point, the talk show host will, with the caller no longer part of the conversation will rebuke the caller and not give the caller a chance back... causing one side listening to side with the host because he got last word, and others to side with the caller because it wasn't a fair argument... once again casuing more devisiveness. Fun stuff.

Re:Divisive Issues

[oyenstikker]

Really? I have heard that reality has a conservative bias, and that many many liberals thinking the same wrong thing makes it well-known.

Re:Divisive Issues

[Eli Gottlieb]

Well *kittens* I'm allergic to.

Re:Divisive Issues

[iluvcapra]

You left out "cappucino-drinking" and "bree-eating".

And they call America is a one-class society ;)

Re:Divisive Issues

[Poppler]

Your response makes an accusition about the administration and and does more of the "us against them" crap

Huh? I said that the government doesn't see protecting us from terrorism as a high priority. I also stated my opinion that they are exploiting terrorism to pass laws and institute programs that take away our rights. How is that a partisan attack? There are Democrats in the government too.

There are always shades of grey... I do think there is a value in wiretapping suspected terrorists, and that is important to protect our country, I just want it done within the law.

I agree that wiretapping with oversight is sometimes an appropriate tool for law enforcement. I'm saying that the government's interest in being able wiretap us without a warrant doesn't have anything to do with terrorism, not that they shouldn't perform wiretapping with judicial oversight.

I just am taking a point of view that it's the system that is corrupt, not the administration.

I agree that the real problem is systematic, not just one person or group of people.
BTW, I'm a big Daily Show fan too. ;-)

Re:Divisive Issues

[lilnobody]

History is such a fun thing to watch being repeated... Just sit back, read the news, and everytime there is the word Terrorist, replace it mentally with "communist" or "japaneese spy" or "Indian." Man, why don't we teach more history in the schools? Honestly...

This is actually a very important issue. Since "islamic fundamentalism" doesn't have the same ring to it as any of those dirty, dirty, people you might meet on the streets, and because "Terrorists" can be white, witness the recent creation of the word 'Islamofascist'.

What a great word, right? One word: it creates a vivid imagine in ones mind of a dirty arab with an AK-47 oppressing a woman, and how on earth can anyone be anything but against any sort of fascist? The perfect enemy.

Whatever speechwriter came up with that word has changed history.

nobody

Re:Divisive Issues

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Anyone remember the Maine?

Re:Divisive Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't matter - they write the history books.

Re:Divisive Issues

[Somnus]

As another informed citizen, I very much disagree with your assessment of the Kelo decision. The 5th amendment reads:

[...] nor [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 14th amendment explicitly effects the same clause to the states.

You seem to read this phrase as "it's okay to take private property, as long as it's with due process of law; private property should be taken only for public use if it's with just compensation." This leaves a loophole that private property can be taken for private benefit, it it's been properly legislated.

I disagree for the following reasons:

* The tradition of sovereignty in which the Constitution was written clearly elevates the property rights of citizens, particularly the right to own land.

* The 14th amendment also makes explicit equal protection of citizens. Specifically, no gov't can make legislation that disparages the rights of some citizens compared to others.

Consequently, one returns to the standard of "public use" for the legislated seizure of property. IMO, the Supreme Court overreached in conflating public use with public benefit. Property should only be taken for use by the general public or facilities of the gov't.

Re:Divisive Issues

[MandoSKippy]

Ya... there is a very unclear protection in the constitution, and trying to interpret it just so specifically from such ambigious wording is an approach that could make sense.
However, the Supreme Court actually followed previous jurisprudence in maintaining their position of hands off on this issue. In the 1946 case Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, the Court put decisions regarding this aspect in the Hands of Legislative branch. The Kelo case (the one we are talking about in conneticut) didn't change the definition of public use, just the public perception of it. I agree, it sucks for the landowners, but the case stayed with previous case law, and said it's not for them to decide. As the result, we have many states with laws that protect this type of land grabbing, clarifying the law into a a TRUE protection for the public, instead of one in which interpretation is key.

Re:Divisive Issues

[MCraigW]

You left out "cappucino-drinking" and "bree-eating".

Strangely enough, conservatives occasionally drink cappuccino and eat Bree, err... Brie. Well... both.

Re:Divisive Issues

[f1055man]

"Man, why don't we teach more history in the schools? Honestly..." Because then history wouldn't be repeated. The powerful find these methods useful, why do away with them?

Re:Divisive Issues

[sheldon]

Oh yeah, and Volvo driving!

Do elitists sip port, or do they drink Vodka like their Commie loving brethren?

Re:Divisive Issues

[Somnus]

Don't call me a constructionist, I just explicate what is written! :)

Re:Divisive Issues

[Xyrus]

"Man, why don't we teach more history in the schools?"

Because it's so boring compared to actually reliving it again and again and again and ....

~X~

Re:Divisive Issues

[jafac]

Stopping terrorism is just a pretext for a power grab.

Actually, it serves them if the terrorism continues.

In early November of 2004, any sane, rational person would have thought that the arrival of a videotaped message from Osama bin Laden, the Project Manager of 9/11, whom Bush had spent tens of billions of dollars and 3 years trying to capture, would have been a highlight of the incompetence and ineffectiveness of the Bush Administration.

On the contrary - it caused a ripple of fear that gave Bush the edge in what was otherwise a very close election.

Fear is not a rational emotion.

Re:Divisive Issues

[Poppler]

it serves them if the terrorism continues.

Exactly. That is one of the reasons why they are pursuing a foreign policy that they know will increase hostility towards America, while at the same time, cutting millions in "anti-terrorism" money from NYC and Washington DC to protect peanut farmers in Georgia.

Re:Divisive Issues

[Scudsucker]

They teach the facts at school. They don't teach you to think about them.

Not necessarily. K-12 history classes are more about telling a good story and spoonfeeding patriotism to kids, rather than describing events as they happened. Here's three examples off the top of my head, and it's been ten years since I was in high school.

The story: for his expedition, Columbus had to shop around for a financer because Middle Age rednecks insisted that the Earth was flat, and a voyage around the world was impossible. The truth: Columbus was wrong, and his critics were right. Most learned men of the time did in fact belive the world was round, but thought that the proposed voyage would be too long, which it was. Columbus underestimated the size of the world, and overestimated the size of Asia, so if there hadn't been islands and a couple of continents in the way, they would have died before reaching the "East Indies".

The story: American colonists standing up to King George was the "shot heard round the world." The truth: that's a bunch of crap. There have been uprisings and long as there have been empires. Yawn.

The story: Paul Revere, his ride, etc. The truth: he wouldn't have yelled "the British are coming!" because the colonists themselves were British.

That's why I recommend taking some history in college to anyone who hated it in high school: you knew history in high school was crap, and now you find out why. What I'd like to see is a class contrasting the sense of entitlement some Americans felt in the 1800's with "Manifest Destiny" with the sense of entitlement some Germans had in the 1930's and 40's.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

Actually, you are thinking about the wrong program.

The Federal Judge has ordered NSA to stop wiretapping international calls that the Government says targets suspected al qaeda members.

The one you are thinking about (a much broader domestic wiretapping) was recently dismissed. It was also filed by the ACLU, hence the confusion.

While the decision may be a good news for privacy advocates, it is certain that the Government is likely to appeal Judge Taylor's decision.

I would argue that of the three known warrantless data collection programs, the one targeting international calls has the least privacy impact and the most potential to garner actionable intelligence and protect the American public, so it may be unfortunate that this is the one ordered stopped, while the other two are allowed to continue.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[__aaclcg7560]

That would be too suspicious. An Iranian dirty bomb would be just as effective and give the administration brownie points to take the War On Terror to Iran.

Well

[paranode]

They ruled that non-citizen 'enemy combatants' have constitutional protections, so there is hope that they will say you need a warrant to wiretap calls from within the US.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mctk]

I think he'll be okay. Hunting season is over.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in other words, proving that the program is within the President's authority would require revealing state secrets?

We have secret laws now? Jesus Christ, Godwin be damned, we're PAST the fucking Nazis AND the USSR. God help us as a nation!

Today is a good day.

[Zephyros]

Now we just have to believe that the ruling is ultimately upheld after all appeals.

That, and enforcement. More oversight and a stronger FISA court (i.e. one that isn't simply a rubber stamp) will be important.

Anybody have any thoughts about how this precedent will affect the EFF v. AT&T case?

At least tell me you aren't from Britain

[paranode]

Or I will have to LMFAO in your face.

Re:At least tell me you aren't from Britain

[Anonymous Coward]

How right you are. Here in Britain, shit like the wiretapping program only requires a secret warrant from a politician! This country is fucked up.

Re:At least tell me you aren't from Britain

[aussersterne]

Why? Because you're satisfied so long as your country is one step freer than some other arbitrary country that you think is laughably unfree? Why don't you stand on your own principle, instead of comparisons to other countries?

I keep laughing the people who say "well Britain does it!" even though the U.S. was founded in the first place because Britain was too unfree for the people who came to North America, and I laugh at those who say "well, the insurgents target women and children" when trying to justify American women and children casualties. Because America only needs to be as good as the next guerilla movement in a warzone in order to win your support.

Re:At least tell me you aren't from Britain

[paranode]

Who said I was trying to justify anything? I just think it's funny when Europeans generally tell us how much more free they are.

Re:At least tell me you aren't from Britain

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I think it's funny when Americans lump "Europeans" in to one big basket - particularly the UK, which isn't even IN Europe, just next to it.
Though it is of course part of the European Union, but that still doesn't make it exactly the same as France for instance.

and in any case, you should be laughing your arse off pretty much continuously, because pretty much every other country in the world thinks they're more free than the USA.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Tibetan guy with a Chineese cattle prod up his arse doesn't comfort himself whilst writhing in agony with the thought that at least he's not in the USA.

True or not, somehow the USA manages to give the impression to the rest of the world that it's pretty much the worst of all so called "Western" nations in which to live.

We are not out of the woods yet

[lawpoop]

Folks, it isn't over until it's over. The ruling can still be appealed. Bush nominated judge Samuel Alito to the supreme court. Alito subscribes to the notion of the unitary executive, which basically means that anything the president does is legal, by definition. Alito may be sympathetic to the administration's view on this. He is just one of nine judges, but I point him out to show you who Bush is appointing.

Remember the Total Information Awareness project, proposed by Admiral Poindexter, shortly after 9/11? It was to be a gigantic database of all electronic information -- the complete, ongoing electronic record of every US citizen. Of course, because of public outcry, the project was defunded. However, the project has simply been broken apart and pursued. Wikipedia says "An unknown number of TIA's functions have been merged under the codename "Topsail".

We don't know the full story, yet we are being given some very clear, bright red flags. Why does the government need to keep track of every single citizen?

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[DrJimbo]

lawpoop asked:

Why does the government need to keep track of every single citizen?

Because every single citizen is a threat to this illegal government.

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[Overzeetop]

Oh, but they will argue that they don't (need to keep track of every citizen). They only need to keep track of the troublemakers. The problem is that they don't know they're troublemakers right now. By keeping records on ice, they can go back and really dig out everything they need on someone after they have the first inkling of trouble. If there's no history, they get a closer watch, and will likely fall of the monitoring eventually. If they _do_ have a history, then it's a massive score for them (well, potentially). Then they can go forward.

Lest you think I support the program, I don't. But I'm sure that the above logic is what will be used and, with a little polish and shine (and maybe a few fake news storiewy to really drive the positives home) the congresspeople and most of their constituents will find the idea quite paletable. Remember - if they never look at your data, it's not an invasion of privacy! *cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Not out of the woods yet? I almost spit out my coffee.

We are living under the most powerful world empire that has ever existed. The US government pulls in more revenue and holds more raw firepower than any government in the history of organized coercion.

Not out of the woods yet? There is no possibility of getting out of these woods in our lifetimes, short of moving to live under the rule of a smaller government (which of course I plan to do).

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[Overzeetop]

...fake news story...

Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!

(damn it all)

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote "Why does the government need to keep track of every single citizen?"

Why to provide effective emergency response services in the case of unforeseen natural disasters that no one could have predicted. Say - a hurricane for instance. ; )

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[mobby_6kl]

>Because every single citizen is a threat to this illegal government.

Excellent! V would be pround.

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[Hillgiant]

Paradise awaits.

Re:We are not out of the woods yet

[jafac]

Alito subscribes to the notion of the unitary executive, which basically means that anything the president does is legal, by definition.

Remember that this applies to the recent Joe Lieberman dust-up.

Lieberman voted for Alito.

He may be a democrat. But he is an enemy of democracy. It is a very good thing that he was defeated in the primary (though it looks like his independent run will be successful).

Democrats don't posess the party discipline that Republicans have. In a lot of ways, this is a good thing. But in this particular case - Lieberman's fellatio of radical rightwing republicans could have dire consequences for the future of this nation, and what it stands for.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Seraphim_72]

when I talk to my friend over my cell phone, I sometimes say hi to the NSA just for fun. They never respond though...

You:"Hi NSA we are talking about bombs!" (smile)

NSA:"Actually you were dicussing your blog, get a thesaurus."

You:

NSA:"The TP is in the hall closet"

Sound of phone dropping and wet footsteps running away

It goes back...

[paranode]

They have been doing this kind of thing since the Carter administration, unfortunately. The famous spy Aldrich Ames was captured during the Clinton administration by a warrantless search of his property using the same 'precedents'.

It was the FISA court that ruled that the FISA act was not unconsitutional. Interesting, eh?

Re:It goes back...

[MarkusQ]

They have been doing this kind of thing since the Carter administration, unfortunately. The famous spy Aldrich Ames was captured during the Clinton administration by a warrantless search of his property using the same 'precedents'.

This ethical relativism talking point doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The specific searches that Clinton ordered were legal at the time he ordered them, while, as judge's ruling described in TFA reaffirms, the ones Bush ordered were illegal. Further, even at the time Clinton ordered his searches, he could not have done what Bush has done without breaking the law. Guess what? He stuck to what was legal.

--MarkusQ

Re:It goes back...

[paranode]

Please don't accuse me of ethical relitivism when you are apologizing for warrantless searches. Just because it wasn't part of FISA at the time doesn't make it right.

Re:It goes back...

[Siward]

Er...where exactly do you get that the FISC ruled the FISA constitutional? The closest thing to that is the FISC review court saying that the court took for granted the President's ability to conduct warrantless searches and given that this is true, FISA could not reduce this power. What you wrote implies that the FISC is somehow above SCOTUS reproach.

(By the way, FISA act is repetitive like ATM machine.)

Re:It goes back...

[spun]

I suppose you think that the fact that Clinton did it excuses Bush? You can stop beating that horse now, I'm pretty sure it's dead. Why do you keep bringing up this point? It's utterly childish. You have no rational argument with which to defend "your man" so you point out that the other team did it too. So what. Wrong is wrong. As I said before, this is not a partisan issue, stop trying to make it one.

Re:It goes back...

[MarkusQ]

Please don't accuse me of ethical relitivism when you are apologizing for warrantless searches.

Hello? You're the one peddling the "everybody does it" line. I'm the one saying that what Bush did was a crime, illegal, wrong, and he should be impeached for it (see, for example, the link in my my sig.)

Where in the heck do you get off saying that I'm apologizing for Bush's conduct, or for Clinton's? And, for that matter, why is it that you focused on the phrase "ethical relativism", made a baseless accusation in return, but managed to totally ignore the point of my post which is that your "everybody does it" talking point is factually incorrect, in that it conflates two very different things as if they were the same?

President Coolidge fed his cat at the table, the first President Bush vomited into the lap of the Prime Minister of Japan, and the present President Bush talks with his mouth full of food. If some future President kills a dinner guest (which, unlike the other items, is illegal, even when the president does it), would you trot out some sort of "Presidents have always had atrocious table manners" line?

--MarkusQ

Great, but...

[Mori Chu]

Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but I wonder whether the ruling will matter. I expect the government to overrule the judge and continue doing as it pleases.

What justice do we have, if the justice department is ignored?

Power outage

[Wind_Walker]

In other news, freak power outages have been reported all over the United States today. Experts attribute this power outage to the newly-installed generators on the Founding Fathers' graves. Powered by their eternal rolling over, they were expected to provide power to the United States for the duration of the Bush presidency.

The Department of Energy has urged power consumers to attempt to cut back on their energy usage until new generators can be installed on the Republican Spin machine, which provides nearly as much spin as the Founding Fathers' graves.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

I'd expand the question in your PS to why ever trust an entity which can exercise total power over you? Its not wise to do, even if you like the people in said entity.

I wonder if ...

[WindBourne]

W. had not pushed the patriot act, if the judge would still have ruled the same way. One part of the act was to allow (in fact, insists on it), that data moves from NSA/CIA to the DOJ/DHS that was collected while in the persuit of terrorists. Had that not been there, and had the NSA been operating the same as always (all data is kept to self except for chasing a real terrorists), I suspect that she would have had less reason to rule this.

Re:I wonder if ...

[evilviper]

(all data is kept to self except for chasing a real terrorists), I suspect that she would have had less reason to rule this.

That's just complete and utter nonsense. Since when do wiretapping rules depend on whether or not you are "sharing" data? Illegal is illegal is illegal.

It's stopped cold until the Solicitor Gen appeals

[postbigbang]

And you might imagine that the Supremes, having spanked the Bush Admin in these areas before, will do it again. Until then, the NSA is enjoined. Read the decision. It's encouraging to all but the fascists and paranoids.

Looks great but

[BeoCluster]

Can I make a Beowulf Cluster of all these wiretapping programs ?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Philip K Dickhead]

"Well, He sounded like a quail..."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[kalirion]

Why stage a suicide, or even a murder for that matter, when they can imprison or even kill him and then claim that it was done legally?

Bad Wording

[JGuru42]

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

Please read this as "How long will it take before Judge Taylor is branded just another of the "activist" judges?

It was meant to be poking fun at the current administrations attempts to use labels to make people who oppose their view seem less credible.

I just really wish I could honestly say futile attempts....

Just great!

[deadhammer]

Now the terrorists will win! Think of the children!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[dsgitl]

"He'll"? From the article:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

When you assume....

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mgessner]

You mean like when Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky?

Yeah, that would've been refreshing...

Diggs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to self: Can't go wrong with a Web 2.0-friendly judge.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I've got nothing to hide. I'm pretty much the most boring person on the planet. I don't watch TV, I don't listen to the radio, I don't subscribe to any magazines, I don't really ever go to any stores and make any purchases other than food every few weeks and some clothes every few years. I don't spend any time online when I'm at home. I don't talk to anyone on the phone, nor does anyone ever call me. I think anyone trying to wiretap me would die of boredom.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[sukotto]

Which works great when you're spying on individual suspects.
This wiretap program seems to be spying on everybody. There's no way the secret courts can handle that kind of paperwork.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

I would argue that your right to free association is being violated. After all, the wiretaps between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen, even if its the foreign national whom the goverhment is really interested. You can't collect the data without violating the rights of the US citizen (unreasonable search, freedom of association). Hence, they should always need a warrant.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

This, despite the fact that 50% of the US and a good portion of the rest of the world does not trust the current US government.

Wow - you have approx. 150 million people in the US stating that they don't trust the govt? That's pretty amazing. Ask the world, and most of them don't trust ANY government....Well, cept the French - they trust that their government is good at surrendering...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for mod points! +1, Coke-out-the-nose

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Danse]

Oh well. The cat's out of the bag. Another peaceful attempt at security blown to smitherines.

If they'd just done it by the rules, it would have remained both confidential and legal. The problem is that this Administration thinks it can make its own laws. You want to blame someone, blame them.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mgessner]

It was a woman, not a man, on the bench who issued this order.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[russ1337]

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

and... where do you get your figures?

Well, 's 'bout damn time...

[Warlock7]

Glad to see that someone in this country still thinks.

Which Congressman?

[michaelmalak]

Which Congressman will have the courage to introduce articles of impeachment?

Note: Conyers backed down this past May.

Re:Which Congressman?

[MarkGriz]

"Which Congressman will have the courage to introduce articles of impeachment?"

More importantly, any bets on which Congressman will introduce a bill for a "new and improved" FISA II

From the conservative bench

[Van Cutter Romney]

I'm dying to hear what the conservative side (FOX News) has to say about this. I want the see the look on Bill O'Reilly now and how he's going to slander the ACLU and The New York Times on the next Factor show.

Of course, you do realize that if NSA contests this judgement in the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Bush has his men there.

Re:From the conservative bench

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm dying to hear what the conservative side (FOX News) has to say about this. I want the see the look on Bill O'Reilly now and how he's going to slander the ACLU and The New York Times on the next Factor show."

Fox News is the centrist side, not the conservative side. If you want to hear what conservatives say, look for Limbaugh's program. O'Reilly is also an "angry moderate", not a conservative. He has never slandered the ACLU or the NYT, but he has expressed his opinions and disagreements with them.

Re:From the conservative bench

[hcob$]

I'm dying to hear what the conservative side (FOX News) has to say about this. I want the see the look on Bill O'Reilly now and how he's going to slander the ACLU and The New York Times on the next Factor show.

Slander is words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another. I'd like you to point out false statements that O'Reily has said about the ACLU with the direct intention of harm. However, going back on topic, I will say that this is definately the ACLU court shopping to get a favorable first opinion. That said, I want to emphasize that Judge Taylor is a well respected jurist, and with her history, it was pretty much a slam dunk that she would fight against preceived Civil Liberties violations. Simply, this is the first salvo from the ACLU, but it is far from over.

Re:From the conservative bench

[Van Cutter Romney]

You wanted it, so here goes:

1. From the FOX News Website: Is the ACLU Bin Laden's Best Ally?

Quote from the same: "If the ACLU ever wants money, it should contact the Al Qaeda fundraisers. No organization in America enables terrorism as much as the ACLU, period. It is putting your life in danger. And that is no exaggeration."

2. From Wikiquote

"I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al Qaeda." (2 June 2004)

"Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." (19 January 2005)

Re:From the conservative bench

[lawpoop]

O'Reilly will say that this judge is a radical and a liberal, is legislating from the bench, and is supporting Al Qaida. About the Supreme Court, he said that it was packed with liberals when the court ruled that the president does not have limitless power to set up military tribunals.

Re:From the conservative bench

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm dying to hear what the conservative side (FOX News) has to say about this.

Here you go:

DETROIT -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

Click here to read the judge's opinion (pdf).

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

(Story continues below)

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration had already publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule on the case.

"By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The NSA had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS > STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BACK TO TOP

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL

Re:From the conservative bench

[nasch]

"Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." (19 January 2005)

Of course, because those names are practically synonymous with "civil liberties"!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Bogtha]

It's just a case of "When our guys do it, it's OK, but if your guys do it it's not" syndrome.

It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics. The idea that the parties are supposed to work together to support society is not a familiar concept. They think it's about two teams, one of which must be the winning side and one of which must be the losing side. They've picked a side, not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true. Where do you pull a figure like that from? Your ass? Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

Where do you pull that from? Your ass? Find me one legitimate poll that shows that a credible majority supports Bush's warrantless, unregulated wiretapping program. Oh wait, let me guess, you're going to pull the Rasmussen poll out of your ass. Predictable. That poll is about wiretapping in general and does NOT consider unregulated, unwarranted wiretapping. A Zogby poll (no less credible than Rasmussen) shows that at least 50% do not trust Bush's wiretapping program enough to impeach him. Biatch.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[azuravian]

Isn't the same true the other way around though? Everyone seems to be ok with a given action when it is being handled by their favored party. As soon as the same action is taken by a member of the opposing party, they have a problem with it. It's not strictly a Republican "syndrome".

How it is, and what YOU should think.

[Gerzel]

If you are not a supporter of terrorism, and if you don't hate America then, this is simple math.

Judge + ((Bush support for what is on trial + far right conservative ideals)/case against what is on trial) = A

Now the higher the judge in the US legal system the higher the value for Judge. If more than one judge is involved in a single ruleing then add all Judge values together. For example a unanimous ruling of the US Supreme Court would have a Judge value equal to about 2.

If A is greater than 0 then the judgement in question has been made by an insane activist judge and is further evidence that the US is being held back by its outdated judicial branch.

Re:How it is, and what YOU should think.

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'll think what I damn well want. After all, I accord you the right to ignore facts. Why shouldn't I live by them?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[aussersterne]

Umm, just about every poll since time immemorial (well, the 2000 election) shows a 48/48 or 49/51 or 50/50 or some similar split between R's an D's in this country. If you don't know this, you haven't been reading the news for the last six years.

For five minutes after 9/11 maybe 25% of the D's were onboard with the R's. That was before the R's launched the Neo-Neo-Nazi party and began to wantonly torture and kill brown people, sell the lower class out to the corporatists, and line their own pockets with the blood of slave children.

Now's it's back to 50-50. There's gonna be a civil war in the U.S., sooner or later, and it will come out as three nations: liberal left coast, dopey, backward "heartland" full of violent, inbred simpletons, and liberal right coast.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?

That's something everyone should consider, not just people who trust this administration. I think it's a problem that our government has so much power that putting the wrong person in charge has done so much damage to our economy, civil rights, and standing in the world.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

But you read and respond to comments on Slashdot, the most left-wing computer-related website in the world!

At least someone is putting up a fight

[End Program]

I think the sad part of this story is that the ALCU are the ones standing up for our rights. Where is the outrage? The problem is Americans are too complacent in their SUV and Mc-Mansion lives to give a F***.

I remember a poll a while back that stated 50% of people surveyed are willing to give up their rights if they thought it would help the war on terror. I am sure that's not what our forefathers had in mind.

Most people just take their freedoms for granted and assume they will always be there. I can imagine the look on their faces when the police show up to randomly search their homes, and they state "Don't you need a warrant for this?" and the police reply "Nope. Not any more!"

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Anonymous Coward]

I can imagine the look on their faces when the police show up to randomly search their homes, and they state "Don't you need a warrant for this?" and the police reply "Nope. Not any more!"

I think most people wouldn't even ask. Most folks have the attitude of "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then I have nothing to worry about." So, they'll just let the cops in warant or not.

This country has a bumper sticker mentality. For example, I once asked someone, "How is the war on terror protecting our freedoms?"
I just got a lot of mindless cliches.

Another set of logic goes: "Our troops over seas" == "our freedom is being protected"

There's lots of flag waving but no thought behind it. It's the same mentality as folks who root for a football team.

I'm done rambling - my disgust for the American public is just increasing.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a poll a while back that stated 50% of people surveyed are willing to give up their rights if they thought it would help the war on terror. I am sure that's not what our forefathers had in mind.

Do you know what rights were waved to win the civil war? Really, tapping phone calls that go overseas isn't the end of the repblic. Our FOUNDING FATHERS probably wouldn't have seen what the big deal was. They would be more pissed off over medicare, medicade, welfare, our overall foriegn policy since the end of the cold war, illegal immigration, and how many ungrateful people live in this country.

Most people just take their freedoms for granted and assume they will always be there. I can imagine the look on their faces when the police show up to randomly search their homes, and they state "Don't you need a warrant for this?" and the police reply "Nope. Not any more!"

Our government will never turn into a police state as long as the second amendment stays on the books. Believe it or not, it still is, even though democrats try their best to tear that one to shreads.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[ScouseMouse]

>I am sure that's not what our forefathers had in mind.


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Alaska Jack]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759"

Ok, so for the moment let's assume old Ben was right. Now, what about people who give up nonessential liberty to obtain a reasonable amount of nontemporary safety?

I've often thought that Ben's statement was more qualified than is realized by a lot of the people who trot it out.

- Alaska Jack

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[ScouseMouse]

Depends how essential you consider the right not to be arbitrerilly monitored.
The right not to live in a state where the police cannot be realistically questioned is also pretty high on the list of essential rights IMHO.

If this *hadnt* been the verdict, thats the message that would have been sent out. All you have to do is tag the "T" word to the end of any sentence, and you have the authority to what you damn well like.

Yes, your right, however, as IMHO this is not a non-essential right, its an interesting, but irrelevent argument in this case.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[edmicman]

Purely playing Devil's Advocate, but what are you doing? I see lots of jabs at the complacency of Americans, but I don't imagine many lawmakers pour over comments on Slashdot. Does everyone who complains tell their friends, write they senators and representatives, and vote regularly? Or do they merely make anonymous complaints on Internet message boards and blogs?

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[fmaxwell]

Our government will never turn into a police state as long as the second amendment stays on the books. Believe it or not, it still is, even though democrats try their best to tear that one to shreads.

You nut-cases always amaze me with your belief that the federal government is being held in check by rifles, pistols, and shotguns in the homes of good-ole-boys. What good is your Glock, M1 Garand, or Mossberg going to do against a tank? It's like saying that we're safe from muggers so long as we carry our trusty slingshots.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[nasch]

I think the sad part of this story is that the ALCU are the ones standing up for our rights.

I don't understand why you find that sad, or even surprising. All the ACLU does is stand up for our rights. As the Democratic President said in the movie "The American President" after being attacked by a Republican challenger for being an ACLU member, "Why would a Senator... not be a member of an organization whose sole purpose is to protect the Constitution of the United States?" That may not be an exact quote. At any rate, I've never understood why conservatives continue to attack the ACLU when all they want to do is defend everyone's rights. Are conservatives opposed to the Bill of Rights? Are they opposed to the ACLU's tactics or strategies in defending it? If anybody can clue me in, please do - I'm lost.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't considered that most of the military won't fight against the citizens. Everyone in OCS and most enlisted people are asked if they would take arms against the people. The response has been overwhelming "no" unless they are shot at first. If something does happen, much of the hardware at Ft. Hood will be used against the encroaching government. Probably the same with Ft. Bliss and some of the bases around San Antonio. Also, the Texas State Guard would be activated which has access to most of the Texas National Guard facilities. The Texas State Guard is the state militia and can not be federalized unlike the Texas National Guard and Texas Air Guard. There are a couple of other states that have something similar.

BTW, a slingshot can kill. Who really wants to be facing* a drawn slingshot?

*Only applies to 3E. 3.5E eliminated facing. :)

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs most of the military? If the feds control the nuclear forces they will win, most likely without even firing a shot. Unless you have a Texas State Strategic Nuclear Force hidden away somewhere the assets at Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss won't do you much good after they've been flash fried at 3,000,000,000 degrees.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Anonymous Coward]

And I am sure our forefathers had no concept of nuclear weapons, jihads, and electronic communications.

The US Constitution is a quaint document from a simpler time. Technology has rendered it, and the government it describes, irrelevant.

The amount of idealism unfettered by the constraints of reality exhibited by the majority of posters on this site is stupefying.

Rest assured, over the coming years, the idealists will be taught many lessons, each more profound than the last, of the inability their pretty dreams of freedom, rights, democracy and decency have on stopping what is to come.

They are already defeated, but are incapable of ever knowing it.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[FusionDragon2099]

And if the federal government uses nuclear weapons against their own citizens, you can imagine the rest of the world will make sure they won't be next.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[thoth_amon]

I don't mind 50 percent of the people giving up their rights. What pisses me off is when they try to give up my rights.

Re:At least someone is putting up a fight

[Scudsucker]

Ok, so for the moment let's assume old Ben was right. Now, what about people who give up nonessential liberty to obtain a reasonable amount of nontemporary safety?

Okay, want to find some examples of reasonable tradeoffs, because this Administration sure hasn't presented any. They can already spy on susptected terrorists as much as they want under FISA, but they don't even want to bother with getting retroactive warrants 72 hours after the fact. They'll spend hundreds of billions on a bogus war, and yet they'll ban liquids from carry on luggage rather than buy scanners to detect liquid explosives. They say the situation we're in is so bad that they have to conduct searches without warrants, and yet they refuse to stengthen security at ports and chemical plants.

And if something get's past them, they'll just blow it off as being a "local responsibility" a la Katrina, even though they've made security their national "platform" since 2001. The problem with Republicans today are they are complete sissy dicks, like Ross on friends. They are sissies at all the wrong times, and dicks at all the wrong times.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[suggsjc]

It was a woman, not a man, on the bench who issued this order.

Honestly, what does this have to do with anything?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - you have approx. 150 million people in the US stating that they don't trust the govt?

How may Democrats do you know who trust George W. Bush?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

While I agree with the judges ruling, and agree that our rights are more important than our security (my argument is that people died to ensure our rights, and I thank them for it; I'm not willing to give them up for potential security).

However, I've always disagreed with this argument. I use the Mafia example. Let's say the government DOES get a grant to tap a criminal's phone line. Then YOU call him... now YOUR call is being tapped because of who you called. That's the way it works. Otherwise the government has to have permission to tap both parties phones. That's ridiculous.

From what I understand, in this case, the government got international phone numbers that were stored in cell phones they found in Al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan. These are the numbers they were tapping (on the U.S. side, so calls out to and in from these numbers were tapped). If that's the case, I have no problem with it...

Except that they could have gotten warrants and avoided a lot of problems.

Also, the phrase "Domestic Wiretap", in this case, is a blatant mischaracterization of what was being done. The score, in my opinion, is zero-zero...

The administration shouldn't have done it without the easily obtained warrants...
But the media made a much bigger story out of it and mischaracterized what exactly was happening.

They're all a bunch of %$@%$@#@'s.

It has to be asked...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Why does Judge Anna Diggs Taylor hate America so?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[nsayer]

and... where do you get your figures?

He gave figures?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[internic]

This is not true. Where do you pull a figure like that from? Your ass?

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

And yet, you say it's false without presenting any evidence of your own (or perhaps obtaining it from the same region as the GP). I'm not aware of a poll that asks a question like, "Do you trust the current administration?" I think it would be a poor question, because it's too vague to be meaningful. Most of the time, we'd trust people so far in a certain situation; trust is not a binary issue. For example, I trust Bush not to intentionally bring down the USA, but I don't trust him to make accurate statements about intelligence. There are some things we can say, however. We can say that according to polls most people disapprove of the overall job that Bush is doing (see almost any recent presidential approval rating poll), and we can say they're almost evenly split on the question of whether warrentless wiretaps are ok (see, for example, this Newsweek poll). Most of the polls I've seen, but not all, show a slight majority for the opinion that these searches are a bad thing. Perhaps if you're going to attack people for a lack of facts, you should at least try to offer some to support your own claims.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[squiggleslash]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in court about whether he had sex with an intern.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[idontgno]

liberal left coast, dopey, backward "heartland" full of violent, inbred simpletons, and liberal right coast.

So, whatcher sayin', is, that yer movin' to Kansas?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Hogwash McFly]

"US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was found dead in her Detroit home this morning. Police were alerted by neighbors who had heard several gunshots originating from the house. Judge Taylor was found with three gunshot wounds to her back and one to the head. Authorities haved ruled this event as suicide. Officer Ted McReady, the first on the scene, said it was the "clearest-cut case of suicide he'd ever seen in 30 years service"."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[badasscat]

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

Most people in the United States supported slavery too.

The public at large cannot always be trusted to support the moral or ethical side of an issue, nor can they be trusted to maintain logic or consistency in their beliefs. I think it was Ben Franklin that said (paraphrasing now), "Being in the majority means that most people agree with you; it does not mean that you are right."

That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is intended to be a semi-permanent document that does not change with the "whims of the people". It *can* be changed, and in fact it was changed to outlaw slavery once and for all, but it is intentionally difficult to do. And if the Constitution says that this program is against the law of the land, then that's that. Public support is irrelevant.

What I was a bit surprised to read in this ruling was that the judge said the President of the United States had willfully and knowingly broken the Fourth Amendment. That's an impeachable offense; in fact, pretty much the worst kind of impeachable offense. Now, there are a lot of things that people on the other side of the aisle have said Bush could be impeached for, but this is the first time that I know of that we have a legal ruling by a federal judge that documents an actual offense for which the President could be held legally accountable. This federal judge has basically labeled the President a high criminal in a legally binding decision.

The question is, will anything be done about it? I guess we'll know in November. As we've seen, politics matters a lot more than ethics or legality to the current congress.

I just have to ask...

[rthille]

Why do these activist judges hate America?

Re:I just have to ask...

[rthille]

Jeez the Mods are getting bad. Ever heard of sarcasm? Irony? Stephen Colbert?

Wow.

Just f**king wow.

Disconnected dots

[rlp]

Thanks judge - you've just struck a great blow for liberty. I'm sure those folks in the news - you know, the ones buying hundreds of Trac-Phones are extremely grateful too. But don't worry about them. Remember, it's really all about George Bush.

Re:Disconnected dots

[smoor]

I'm still trying to figure out how you blow up a bridge with 1000 Trac phones... It seems like it would be a lot easier to sell them at a profit. Hmmm...

Maybe you wire all the batteries together and short them out? Hmmm...

Would anyone miss being able to get to the U.P. anyway?

Re:Disconnected dots

[edmicman]

But the loss of the U.P.'s tourism industry (especially around Labor Day!) would be devastating to the nation as a whole! Won't somebody think of da children?

Re:Disconnected dots

[fmaxwell]

> Remember, it's really all about George Bush.

No, it's all about the Constitution. It's all about protecting the rights that countless brave Americans fought for and died to protect.

It's about not being cowards who give up our rights and our way of life because we're so scared of the terrorists.

Just how many people would have quoted Patrick Henry had he said "you can take my liberty if it makes me a little safer"?

Re:Disconnected dots

[smoor]

If they were smart they'd go after Cabella's and shut down Michigan's tourism industry once and for all.

da children, da children, It's always da children...

Re:Disconnected dots

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to let a piece of paper get in the way of protecting your children?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

Right.

I'm a republican (in the old meaning of the term) and I absolutely *don't* trust the government. Bush is the worst republican president since Nixon.

still missing the point

[jbeaupre]

I'm a firm believer that warrants are required to listen to conversations. But everyone keeps missing an important clue. Warrants are specified by laws. Laws have loopholes. When the feds say "the Pres has the authority," they are really saying "We're using a loophole." Ok, so prove he has the authority. "Telling you would reveal secrets."

Aha! If the tapping is known, and if traditional tapping methods are well known and covered by law, then this is something else. A method of monitoring communications not widely known and not well covered by law.

All the fury over NSA tapping is mere Jerry Springer hoopla. I'm more curious about what the mystery method is and why it isn't covered by law. Seems that's a much more productive discussion.

Re:still missing the point

[jjohnson]

It's not the mystery method that's covered by a legal loophole. The Bush Administration is arguing that legally, under the 'unitary executive' theory, the president has the authority to ignore the law in cases of national security. It's this argument that the judge slammed the door on when she said that all powers derive from the constitution, so it's not possible to ignore the constitutional protections that are guaranteed, except within the framework of a law passed by Congress that passes constitutional muster.

Re:still missing the point

[jbeaupre]

I believe that was trotted out in addition to other arguments. Standard boilerplate statement kind of thing. Its the other arguments that are more revealing.

Then again maybe I'm confusing this case with instances where they claim that revealing how they are intercepting communications will compromise the interception. In those same instances they also claim that the method is not covered by law and they don't have to go to FISA. Even if I'm confusing monitoring programs, neither smells of ordinary POTS monitoring. Laws were written with POTS in mind. Which brings me back to my point: is there a weakness in our wiretap laws? Fussing over what's happened may not address the root issue.

Re:still missing the point

[jjohnson]

The defendent's lawyers claimed that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case because they had no standing to be aware of the methods. The judge in this case sidestepped the methods question by relying upon public statements of the scope and nature of the unwarranted wiretapping program by the Bush Administration. By doing so she avoided grounds for appealing her decisions on arguments of state secrets principles. Her whole ruling amounts to: The president can't ignore the due process requirements (i.e., the requirement to follow laws by Congress) in executing his duties, and in so ignoring, violated the first amendment rights of the plaintiffs as well.

Re:still missing the point

[lawpoop]

As I understand it, this 'secret wiretapping' isn't really wiretapping at all. Wiretapping has a technical meaning where you tap into an exsting line, but in popular parlance it means listening in on whatever electronic communication is going on.

Anywho, what the Bush administration is apparently secretly doing is collecting the who-called-who-when data of calls to build a social networking chart. The benedit of such charts is that it allows you to detect cell groups just by looking at it -- or with mathematical analysis. The problem that governments have with the cell networks is that they are hard to detect and infiltrate. The members of the cell just know each other and their leader -- no one else. They wouldn't know members of another cell even if they saw them. But, if you have a social networking chart that includes everyone, cell structures almost pop out at you.

In my eyes, the problem with the government having this kind of power is that, if the *wrong people* ever came into power, they could easily decimate any organized resistance, almost overnight. Very effective for maintaining the social order.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

One branch of the U.S. government acts in a sane and rational manner, not to mention appropriate regard for the Constitution.

And that is exactly why that branch is currently under massive attack from the right-wing noise machine for "judicial activisim"...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[nolife]

They think it's about two teams

Who are you refering to as they? The populace and the society as whole is not technically relevent (other then the original vote). Your winning and losing way of thinking is practiced much more by and applies more to the people actively serving as elected officials more then it does to the general populace.

Justice Department != Judicial Branch

[Anonymous Coward]

I got news for you, the Justice Department was the defendant (or at least running the defense). Judges work in the Judical Branch of government. The Justice Department, headed by the Attorney General, is part of the Executive Branch.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

You're absolutely right, and it goes to show you the whole problem with politics as we know it in the U.S. (and probably everywhere)...

It's almost always knee-jerk contrarian politics. Without a thought, you take the opposite position your opponent takes, and try to justify it any way you can. When people try to buck the party line and vote how they really feel, they get stomped on (like Lieberman just did, regardless of how you feel about his position, but it's not limited to one party).

It doesn't matter who makes sense or doesn't make sense, you simply are not allowed to agree with "the enemy."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please tell me when the President or the administion has admitted to doing the wrong thing?

A Real Amurican CowboyMan(tm) has no use for reality! When he's speeding at 90 mph at a brick wall, he doesn't admit he's doing the wrong thing and change course. Hell, no - if he does that the terrists has won! A Real Amurican CowboyMan(tm) conjurs up a mental image of what he done saw in a 'Dukes a Hazzard' episode, puts the pedal to the metal and gives a good ole YEEEEEHHHAAAWWW as the General Lee magically takes to the air and flies over the wall.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

If as you as the wiretapped numbers were domestic phones on the U.S. side, how is that not domestic wiretapping?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[rthille]

not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.

<Joe Blow>What are these 'sums' of which you speak?</Joe Blow>

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[jfengel]

I was interested in your question, so I did some research. The grandparent poster is overstating the case, but there were polls back in December/January that kind of back him up.

The NY Times says, "The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval 'in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.'"

The CS Monitor (reporting on a Zogby poll) says, "Nearly half of likely voters, 49 percent, say Bush has the constitutional powers to approve such a plan".

I don't have more recent figures. The President's popularity is roughly the same now that it was then, though it had risen a bit for a while in the meantime.

Wait till Jr. pulls an Andrew Jackson

[Lead Butthead]

"U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy."

I am concerned that Jr. would pull an Andrew Jackson and DARE the court to enforce its ruling.

Re:Wait till Jr. pulls an Andrew Jackson

[justaguy516]

Wouldn't that put him in contempt of court? Would that allow the court to order his arrest?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[HTH NE1]

and... where do you get your figures?

The Colbert Report?

Re:It's stopped cold until the Solicitor Gen appea

['nother poster]

Oh, I'm encouraged. Don't get me wrong there. I'm just not holding my breath waiting for the final verdict. I look horrible in purple. I will be much more encouraged if the appelate court rules the same way. The number of cases where the supremes go aginst the circuit are much higher than going against the appelate.

The thing I find most encouraging is that this is a turf war, and if the courts rule to protect their oversight turf they also rule to protect americans rights and the checks and balances in the Constitution.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[saskboy]

I think this opens the door for impeaching any Congressmen involved in "approving" this illegal act. Bush admitted that select Congressmen were aware of his program to spy on American phones, and so there is publicly known evidence that he and they were aware and intentionally spying and breaking the Constitution.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[rthille]

Wow, if I hadn't already replied, I'd mod you 'flamebait'.

And 'funny'

And 'insightful'

sigh...

Then from Carter forward, it's unconstitutional.

[postbigbang]

All the more reason to strike down the practice.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[sakasune]

Honestly, what does this have to do with anything?

The use of pronouns apparently...
I believe we've been visited by the grammer nazis

No worries...

[jscotta44]

Clinton is no longer in office. Vince Foster was the last to suffer that unfortunate demise. So I don't think that this judge in an any danger.

Re:No worries...

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, and Bush already used up his three secret presidential kills....Too bad he didn't save one for Osama...

Re:No worries...

[Anonymous Coward]

a) No, I think Clinton knocked off a few other people like Ron Brown after Vince, and

b) How do you know that other people haven't been knocked off, and

c) What about the 100,000+ dead people in Iraq?

Bush is a much worse mass-murderer than Clinton and his small-time shenanigans would ever dream of being.

Re:No worries...

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have forgotten the trumped up war in Bosnia.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[suggsjc]

Not going to state my position, but I would imagine you could get a poll to go either way just by the wording.
For instance, if you asked if you supported "Bush's warrantless, unregulated wiretapping program" then you would probably get less than 50% approval.
However, if you asked if you supported "Anonymous wiretapping to promote US Security" then you would probably get more than 50% approval.

So there are two morals to this story. First, every one has an opinion. Including the survey makers. They can (and in most cases will) skew the questions to achieve the results they really want. Second, statistics are just statistics. Even if 0 or 100% of a poll/survey/whatever said one thing, you should still make up your own mind and vote accordingly.

Again, not going to pick a side, but it should be assumed that the gov't is going to appeal. As with the scenario above, people have different opinions. I'm not saying it was that judges personal agenda to shoot this down, but if it were then there is just as good a chance that the next hearing will have someone with a different view and the ruling will be overturned.

Tell it, brother!

[Travoltus]

We need more people like you, fighting the war on terror from behind the safety of your keyboard. If only all our armed forces would follow your example!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

The problem with your arguement (in my mind) is that you're talking about a wiretap between two US citizens. I'd say that yes, once the mobster's wiretap is approved, its fine to listen to any conversations between the mobster and another US citizen.

My statement was limited purely to the situation which this case addresses; one US citizen, and a foreign national. The Constitution doesn't apply to the person which the state is actually interested in, so tapping them is ok. However, I don't think that excusing the government from needing a warrant at all is a good way to go either, just because one party is outside our juristiction. Its still important to protect the rights of the US citizen, thus a warrant should still be required.

Honestly, a warrant isn't that big of a deal to get, and requiring it in all cases (we WANT to err on the side of individual rights, I'd hope) is not a major hurdle. If the government can't justify a wiretap, it shouldn't be allowed.

Re:Then from Carter forward, it's unconstitutional

[paranode]

Correct. If you read my posts you'd see I was glad...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[voice_of_all_reason]

Sure, I've got nothing to hide

Incorrect. This was on another thread a few days ago: Because there are lots of little things we do every day that break the rules. These include: j-walking, downloading MP3's, subletting without telling your landlord, recording sporting events without express written concent, undocumented domestic help, recreational drug use, stealing cable, logging on to other people's wireless networks, "leaking" company information to your girlfriend, anything besides the missionary position (in many states), cheating on your wife (in many states), rolling stops on empty streets, u-turns in the middle of empty streets, locking your bicycle to the handrailing, lying about your age to get into movies, lying about your age to get senior citizens discounts, lying about your age to avoid getting senior citizens discounts, telling your company that you're "sick" when you really mean you're "sick and tired of this crappy job," not reporting e-bay sales as taxable income, grabbing an extra newspaper when someone else buys one from the machine, putting chairs in the street to save your parking spot, stealing office supplies, stealing the towels, littering, loitering, the office NCAA pool, etc etc. All of these are necessary for the functioning of our society in some way or another, but are illegal. Yet we would go batshit insane without a few personal pet vices.

You ruled out some of these actions already, but I'm positive there's a few you do commit on a regular basis; we all do. Every citizen in the country is a criminal.

Quotes from the decision

[Animats]

The actual decision by the court is worth reading. Some quotes:

• "In this case, the President has acted, undisputedly, as FISA forbids. FISA is the expressed statutory policy of our Congress. The presidential power, therefore, was exercised at its lowest ebb and cannot be sustained."
• "We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution."
• "For all of the reasons outlined above, this court is constrained to grant to Plaintiffs the Partial Summary Judgment requested, and holds that the TSP violates the APA; the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and the statutory law."
• "The Permanent Injunction of the TSP requested by Plaintiffs is granted inasmuch as each of the factors required to be met to sustain such an injunction have undisputedly been met. The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs are violated by the TSP. See Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). The irreparable injury conversely sustained by Defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution and/or statutory law, as amended if necessary. Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution. As Justice Warren wrote in U.S. v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967): Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. . . . It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of . . . those liberties ....Id. at 264.
  IT IS SO ORDERED.
  ANNA DIGGS TAYLOR
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"

Re:Main diff between Clinton and Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is, the right to own guns isn't like most of the other rights, it's merely a means to an end, the end being that it's supposed to help you protect the other rights. Keeping your right to own guns while happily giving away all of your other rights makes the right to own guns totally meaningless. A gun that isn't fired is nothing more than an ornament.

Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[OakDragon]

... but I will not let my fear of losing karma stifle my right to free expression.

I for one believe this particular program is good, necessary, and in line with the Constitution, so it's not a matter of "security vs. freedom" for me. This ruling is just the start of a legal battle that will likely go to the Supreme Court.

I for one do not want to see the program go. We have foiled terroist attacks and cells within the US for 5 years now. How much is due to things like this NSA program, I don't know.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[atarione]

with all due respect that claim is BULLSHIT

there are numerous and not all that especially hard to obtain avenues to getting a warrant if someone is suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The idea the we have to surrender our rights under the 4th Amendment to fears of terror...is offensive and wrong.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[OakDragon]

I know it's an unpopular opinion. I almost didn't post it, but I did not want to feel like I had been intimidated into silence.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[uarch]

For what it's worth I would fire a +1 in your direction if I had any in stock.
Sadly I'm fresh out so all you get is this AC post.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[jthill]

We have foiled terroist attacks and cells within the US for 5 years now.

Absolutely. Just look at all the terrorist invaders in jail!

Oh. No invaders. So sad. Maybe those guys reselling cell phones? Nope. The guys who bought boots? Nope. Enough evidence to charge even one single person? Nope. No evidence of anything at all. But there's an invasion in progress anyway. He says so, and that makes it true.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[krusader]

*Picks up a rock from the ground*

Wanna buy my rock? It prevents tigers from attacking me.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[ArcherB]

there are numerous and not all that especially hard to obtain avenues to getting a warrant if someone is suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. The idea the we have to surrender our rights under the 4th Amendment to fears of terror...is offensive and wrong.

OK, let's say the gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchange to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", "Osama", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. This could be an invaluable tool for the NSA or whoever and would eliminate 99.9999% of the calls to further monitoring, protecting the privacy of the rest of us. Would the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants, or just get the warrants for the KNOWN terrorists and hope we didn't miss anyone.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[Dragonslicer]

I haven't been mauled by any lions recently. It must be those anti-feline laws that are protecting me from otherwise-certain disembowelment.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[yndrd1984]

I for one believe this particular program is ... in line with the Constitution

I'd really like to see your reasoning on that.

How much is due to things like this NSA program, I don't know.

So you don't know how useful it actually is, but it's "necessary"?

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[atarione]

K, let's say the gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchange to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", "Osama", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words.

so you are suggesting that a new type of crime....called "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" should be created??

I do believe I rest my case.... READ THE FUCKING US Constitution .... This OMG TERRORISTS BULLSHIT PISSES ME OFF, American citizens have rights granted to them to protect them from the over reactions of the State, I for one am glad for that.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[slcdb]

I did not want to feel like I had been intimidated into silence

So you're not okay with being intimidated into silence, but you are okay with terrorists intimidating us all into giving up our privacy and liberty?

People who speak out against the NSA's illegal domestic spying program aren't pro-terrorism. They are people who cherish freedom and the rule of law that guarantees that freedom. I understand that for you personally, there is no freedom/security trade off, probably because you couldn't care less if the government spied on your telephone conversations.

But that's not the point. The point is not that the government is spying on us. It's that they are doing it illegally. If the Bush administration had decided to change the Constitution in order to allow them to use these "vital" law enforcement tools, then that would be fine. But they didn't take that route. Instead the chose to circumvent the laws (by bypassing the FISA court).

If they are allowed to simply ignore these laws, what's to prevent them from ignoring other laws? Which laws do they need to ignore before you finally feel like there is a security/freedom tradeoff? And by then, will it be too late for you to act?

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[ArcherB]

so you are suggesting that a new type of crime....called "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" should be created??

I never said that... maybe you should re-read my post. I said a computer data mining calls made overseas for keywords or languages that would make a phone call suspect. How does this translate to "being Muslim whilst in the United States of America" being a crime?

That's the worst strawman arguement I've heard in a long time.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[neonprimetime]

Citizen: Hello NSA? I've know without a doubt that there is an Al Qaeda terrorist living across the street from me. You should really listen in on their converstations so you know when / where they're going to strike! I heard them say something about hitting the government building tomorrow!
NSA: Hmmm, we'll have to get a warrant to do any such thing. Could take a few days.
Citizen: But they will strike tomorrow, and thousands will die!
NSA: Nothing we can do about it, we've go to follow beurocratic procedures so that we aren't accidentally violating an innocent citizen's rights.
Citizen: Well, what am I supposed to do?
NSA: I'd recommend hiding in the basement of your house, gather water and non-perishable foods, and stay there until this issue is resolved.
Citizen: But I want to do something!
NSA: Well, truly, we've got to follow procedure, so we can't help you. My personal recommendation would be to take matters into your own hands, walk over to them, and shoot them. But I can't officially make that recommendation because you'll probably get tried and senteneced to execution for killing a terrorist, cause that's a hate crime.
Citizen: Damn liberals.
NSA: Agreed. All we can hope for is that the terrorists strike wisely, and blow up buildings filled with liberals.
Citizen: Well, they would get what they deserve then.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[atarione]

actually having read you post again.. I may have misread part of it

however not widthstanding the idea that the Gov should blanketly mine phone calls based on speaking Arabic or saying mohammed...etc is still a violation of the 4th Amendment

if the gov is suspicous of some person they already have ample options to obtain wire tap/ warrants there is no need for blanket unlawful wiretaps. The idea that speaking Arabic is in and of itself "suspicous" is offensive... I speak german...(to some degree) if I call my relatives in Germany and tell them about my job and goings on in German is that somehow suspicious????

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[Damvan]

Talk about bullshit. Read up on the FISA law before advocating the slaughter of your fellow Americans ("All we can hope for is that the terrorists strike wisely, and blow up buildings filled with liberals").

The NSA can retroactively seek a warrant. The NSA could immediately wiretap that concerned citizens neighbor and seek a warrant after the fact.

Citizen: Hello NSA? I've know without a doubt that neonprimetime is an Al Qaeda terrorist. You should really listen in on his converstations so you know when / where he's going to strike! I heard him say something about hitting the government building tomorrow!

Hmm, maybe I should make that phone call now, you might feel differently about the actions of the administration then.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[neonprimetime]

Citizen: Hello NSA? I've know without a doubt that neonprimetime is an Al Qaeda terrorist. You should really listen in on his converstations so you know when / where he's going to strike! I heard him say something about hitting the government building tomorrow!
Hmm, maybe I should make that phone call now, you might feel differently about the actions of the administration then.

Not really. If I made those statements, then you should make that call, they should tap in, and they'll then find out wether it's legit or not.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[ArcherB]

however not widthstanding the idea that the Gov should blanketly mine phone calls based on speaking Arabic or saying mohammed...etc is still a violation of the 4th Amendment

Are calls overseas protected under the 4'th? I could see where half the conversation might be, provided that the person on the domestic end is a citizen and provided that we are not suddenly extending Constitutional protections to citizens of the world. This could extend to any spy program we have world wide. What would be the difference between this and say, a special forces member planting a bug on an Al Quaeda member's phone in Afghanistan? What if that terrorist calls someone in the US? Does that soldier need to stop listening and wait for a warrant?

if the gov is suspicous of some person they already have ample options to obtain wire tap/ warrants there is no need for blanket unlawful wiretaps.
The problem is, how do you know who is supsicions? I think calling someone in a cave in Afganistan makes you suspicios. But let's say that call is made on a "pay-as-you-go" phone. By the time you get a warrant to monitor that phone, the "suspect" has already used their free 40 minutes and moved on to another phone (they are buying them by the thousands) and now the NSA needs another warrant. (wash, rinse and repeat) Now if the NSA could get a warrant to listen to any call made to that cave in Afghanistan, domestic or not, that would be OK, but I don't think it works that way. They need a warrant for every phone tapped in the US, regardless of where teh call is made.

The idea that speaking Arabic is in and of itself "suspicous" is offensive... I speak german...(to some degree) if I call my relatives in Germany and tell them about my job and goings on in German is that somehow suspicious????
Fortunately, I don't think you need to worry as few terrorist attacks are coming from Deutchlandt. :-) Now if we were still dealing with the DDR...

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[jjohnson]

What part of "72 hours to retroactively obtain a warrant" don't you understand?

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have foiled terroist attacks and cells within the US for 5 years now. How much is due to things like this NSA program, I don't know.

Exactly -- you don't know. They don't have to prove anything they say. They could tell you they've saved you from a thousand plots that were directed at you personally and you'd have no way of knowing they were lying. But you'd feel even better about their work, right?

What, then, if you were to find these guys never did anything but sit in a room and play bridge and peruse porn? But you'll never know anything for certain, will you?

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[Petrushka]

... but not very AC.

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[Xyrus]

You believe the program is necessary because you, like so many in this country, have become a sniveling coward who doesn't deserve the rights our founding fathers enshrined in the Constitution.

They were faced with a superior enemy, with superior forces, and they did not cower. They did not send a letter to the King of England saying "We're very sorry, we'll never do it again".

But here in the modern day, when terrorist strike, people like you cringe in fear and are more than willing to give up privacy and freedom so that you can have a false sense of security backed by the spin and propaganda machine.

The true patriots of this country do not cower. The true patriots of this country are willing to die for their freedoms.

You sir, are no patriot.

~X~

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[Damvan]

My point was, that regardless of whether or not you made those statements, I could still make the call. Do you think that the NSA should be wiretapping people simply because they received a call like that?

Re:Ready to modded 'Troll' again...

[neonprimetime]

Do you think that the NSA should be wiretapping people simply because they received a call like that?

And my response is yes. If the NSA deems your call credible and my statement an immediate threat, they should tap right away so that they can immediately begin saving lives / preventing death of the innocent.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Poppler]

Slashdot, the most left-wing computer-related website in the world!

Nah, Steve Ballmar tells me that this site is a real bastion of communism.

Re: When you assume

[langelgjm]

"He'll"? From the article:

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

When you assume....

In other news, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (formerly Andrew Diggs Taylor) commented on the media's frequent mischaracterization of him as female, even though he is merely one of several transvestite judges in the state's district court.

And now, Stephen Colbert style, it's true! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Diggs_Taylor

Just kidding.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[LookoutforChris]

Good post. One thing I'd like to add regarding the NSA skipping FISA warrants: they're probably skipping out because they'd need to ask for 300 million warrants, and that's a lot of paperwork.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

violates the rights to free speech and privacy

Privacy I can understand, but it's not like they're stopping you from freely speaking. They're just listening while you talk.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[sgt_doom]

Oh no, that never happens with the US government. After all, look at all those guys surrounding former CIA director Porter Goss? Whoops, wrong example. One assistant committed suicide, another one's under indictment...too soon to know about the disposition of the other several.....

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[spun]

More like thirty two hammer blows to the head.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[buswolley]

Look. The White House knows that all their illegal activity may get them in trouble if the house and senate goes to the democrats. This is why they are pro-actively insulating themselves with legal manipulations. For example, reports http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/sp ecial_packages/iraq/15246142.htm :

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.

They know the shit can hit the fan for them. Actually, it gives me hope: The executive branch is still afraid of something..

There is hope.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[buswolley]

Oh yeah.. Keyword was retroactive

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Bogtha]

The NY Times says, "The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval 'in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.'"

Yes, but the NY Times doesn't say that they approved of Mr. Bush's authorising eavesdropping with no court approval at all. The 53% includes the Americans that believe retroactive warrants are acceptable but warrantless spying is not.

When did "eavesdropping" become the politically correct euphemism for spying, anyway?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[WarmBoota]

Most *implies* > 50%......perhaps we need a slashdot poll to end the contreversy? Do you trust the current administration? Do you trust the Government?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[IAmTheDave]

Here are some round figures. It's absolutely amazing to me that so many people actually support warrantless taps. That's why this country will eventually decend into some totalitarian government reign - because the people don't really have any will to stop it - rather they accept it.

Still can't get me head 'round that one...

No teeth claim

[MonGuSE]

Since alot of people claim that the judge has no ability to enforce this decision I would say she does. The courts have control of the capitol police directly and I believe they can instruct local and state police to enforce their decisions although the seperation between whom has ultimate say when governors and mayors are involved I'm not sure. Regardless a bench warant or summons for those that violate her order could be issued and failure to comply or show up coud result in them most likely being held in contempt of court. Bush may control the NSA, FBI, CIA and the standing army but aside from the FBI none of them are allowed to intervene within the US. I also belive that after the anti segregation ruling in the 40's? a federal judge ordered the states national guarge and state police escort the bussed children to school. I'm pretty sure if need be the judge has some teeth. No one is going to go against a federal judge maybe a state or local judge but federal is a whole different ball game. The most likely course of action is a stay request tomorrow in a higher circuit pending appeal and an appeal of the ruling directly to scotus.

Re:No teeth claim

[surprise_audit]

OK, I think you've given adequate proof that the judge has the ability to enforce her decision. The next question is, how does she find out that secret, warrantless wiretaps are still taking place, in order to take action??

Re:UnderReported?

[tmassa99]

mysql://root:@localhost/underrepogc failed to connectCan't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (61) Holy Crap! Now that is news! :P~~

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[sgt_doom]

Also, and even more pertinent, the government -- with complete information access which it now enjoys -- can expertly weave a fictional story/bio around anyone, destroying someone's reputation (or illegally sending someone to jail, as both the FBI and various local police have done more than a few times in the past).

While I've never done anything wrong, I am aware of many wrongs practised against the citizenry by the government, e.g., the Commerce Department - using taxpayers' funds - to travel around America giving seminars to Fortune 1000 corporations on how to smoothly and conveniently lay off American workers and offshore their jobs (with the ones doing the best rewarded by the Import-Export Bank). This is also done at the local level by various Chamber of Commerces. Anyone not aware of this by this time (it has been going on for 6 years now) please don't bother to post.....

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[clydemaxwell]

The thought being that, if you know you're being listened to, you won't say something that will upset. It's an intimidation of free speech.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[illumin8]

From what I understand, in this case, the government got international phone numbers that were stored in cell phones they found in Al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan. These are the numbers they were tapping (on the U.S. side, so calls out to and in from these numbers were tapped). If that's the case, I have no problem with it...

Not true. The government admitted to tapping all phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country. Not only that, they were tapping the phone calls of foreign countries that just happened to pass through a US exchange. While they may have a right to tap calls with two foreign end-points, without probable cause, they never had a right to tap the phone calls of any American citizens without a warrant or probable cause, which is what they were doing here.

Also, the phrase "Domestic Wiretap", in this case, is a blatant mischaracterization of what was being done.

The phrase "domestic wiretap" is exactly what they were doing here.

Re:Reminds me of an old Russian joke

[vertinox]

From Wikipedia (keep in cultural context that before the collapse of the Soviet Union that when you got a hotel room you often shared it with other people you didn't know)

A hotel. A room for four with four strangers. Three of them soon open a bottle of vodka and proceed to get acquainted, then drunk, then noisy, singing and telling political jokes. The fourth one desperately tries to get some sleep; finally, frustrated, he surreptitiously leaves the room, goes downstairs, and asks the lady concierge to bring tea to Room 67 in ten minutes. Then he returns and joins the party. Five minutes later, he bends over an ashtray and says with utter nonchalance: "Comrade Major, some tea to Room 67, please." In a few minutes, there's a knock at the door, and in comes the lady concierge with a tea tray. The room falls silent; the party dies a sudden death, and the conspirator finally gets to sleep. The next morning he wakes up alone in the room. Surprised, he runs downstairs and asks the concierge where his neighbors had gone. "Oh, the KGB has arrested them!" she answers. "B-but... but what about me?" asks the guy in terror. "Oh, well, they decided to let you go. You made Comrade Major laugh a lot with your tea joke."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[herbiesdad]

Again, the law degree comes in handy. I think you misunderstood the government argument. The President has express constitutional powers allowing him to handle foreign matters and matters of national security. This power has been construed broadly, and there's quite a lot of caselaw giving the President some latitute in this area--in support of the express constitutional power. The monitoring of foreign calls coming to the USA is arguably well within the sweet spot of these powers. The government argument regarding state secrets should not be sluffed off too quickly either. A federal judge is not necessarily cleared to hear all state secrets just because of her position. There's also no indication this was a secure courtroom or otherwise closed to spectators. There really is some merit to a government's/military's having secrets. It's also not a coincidence where this suit was filed; it's a clear case of forum shopping. I read the entire opinion and I suspect the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse or refine this ruling. Also, from what I've read previously on /., the way NSA "wiretapping" (I think it's a really poor word choice for this activity) occurrs in this context is by very rapidly scanning segments of conversations for voice recognition and other forms of identification ON THE FLY. And herein lies the problem. If the NSA monitors calls in realtime, there is no time to get warrants before the calls are completed. They may be able to get anticipatory warrants on US numbers, but I'm not sure they could get open warrants for calls coming in from a region of Pakistan where they don't know in advance the US recipient. It's actually a VERY difficult legal and organizational problem. By the way, I haven't heard of any identifiable, individual Ammerican who was subject to this wiretapping.

Most people supported slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that? First, I doubt theres anyone in this country who is at least 150 years old and lived during that time. Second, how would you know who supported slavery? Only the rich land owners could afford them and I doubt they took polls so who can you say "most people" back then supported it?

Oh that's right - all white people in America are evil. I almost forgot!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[icensnow]

If you look at the actual Bush/Kerry geography, particularly those done in purple shades, such as http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/, the idea that the coasts are all that liberal and that the interior is all right-wing breaks down pretty quickly.

Quick! Raise the Alert level!

[Wind_Walker]

I predict that we will soon have another terrorist attack, or warnings of an attack which will cause the National Threat Level to be raised. See here.

Of Course It Is

[faqmaster]

Of course it's unconstitutional. This is akin to the judge ruling that the sky is blue and grass is green and water is wet.

Re:Of Course It Is

[ArcherB]

Of course it's unconstitutional. This is akin to the judge ruling that the sky is blue and grass is green and water is wet.
I'm sure I'll be called a troll for this... but where is the word privacy in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.

In other words, it is not as clear cut as you make it seem. Any "Constitutional" reference to privacy is based on a judge's opinion back when the Feds tapped a mobsters phone. That's what your right to privacy is based on, an opinion, not the Constitution.

Re:Of Course It Is

[The Master Control P]

The only reason that "Privacy" isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is because in 1791 the only thing needed to assure privacy was a walk into the middle of a field and a quiet voice.

If the founders had known that someday it would be possible for the government to tap absolutely any phone or verbal conversation (including one behind closed doors and windows) without the subjects knowing (unless they were tipped off), do you think they'd have left it out of the Constitution?

Future administrations- consider school vouchers

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument about a future administration is the same one I have made for a number of other issues- most commonly for school vouchers. Just how many people supporting them now would still support them if the majority of the money were going to hindu or buddhist or muslim (non-radical) schools? The answer is probably pretty damned low.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

Again, you are confusing three separate programs:

1) International-domestic warrantles wiretaps: this is what the Judge ruled illegal in today's story. It actually is not an unreasonable program because it targets 'known' terrorist numbers (more or less).

2) Blanket domestic-domestic warrantles wiretaps: cellular carriers such as AT&T voluntarily giving up the data to the NSA. This program taps EVERYONE who uses the carriers' networks. This is a giant fishing expedition, but the courts are actually O.K. with this one (go figure).

3) Phone and bank record collection: does not apparently store the content of conversations, just the dates, times, durations, and phone #'s

4) Who knows?

In all probability, warrants would easily be issued for 1), but definitely not for 2). The public is sympathetic to 1), but not to 2), hence you have a huge amount of obfuscation on the Admin's part: trying to lament exposure of 1) while drawing attention from 2).

will have zero affect on behavior

[wardk]

the Constitution is "just a piece of paper", so why would this activity stop just because it's been declared "officially" illegal.

I have no faith this will be discontinued, especially since they can just continue to contest the decision forever and ever.

Re:will have zero affect on behavior

[Fuzzums]

Isn't is great. A goventment should be there for the people, but I doubt people really want this. But still it happens.

What can you do? Revolution? You'll be labled 'terrorist' and get a free holiday in Cuba. Wait for the next election and hope/pray things will be different?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes weeks/months to produce the paperwork necessary for a FISA warrant. It's not something you can "do the next day."

Taylor is a long-standing member of the NLG. Perhaps you remember another of their members, convicted terrorist Lynne Stewart.

There is one reason, and one reason only that "violation" of the 4th amendment was mentioned. John Conyers. Who also, btw, is based in Detroit. Coincidence? Not likely....

This will be overturned, as the program is not illegal.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[debrain]

This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately." End of controversy, they can still listen in on suspects, it's still done without revealing state secrets.

Warrants are through a public schema. I can think of two big reasons not to want the existence of monitoring made public:
    1. it tips off the bad guys to their being monitored and they respond with counter-surveillance, and
    2. unsavoury corporate or political espionage, notably when designed to subvert competition in either area

The prior is legitimate, but could maybe be appeased with a time-delay on making the warrant public. The latter is not a proper exercise of executive authority in a democratic nation, in my humble but correct opinion. :-)

In either case, there are reasons to want warrantless spying by the government on its own citizens, though they don't seem to be good ones. But the incentive is there.

Re:Serious blow

[Anonymous Coward]

"And only those who scream "violation of privacy" are the ones NSA should investigate."

Now that's the stupidest reason I've ever heard to wiretap someone.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[DarkDragonVKQ]

Even if your wrong. It doesn't change this thing I'm about to say. People are sheep. The majority of people out there are sheep. It's why the Nazis existed and why some people were oblivious to what happened till after. And now everytime there's a terrorist attack people will willingly give up whatever just to be safe.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

...the one targeting international calls has the least privacy impact...

While it may have impacted less people, those who were impacted were impacted more severely because the conversations were actually recorded rather than just the destination and length of call.

...and the most potential to garner actionable intelligence and protect the American public,...

If any of the programs had any real potential to gather actionable intelligence the government could have just gotten warrents. Without really knowing much about the any of the programs it's hard to say which, if any, have the greatest chance of success.

Having said that, this program perpetuates to the stereotype that it's the foreigners who are the bad guys so it may well have the least opposition from the American public.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[CheeseTroll]

Yee-haw, bring it on! Us dopey, backward, inbred, simpleton Chicago natives are gonna kick some ultraliberal South Carolinan ass!

Seriously, though - I trust that you're joking, but you should probably get out more.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mausmalone]

What I was a bit surprised to read in this ruling was that the judge said the President of the United States had willfully and knowingly broken the Fourth Amendment. That's an impeachable offense ...

But with Bush, what isn't?

(rimshot)

Thank you folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people in the United States supported slavery too.

That was modded +4 Insightful?

Yes, it's a long post and there may be valid points. Sadly after reading that idiotic comment I stopped reading everything else from the parent so I'll never know.

Don't bother replying with "sticking your head in the sand" etc etc... If you think that you've already missed the point.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Nice misinformation. The amendments would not retroactively protect policymakers -- it seeks to protect the people who implement the policy -- i.e., those following orders. Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

ITYM the public apology he made for the whole Lewinsky affair, unless your head is too far up Rush Limbaugh's a**hole.

I predict . . .

[j1mc]

that the government won't try to appeal this ruling, but will just turn to getting their personal information on the U.S. populace from AOL's research group. ;-)

So the Facists win

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Explodeydopes win another one via proxy. Awesome... dickhead commie ACLU

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

Your reasoning: Well, it's not like IRS is stopping you from freely cheating on your tax returns.

It's just that if they catch you doing something they don't like it might cost you your freedom.

Say the wrong thing, and 20 years later, depending on who's in power, and you might just end up at a 'Freedom' Camp (a la "Arbeit macht frei").

I trust Bush, but I cannot blindly trust every future president having access to my records.

Classic good news/bad news.

[gettingbraver]

Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the ACLU over data-mining of phone records by the NSA. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation could jeopardize state secrets.

There's still a ways to go on this one.

What's really unconstitutional is...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the TFA:
  A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

From the Constitution, Article 2 Section 2:
  The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,...

Whatever you think of Bush and the WOT, the intercepts are an intelligence activity ordered
by the President during time of war. If its a violation of the 4th Amendment, then a
defendant in a criminal case that uses the intercepts as evidence can move for their exclusion
under the exclusionary rule. Fine, I would support that. But that's not what the Judge here
has done; she seeks to veto an order given by the CiC on the gathering of wartime
intelligence. Now _that's_ unconstitutional.

NokX is working for Al Qaeda.

[Anonymous Coward]

The true damage to our country from 9/11 is that people like YOU who probably used to be reasonable well adjusted Americans, now think that warantless wiretapping is an acceptable practice. America is great because it is free, not because we are "safe" from terrorists.

If "leftists" are the only people brave enough to fight for freedom in the face of terrorism, then this conservative now considers himself a proud "leftist".

only problem with this is the R's have more guns!

[daninaustin]

You really don't know what you are talking about. The US isn't anywhere close to a civil war. The east and west coast liberals would never let it come to war since all of us "inbred simpletons" have most of the guns.

BTW, it sure sounds like you have never been to the "dopey, backward heartland".

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

Yeah yeah, I understand that whole thing. I'm just being needlessly strict in my use of the words. Which quite frankly, I'd hope judges would be in their rulings. If the judge had said "potentially violates the principles of free speech through intimidation", I never would have posted what I posted.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Princeofcups]

> Now's it's back to 50-50. There's gonna be a civil war
> in the U.S., sooner or later, and it will come out as three
> nations: liberal left coast, dopey, backward "heartland"
> full of violent, inbred simpletons, and liberal right coast.

Let's see. Central has Illinois and Minnosota, amongst other blue states. Right coast has North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Geb Bush land Florida. If you are calling South Carolina liberal, then I need some of what you're smoking.

jfs

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you put them there.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Kadin2048]

The people who care about their privacy are already using encryption or other systems to protect their privacy (like face to face meetings).

The rest of the population just doesn't give a damn. Not valuing their privacy, they don't see it as a tradeoff at all, just an increase in their personal security at no particular cost.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

I thought we already said that 'just following orders' does not excuse human rights violations?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[noidentity]

They've picked a side, not realising that politics is not a zero-sum game.

I think "zero" pretty much sums up politics.

Big Surprise...

[simpleGeekMan]

This ruling shouldn't come as a surprise. The ACLU is notorious for filing suits in courts that will likely decide (based on previous decisions by a court on similar cases) in their favor. As such, I would be surprised if this decision wasn't expected by even the government. The real battle will be in the appeals process.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[heinousjay]

The parallel you attempted to draw is uneven. It's intellectually dishonest to compare the government listening to someone speaking freely to the IRS enforce those laws it is charge to enforce. It is a blatant attempt to introduce an emotional element into a reasonable discussion, and as such, is bankrupt of validity.

Actually...

[ukemike]

Recently the Supreme Court has made several rulings about prisoner detention in guantanamo and torture that firmly establish that the administration violated the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions. These offences would easily rise to the level of a "high crime" and are impeachable.
The congress unfortunately is utterly corrupt and has failed for 6 years to meet it's oversight responsibilities. There is zero chance that the current congress will impeach. Vote and pray for the Democrats in 2006. Then there will be a small but real chance that the Criminal in Chief will be held accountable for his may crimes.

someone you don't like will eventually be in charg

[dpilot]

Change of administration presumes free and fair elections. While I won't state it as a foregone conclusion, there is sufficient evidence to call into question both the 2000 and 2004 (As well as 1960, on the other foot.) elections.

In 2000 chads were a diversion. The real issue was the false classification of some 30,000-50,000 blacks as felons, denying them the right to vote. Perhaps the whole chad thing left what looked like a close vote, but the race wasn't really close at all. 30,000-50,000 falsly denied black votes in a region which votes predominately Democratic overwhelms the chad issue.

In 2004 black precincts were given insufficient numbers of voting machines. Between making it to work, and the long lines after work, many were unable to vote. I haven't heard figures on the magnitude of the problem, just that it existed.

Then there's the Canton, OH company, Diebold. Perhaps it was a restricted audience when he said it, but an executive of a company that makes voting machines should NEVER shoot of his mouth about, "delivering Ohio's electoral votes to George W. Bush," in ANY audience.

I will vote in both 2006 and 2008 elections.
But I don't have a lot of faith in them.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

Suspecting you that you are being monitored will likely lead you to censor yourself so yes, it is a free speech thing. Its also a freedom of the press issue, because the informants (those outside the US, which have something to say which we want to hear) will stop informing, if they believe they are being monitored.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArcherB]

They can still listen in on specific suspects, NOT on the entire population/subscribers to an ISP.

Provided you know who the specific suspects are, of course. Unfortunately, according to the ACLU, you are not a suspect until you blow yourself up in a crowded plane or market.

That was quick!

[tmassa99]

http://www.cnn.com/

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional.

Unanswered issue of FISA

[Tired_Blood]

FISA? You mean, US Code Title 50: Chapter 36?

The judge here deemed the program unconstitutional. You're pointing out something different: that the program violates FISA.

So, let's see what criminal sanctions exist for violating FISA. Up to five years per offense? Interesting.

Re:Unanswered issue of FISA

[2short]

Actually, the judge found that the program violated:

-The Constitutional Seperation of Powers
-The First Amendment
-The Fourth Amendment
-FISA
-Title III (IIRC; but, in any case, the law covering surveience not covered by FISA)
-And just for good measure, English Common Law

Refuting every single one of these will be difficult; expect appeals to focus on the State secrets priveledge or standing issues. The Judge shut the door pretty hard on the state secrets front, so I'm thinking the Administration will push on standing. Which is an awfully weasely argument, but I don't suppose that will stop them.

Re:Unanswered issue of FISA

[Tired_Blood]

You are right that FISA was included. I was commenting after reading only a few summaries and didn't see it mentioned. Thanks for providing a more complete one.

They'll fight this every way they can because this looks like the initial phase for impeachment. The Constitution does not provide punitive measures against individuals violating it, but the laws written by Congress often do include such measures. So the Judicial branch can use the FISA sanctions to compell those individuals to offer evidence which can then be used in impeachment proceedings (to address the actual Constitutional violations).

The current Congress may not be interested in holding impeachment hearings, but mid-term elections are still three months away. If more politicians recognize this (and with more politicians distancing themselves from this administration), debates could get very interesting.

OK, libs.. enjoy it while you can

[daninaustin]

You know full well that this decision isn't going to last. This case isnt' about listening to domestic conversations. It's about listening to calls to or from foreigners who are suspected of being terrorists. In the very unlikely event that the courts don't agree you can bet that congress will authorize exactly what they are doing.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[JGuru42]

True, but even though I liked President Clinton way more than President Bush it still felt to me like he was forced into apologizing. It would have been so much easier had he either told the truth to begin with or said it was none of the nations business.

Polls are irrelevant

[mclaincausey]

Polls are irrelevant wrt the wiretapping policy for a couple of reasons. One is that the questions and sampling often bias the results. The second, and more important reason, is that public opinion is a bad way of determining policy. If polling is conducted responsibly, it is a valuable tool for measuring public opinion, and nothing more.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

The point I am making is that you have no knowledge of what laws will be in place years from now, and how these will apply to the conversations recorded today.

Not trying to invoke Goodwin here, but, in 1920's Germany it was not illegal to identify oneself as a Jew. Guess what a democratically elected Hitler did with those records some years later? Imagine in 2012 'we' elect an Ultra-left pinko that sends people like you and me to jail for supporting capitalism...

Even today, are you absolutely certain how your data are being used? The 'whistleblowers' are known to be currently targeted with these wiretaps.

As Andrew Jackson put it...

[plopez]

"Now let's see them enforce it." (In regards to the Cherokee genocide the supreme court ruled against in the 1800's)

And there is still an appeal possible. Anyone want to bet which way a 5-4 supreme court split would go? And which side Alito would vote on?

The EFF's domestic case is *ongoing*

[geekotourist]

Today's ruling quoted from Judge Walker's ruling in the EFF lawsuit. The EFF lawsuit is still going strong : they filed in January, and Judge Walker ruled against an automatic State Secrets dismissal.

wrong pronoun.

[Anonymous Coward]

that, and the theory of Dubya just killing the judge gets very complicated when it's a woman judge. If a guy turns up floating in a river that's one thing. When it's a woman, a manhunt and publicity blitz is guaranteed. A woman judge? Someone is definitely going down twice over for that.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[lawpoop]

Jailing someone, or killing someone and taking credit for it, would create a martyr. The country would rise up against the people who perpetrated this travesty. A judge would wait in jail, looking like a political prisoner, while the whole world protests.

However, if you really want judges to fall in line, simply suicide one of them. Anyone who says they were murdered is a conspiracy nut. Meanwhile, all the other judges will get the message. If you decide to buck the system, your death will be assured and meaningless.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

There's no amendment that I'm aware of that ensures your right to cheat on your tax returns, so your analogy is flawed.

I totally understand where wiretapping "innocent" people is a Bad Thing, in principle. It definitely violates "privacy" (although we could still debate whether you can actually expect privacy over public lines to foreign countries- I might not be so quick to assume you can). But there is absolutely nothing here stopping you from talking about whatever you want. If you're talking about illegal stuff, then yeah, the government will bust you for it, and should, just as the IRS is within their rights to bust you for income tax evasion, and should.

If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right? And if they're not talking about such things, then you're not going to have the government busting you for anything. I'd be a lot more worried about the government passing laws making more things illegal than the government checking to see that existing laws are being followed. When you see laws showing up that makes things illegal retroactively, or makes additional kinds of speech illegal (political crime), that's a problem. We aren't really there yet, and I expect we won't be in my lifetime.

You may trust Bush, others may not, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not illegal stuff is going on right now over the telephone under existing laws. This is a country of laws, not leaders. Nixon was proof of that.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mclaincausey]

Polls are measures of public opinion. They can easily be biased by sampling and slanted questions.

Public opinion is a bad way of determining policy. Therefore, polls should not determine whether the wiretapping program is allowed to continue as-is.

Where did you pull the assertion that the wiretapping program was a "peaceful attempt at security?" Your ass? I haven't seen any substantiation that it is anything but a power grab. I haven't heard of any terrorists nabbed through the program, and I haven't heard a single justification for using this program in lieu of the FISA court's oversight. You should hold your freedoms in higher regard.

Will the judge impound NSA's computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but there is now one federal judge who will now probably get followed around a lot by black Suburbans and Crown Vics with deep tinted windows and US federal licence plates, full of big, suit wearing guys with shiny sunglasses and stonelike, emotionless expresssions on their faces and earpiece wires dissappearing down their suitcoats... and get lots of anonymous silent hangup phonecalls in the wee hours of the mornings, and her postal mail showing up many days late with evidence of having been opened and sloppily resealed.

Finally Detroit does something that doesn't suck

[tacocat]

First Detroit was the Murder Capital of the Nation. Thank you Washington DC for relinquishing us of that.

Then Detroit is identified as the fattest city in the fattest state of the fattest nation on the planet. We still hold that title.

About the same time Detroit was identified as one of the top 3 (or 5?) most congested cities in the country. Thanks you Big Three Automotive for that one -- we couldn't do it without the abundance of SUV's on the road.

Recently Detroit was identified as the third most angry city. No surprises if you live here.

And just when it was starting to look bleak for the city of Detroit, we have a judge who actually conducts themselves in such a way as to give hope.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[buswolley]

If misinformation, then it is misinformation that was published in hundreds of newspapers.

From the WashingtonPost article:

The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.

Do officials actually do the torture, or do they give commands? Ahh.. Furthermore, if a president ordered such an act, wouldn't this amendment absolve him?

From the article I originally posted, the lawyer that leaked this information to the press had this to say about the amendment he helped to draft:

Interrogation practices "follow from policies that were formed at the highest levels of the administration," said a fourth attorney, Scott Horton, who has followed detainee issues closely. "The administration is trying to insulate policymakers under the War Crimes Act."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

If the laws of the future are retroactive, that's a far bigger problem then the data collected today.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Alaska Jack]

"The government admitted to tapping all [my emphasis] phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country."

Huh? Where do you get this? Even the judge's opinion striking down the program had this to say:

It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.

- Alaska Jack

Eugene Volokh

[JonBuck]

Eugene Volokh has a number of posts over on his group blog on this ruling:

http://www.volokh.com/

And yes, he IS a laywer.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[burner]

Wow. What a terrible poll. Love the double negative: "No, the practice is not unconstitutional."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[x2A]

"The phrase "domestic wiretap" is exactly what they were doing here"

Is a domestic flight not one that has both end-points in the US? If only one end-point is in the US, it's not considered a domestic flight, right?

I think this is the view taken on domestic phone calls; both end-points of the call are within the US. If one isn't, then it's an internation, not domestic call. As the wiretap's on the call, it's therefore an international wiretap.

It's down to common terminology and usage of language, what one term implies over another.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point.

No, no, no. You just don't get it. The point of almost everything this White House has done is to ensure a perpetual Republican majority and infinite Republican control of the three branches. Everyone's arguing over whether they're committing a foul, while they're changing the rules of the game.

And that's why the Republic is in trouble.

Re:OK, libs.. enjoy it while you can

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an ignorant turd.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[MCraigW]

Do either of you have credible references telling us exactly what the U.S. Government is doing with regards to wire tapping?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Yunzil]

The President has express constitutional powers allowing him to handle foreign matters and matters of national security.

I keep seeing this, but I have a copy of the Constitution right here, and I can't see anything in there about foreign matters (except "he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers") or national security. Can you cite the appropriate section?

Re:Main diff between Clinton and Bush

[Mister Whirly]

Nope - good old Bush concentrated on real issues, like stopping gays from getting married...

One word for that guy..... Strategery...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

I would far prefer the government to get a warrant for such things. The special court set up to hear these cases is essentially a rubber-stamp anyway. But I'm not ready to declare this thing a violation of free speech, by the strictest of definitions. Violation of privacy, sure, but who ever said you are guarenteed privacy communicating on public lines to a foreign country?

Re:Serious blow

[Apocalypse111]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
-Benjamin Franklin

A single federal judge is easily over-ruled... HA

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, this judge is from Michigan... Dearborn MI is like the breeding ground of Islamists in America. It would be like a San Francisco judge ruling to impeach Bush. DUHHH... can we say "Appeal"? Don't blow your load just yet, slashdot...

Wired.com writeup

[jvj24601]

Slightly more details at http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71610-0.html. ..

The wiretapping "violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III (of the Constitution)," according to Taylor's injunction.

I'm Feeding the Troll

[paladinwannabe2]

Who are we at war with, exactly? Iraq? Afganistan? Lebanon? No, we're at war with "Terror"- a war which will never end as long as there are people willing to kill innocents to make a statement. Does this give the President unlimited Authority? Also, the President in is charge of the Army and Navy, yes, but is the Army wiretapping your house? Is the Navy Monitoring you Internet connection? Even if they were, if the president told the Army to go to your mother's house and throw grenades into the basement until you stopped posting on Slashdot, would that be legal?

I would like to think you are being sarcastic and not a moron- but if so, you really need to work on your delivery.

"...the rights to free speech and privacy."

[NotQuiteReal]

Judge Taylor says ...violates the rights to free speech and privacy

Searching the consitution...

Free Speech - Check.
Privacy... searching... hmmm.

<tinfoil_hat> Just wait - when a supreme court rules you don't have privacy, what other famous cases based on privacy will fall? </tinfoil_hat>

BTW - here is a reasoned argument on why there is such a right.

Re:"...the rights to free speech and privacy."

[dlapine]

It's pretty simple- the constitution reserves all rights to the people or States, save those which are carefully delegated to the federal government. Amendment X specifically states this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The bill of rights is not an exhaustive list- it's just a of rights which the founders thought were worth mentioning specifically. You have a right to privacy by default- at least, a right that the federal government may not abridge.

Re:"...the rights to free speech and privacy."

[evilviper]

Privacy... searching... hmmm.

Privacy is VERY explicitly listed in The Bill of Rights, and anyone who says otherwise has little or no understanding of it.

Privacy is nothing more than people being: "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches"

Re:"...the rights to free speech and privacy."

[Xyrus]

As I'm sure will pointed out at least a half-dozen times...

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government, not the people. Those rights and powers that are not explicitly given to the government, belong to the states and the people. In fact, that's what the 10th ammendment says.

~X~

From front page of CNN.com, 8/17 1428 CT

[daveschroeder]

"Developing story: The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will appeal a federal judge's ruling that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Riverman2]

What the hell? This isn't insightful. And look, I've been squelched. Typical.

Slavery was only popular amongs rich land owners in the south. Most people in the north, and, unless you count slaves as 3/5ths of a human being, most people in the south didn't support slavery. If your saying at SOME POINT most people supported slavery, well, where are the polls to back that claim up?

The president's duty encompasses the WHOLE of the constitution, not just the parts you want to identify (and then one that isn't even in the constitution, the "right" to privacy). Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do I have to repeat that over and over? He's protecting lives here. How do you think they caught these British terrorists, luck? They were spying on them! They had infiltrated their "secret" organization!

Insightful, pfffffft. We're done here. Your liberal friends want to silence me. Bye.

The coasters will just stop paying taxes.

[FatSean]

Nearly all the fly-over states operate at a deficit...they get more money from the Federal gov't than they contribute. WHen the welfare-check goes away and people start dying...it'll be hard for them to fight.

Besides, 'liberals' have guns too.

I know I do!

Interesting quote from the Judge

[acoustix]

This quote: "which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy" does't make any sense to me. First, no one is being stripped of their rights to free speech. Second, I am not aware of any law that guarantees a right to privacy.

I agree that we need to hold the government accountable for its actions. But we also need to make sure that we don't restrict the government's ability to protect the country.

Nick

Re:Interesting quote from the Judge

[patchvonbraun]

This quote: "which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy" does't make any sense to me. First, no one is being stripped of their rights to free speech. Second, I am not aware of any law that guarantees a right to privacy.

I can but quote from the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To me, that provides guarantees of privacy, except in certain clearly-defined-by-constitution circumstances

I'm just slightly half-way through the full opinion--it's a good read. In it the judge clearly establishes a link between violation of fourth amendment rights, and violation of first amendment rights, citing case law going back to 1765. I find the logic sound, but perhaps I would be accused of feeble-mindedness, I dunno.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

I wonder how long before the Judge is found dead, "of apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds"?

Why would the Conspiracy have to kill this Judge?

Since it's obviously okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Constitutional, it follows that it's also okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Unconstitutional.

The fact that the ACLU kept shopping around for a judge who would rule their way doesn't actually cancel out the fact that they had to shop around in the first place, on account of there seem to be plenty of judges out there, with just as much judicial authority as this one, who would rule against the ACLU.

What makes this ruling any more special or authoritative than the ones that have gone before, except that it happens to be popular with a certain faction?

Also, am I the only one who questions the wisdom of the ACLU's tactics in this case?

I mean, we trust and respect the ACLU because it stands up for our rights. When it finds instances of rights abuse, it takes them to court and makes sure justice is done. But if the ACLU is no longer willing to trust the courts, and instead insists on shopping around until it finds a Judge who will rule according to the ACLU's own opinion, what then?

Maybe the ACLU is right to undermine the court system, and call it into question. But doing so pretty much nullifies any value the ACLU might have to offer, since if we can't rely on the courts, we can't rely on the ACLU to get justice through the courts.

These tactics set the ACLU up as the final arbiter of justice, even though the ACLU is not a branch of government, has not been freely elected, and is not subject to any checks or balances. Judge-shopping isn't justice, it's using the judiciary as a propaganda cover for ACLU's own partisan purposes.

ACLU

[thundergeek]

American Communist Lawyers Union.

Lead by a direct descendant of the Hitler regiem.

Good goin!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[01101101]

I think that most people don't understand the 'warrantless' part. I think most people only understand this to be about whether the government can tap, or not tap.
  I have had that conversation with people, once you explain the part about the government already having the power to tap, with a warrant, they are surprised.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

Whatever happened to good old fashioned meetings in a dark parking garage late at night? I watched All the President's Men on TV last night, and those informants sure knew how to inform. If some reporter is too lazy to get away from their desk and do a bit of legwork for an important story, that's their own fault.

But look. As far as I can tell, nobody did anything illegal and nobody went to jail. This is just paranoia for paranoia's sake. That's the job of the ACLU, to keep government bogged down in lawsuits every so often so they're not causing any real trouble. Same thing with the press, they jump on every little meaningless "scandal" so that nobody takes anything any further than that. I can respect them even when they're wrong.

And the more I think about it, the more I think the ACLU is simply wrong. It's not a violation of free speech because no speech is being suppressed. Sure, there's the intimidation factor that may lead to self-censorship, but that's only if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing. And it's not like the government is sneaking into everyone's home to stick microphones under your tables to prevent you from talking about last night's baseball game. All they're doing in this case is monitoring phone calls made on public lines between foreign countries and the US. So long as you're not breaking any laws, what's the big deal?

You have a lot more to fear from the government passing more laws than the government's efforts to enforce existing ones.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

More simply expressed: Party before Country. Much though Clinton&'s "War on Drugs" was disastrous to American civil liberties, the startling success of the current Republican administration's propaganda machine at aligning the left with unAmerican is a much worse. People are now delighted to see rights and freedoms curtailed, thinking it only applies to 'the others', the critics they actively denounce as kooks and traitors. This level of civic self-destruction without question hiostory will record as Bush's greatest success.

Re:OK, libs.. enjoy it while you can

[slcdb]

Anything Congress authorizes still has to be Constitutional, and the Judge has already ruled that these shenanigans are not.

The only thing Congress could do is ammend the Constitution and with the party line splits we have now (both in Congress and between the states) that just ain't gonna happen.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Alaska Jack]

Wow, I was going to point out an error in your post, but as I read through it I realize that's not an easy task -- it's hard to find anything that's *not* an error.

Just for starters, the line-item veto was enacted by a Republican Congress. It was then ruled unconstitutional, not by Congress (which doesn't have that power) but by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among those joining the majority opinion were noted conservatives (hint: that's sarcasm) David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

"Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing."

Huh? How does a signing statement, which carries no weight of law, 'accomplish the same thing' as a line-item veto. Do you even know what these things are?

"Directly related to FISA and the wiretapping, Clinton's administration conducted a few physical searches w/o warrants, which was legal at the time. When it was discovered, and a law was passed saying that a warrant was needed... they stopped."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Google: fourth amendment exceptions. There are many exceptions providing for warrantless searching, and these exceptions are alive and well (for example, the government doesn't need a warrant -- or even probable cause! -- to frisk you at the border). In fact, this is particularly ironic because many commenters have noted that the judge, oddly, doesn't address these exceptions at all, which is important because the administration is resting much of their case on them.

It sucks that your comment is modded insightful, because factually it's nearly 100 percent wrong.

    - Alaska Jack

Re:the obvious?

[GeffDE]

What do you mean, they can't get a warrant "retroactively?"

From Oxford American Dictionary:
Retroactively: Taking effect from a date in the past.

That means that in three years time, the government can go and retroactively get their warrant. But even so, in order to store all the phone conversations of international calls of just 1/4 of the US, it would take ungodly googobs of storage. You say that it is "likely waaaaay too much data to peek at it all," which is true because there would have to be underground tunnel systems to rival al Qaeda's to store all the tape it's on; hell, there is likely too much data to store it all for a time more than three years. In order for this to be effective, it would have to be more targeted.

But even so, if they had you on tape for three years, they could still happily saunter into court and get their retroactive warrant. D'oh!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[indil]

This whole thing could have been resolved months ago if the administration were willing to just say, "Oh, yeah, you're right, we should be getting warrants for this sort of thing. We'll start doing so immediately."

I believe the problem with this, and the reason why this wasn't done from the beginning, is that the government would have to get a warrant for every telephone record they get. Meaning, in order for their data mining methods to be effective, they would have to file millions of individual applications for warrants. This, no matter how much boilterplate you use, would probably make the program unfeasible.

Re:the obvious?

[plague3106]

Let me correct something for you:

Much later on when someone is suddenly suspected of being a terrorist, they have at their fingertips mountains of illegally gathered backdated infomation to sift through to see what you've been up to.

See, that's where their argument really crumbles. Its illegal to wiretap, no matter when you decide to eventually get around to listen to that tap. Their argument is not ingenious at all, its rather weak.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gilroy]

First, the lawsuit that was thrown out wasn't "wiretapping" at all. It was data mining -- a transfer of supposedly private records to the government so that they could be sifted for patterns. Not covered by FISA.

Second, in the current case, the privacy issue is entirely secondary. The real concern is: President Bush knowingly broke the law. End of story. (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act describes what steps the government needs to take to wiretap the phones of foreign agents. Those steps include a warrant by the special FISA court. The Administration did not seek those warrants on a large number of wiretaps. FISA also specifies that it is the only law covering such surveillance.) Caught at breaking the law -- a law, by the way, he had signaled his complete satisfaction with, and which, if he had asked, he could easily have had amended -- he brazenly declared his intention to go on breaking the law.

A few years back, a hyperventilating minority of the political leaders in this country screamed bloody murder and tried to oust a President for perjuring himself in a civil suit concerning a matter from long before his Presidency. It was, they told us, a matter of high principle: The President must obey the law. He must respect the judicial process. He must not be an oathbreaker, since he swears an oath to uphold the Consititution and faithfully execute the laws of the land.

Now, that group of leaders is shockingly silent -- indeed, worse, vocal in their defense -- when their party's President knowingly and intentionally violated an actual law and thus knowingly violates his oath of office. Even for Washington, the hypocrisy here is rank.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[l4m3z0r]

However, I've always disagreed with this argument. I use the Mafia example. Let's say the government DOES get a grant to tap a criminal's phone line. Then YOU call him... now YOUR call is being tapped because of who you called. That's the way it works. Otherwise the government has to have permission to tap both parties phones. That's ridiculous.

How about this just means the conversation can only be used against the person who had a warrant issued. Lets say they are tapping mafia don Al's phone, and I call Al and say "yo dude I just killed a guy" they should not be able to use this phone conversation against me in court.

This seems logical to me since the warrant was not issued to find evidence in a crime that they suspect I committed and is (likely) outside the scope of the warrant that was issued.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the whole Administration does not end up arrested for their rather long litany of misdeeds at the end of their term, the precident this has set for future governments in the USA is truely frightening. It says, you can do *anything* while you have a sufficiently firm control on the reigns of government, and you don't even have to worry should you happen to loose them -- you will never, ever, be held accountable.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Mister Whirly]

Actually, they would stop as soon as they jumped and the vocieover would come in "Looks like them Bush boys are in a heap o' trouble this time. Let's just hope they can outrun the long arm of the law one more time..."

Then they would go sailing over the wall, but the 3 police cars behind them wouldn't make it over and end up piling up on themselves...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[PhraudulentOne]

I often wonder if the issue is that governments are just too large. Not the government entity itself (though that is part of it), but the sheer size of the area they govern, and the amount of people being governed. I mean, is it realistic to believe that 200 million+ people will ever fully (or close to fully) agree?

I wonder if governments need to be split up. The USA should perhaps have two or three governments, and the people can then move to the areas that they agree with.

I know this idea would probably never fly, and its not necessarily fair, but I think that a lot of countries will never agree, will never be happy, and will always have governments coming into power who blame everything on the previous government, and then proceed to fuck things up even more.

I just don't think that a group of people can effectively manage a country as large as the USA, or even as large and diverse as Canada. The solution is always to grow the government, but we know that never works.

For once I am proud to be from Detroit

[fire-eyes]

Subject says it all!

Thanks Ma'am!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Mister Whirly]

Nor can the operatives go through the enormous amounts of data they are collecting. Thats why typically in the past, they would actually concentrate thier efforts on people they suspected to be terrorists. Now everyone is a suspected terrorist I guess...

Give me liberty...

[Jagasian]

Anybody who argues that, due to terrorism, our country should compromise its most important ideals, is a person that appeases terrorists with their fear.

Re:MOD THIS UP - FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the Funny If It Weren't Scary And Quit Giving Them Ideas! mod... Oh well, I just posted anyway..

Scary!

[interactive_civilian]

Bogthasaid: It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics.

And that, my fellow slashdotters, is a VERY scary thought. Most US citizens think that football is a game played using your hands.

;p

Re:Scary!

[surprise_audit]

Yes, what Americans call football is actually more like rugby, which as everyone knows, is a game played by gentlemen with odd shaped balls...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArcherB]

I would far prefer the government to get a warrant for such things. The special court set up to hear these cases is essentially a rubber-stamp anyway.

Here is what I think is happening:
The gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchanges to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. Does the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants? Or, does the gov't only get warrants for the KNOWN terrorists for "manual" monitoring and hope we don't miss anyone?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Mister Whirly]

"I keep seeing this, but I have a copy of the Constitution right here, and I can't see anything in there about foreign matters (except "he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers") or national security. Can you cite the appropriate section?"

Alberto Gonzales is busy drafting it up as we speak..."The Constitution 2.0" should be coming out soon.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

I guess where we disargee is that I would prefer to have a system of checks and balances placed upon those in power, while you would would rather endow the leader with your blind trust and obedience.

I'm glad this isn't my job..

[bmajik]

Problem: Defend our society from those hell bent on destroying it
Constraint: Do this without turning our society into something not worth defending.

I'm not sure how you do this. It's an ugly problem with a delicate balance. I'd argue that circumventing process when such process is sufficiently lenient to get the job done for domestic-only wiretapping is inexcusable. I'd also argue that holding people without charges is one of the reasons we were in such a hurry to dump colonial rule.

Can we save America while keeping it a place worth saving? (assuming you beleive it still is, which is up for debate in certain circles..)

In our society worth saving, we allegedly support religious freedom and tolernace. We try to avoid things like "racial profiling" or juding any individual based on a group affiliation. And we know the logical / mathematical rules about correlation vs. causation, and necessary vs sufficient and that the balance of favor must be given to assuming innocence.

At the same time, it seems very enticing to say things like "let's target brown-skinned muslims trying to board aircraft for extra security". It is undeniable that the set of "terrorists" is almost entirely contained in the intersection of "dark skinned" and "muslim". Even so, if we build a society that lets us act on that info and that info alone, tomorrow someone will decide that the set "serial killers" will fit into the sets "white" and "male".

I do beleive "we" have a real enemy - and that enemy is Islamofacism. I don't think there is any room in this country for people that want Sharia Law or want to change the laws of the US to fit their religion (that applies to Christians too - of which I count myself a member, and i'd be willing to concede that too many judeo-christian influences have been grandfathered into modern America ) - our law attempts to treat all as equals and _allegedly_ puts no religion over any other. If you don't want to play that way - fine, there are other countries for you.

However, the nature of this "enemy" and the antics of our government are setting off too many alarms in my head about how governments manipulate with fear for their own purposes. I don't want to be protected by a government that has so much power to eavesdrop and detain the people I don't like today that they can just as easily do it to me tomorrow when someone else decides they don't like me. Even if you beleive that the govt is trying to act benignly (I think they generally are - i think they beleive they're doing the right thing), the problem is building the machine that gives them this much power to begin with. even if they are acting in our best interests, the next crop of people or the set after them wont be, and by then it will be too late.

What the founding fathers understood is that to limit government tyrany, you limited government, not who could participate.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[lawpoop]

I agree with you almost entirely -- all except for the term Islamofascist. The Islamists are actually Islamic Theocratists -- they seek rule by religious institutions and religious law. That is the system in place now in Iran, where Sharia law and imams are the ultimate decision makers.

Fascism is, as Mussolini defined it, when the interest of the state comes before any interest of an individual. Al-Qaida and the other Islamic radicals we are fighting are not facists. They are theocratists and want the rule of Sharia law and Clerics.

I can't help but find it disturbing that the Bush administration would consistently mischaracterize the enemy as fascists. If they enemy is fascist, we are in no danger of becoming fascist ourselves because that's who we are fighting, right? If we are fighting fascists, we must be the opposite of fascists, right? It couldn't be that we might become fascists fighting theocratists...

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[NeutronCowboy]

Two points.
1) Racial profiling is bad not only because it is morally reprehensible and a massive slippery slope. It's also bad because it is terrible at preventing future attacks. At some point, Al-Qaeda will figure out that all its dark-skinned muslim friends are being picked up for thorough questioning. So it will simply recruit light-skinned muslims. Or dark-skinned people who don't look like muslim (what does a muslim look like, anyway?). Or anybody who doesn't fit the current racial profile. Like Jose Padilla, maybe. And then, we're fucked, because we'd be looking for the wrong people. Again - racial profiling sucks because it will make you less safe than if you were not using racial profiling.

2) I see the neocons got to you in your terminology. There is no such thing as an Islamofascist. A fascist, as per wikipedia, is a totalitarian who combines corporatism, nationalism and general conservative rhethoric into one package. Al-Qaeda is about as far removed from that concept as you can possibly be. They are anti-corporations, pan-nationalistic and more communist than conservative. The only thing they have in common with conservatives is a strong belief in religion. Islamofascist is a term coined by the same people who came up with the Axis of Evil: it's completely wrong on a literal level, implies things that are patently wrong and is only designed to elicit an emotional response from the public. The association of Muslims with Nazis is a nice bonus.

What we're up against a religious extremists. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Using any other term clouds the discussion and only distracts from the real problems and potential solutions.

Other than that, I agree with your post. :)

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[evilviper]

Problem: Defend our society from those hell bent on destroying it

Solution: Already Solved. "those hell bent on destroying" America have miniscule power. It's basically a case of an elephant being afraid of a mouse. We have much more to fear from our government's overzealousness, than from terrorists.

It is undeniable that the set of "terrorists" is almost entirely contained in the intersection of "dark skinned" and "muslim".

Yes... "undeniable". "Dark skinned" like Ted Kazinski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, John Walker Lindh, et al.

If anything, the prohibition against racial profiling is to protect the goverment from itself. They will have complete tunnel-vision if you let them, and the blonde-haired guy with big wires hanging out of his suitcase, will be rushed through security. Just see the Beltway Sniper case for a perfect example.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is undeniable that the set of "terrorists" is almost entirely contained in the intersection of "dark skinned" and "muslim".

Did the KKK & IRA and all those other terrorist and militant anarchist groups suddenly disband when I wasn't looking?

I do beleive "we" have a real enemy - and that enemy is Islamofacism.

Names like that are part of the problem, yes. They can hardly lead to unpolarized debate.

I don't think there is any room in this country for people that want Sharia Law or want to change the laws of the US to fit their religion (that applies to Christians too - of which I count myself a member, and i'd be willing to concede that too many judeo-christian influences have been grandfathered into modern America )

Religion is a problem. Rational thought is the answer, but it's still considered boring and unpopular. Blind faith and jingoism seem to be the "in thing", and have been for centuries. Rational materialism is a modern phenonmenon, loosely embraced, but religion may still drag us down into a second dark ages...

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[bmajik]

It is undeniable that the set of "terrorists" is almost entirely contained in the intersection of "dark skinned" and "muslim".

Yes... "undeniable". "Dark skinned" like Ted Kazinski, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, John Walker Lindh, et al.

Are you being pedantic or actually trying to debate this point? Note that I allowed for non-Islamist terrorists, and yes, I remember the examples you mention.

I also remember that all of them (except the IRA, who are not the problem of the US, and so not specifically something I am worried about addressing for the purposes of this discussion) are lone actors and who had some specific beef with the government or specific people and were targeting those individuals or representatives of same.

What those people did is awful, but I think it is a little different than an organized group with the stated goal of the destruction of the US, democracy, etc, trying to kill as many uninvolved civilians as possible.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[bmajik]

It is undeniable that the set of "terrorists" is almost entirely contained in the intersection of "dark skinned" and "muslim".

Did the KKK & IRA and all those other terrorist and militant anarchist groups suddenly disband when I wasn't looking?

I donno - I haven't heard of anything rotten done by them in a long time. And a few things I've never heard of them doing is destroying skyscrapers using passenger aircraft, releasing gas in subways, bombing subways, sinking military ships, blowing up nightclubs, killing an entire olympic team, and so on.

Now, I'm not the best informed person, and I don't mind being corrected when I'm seeing things incorectly, so if you think you can make the "Islamist terrorists aren't any worse than ${group}" argument convincing this time around (b/c I've heard it made poorly on countless occasions), by all means, give it a shot.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[evilviper]

What those people did is awful, but I think it is a little different than an organized group with the stated goal of the destruction of the US, democracy, etc, trying to kill as many uninvolved civilians as possible.

Al Qaeda hasn't been a threat around the world, since the invasion of Afganistan. The RECENT attacks have all been individual actors, with no ties, except that they saw what Al Qaeda was doing, and decided to do something vaguely similar.

And those "individuals'" attacks were in no way different than the more recent attacks. They wanted to kill as many people as they could. The difference in their ultimate goals, has absolutely no relevance.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[MulluskO]

My impression of the Iraqi situation is that the threat to our troops and the Iraqi people was and is external and organized. Is this not so?

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[evilviper]

the threat to our troops and the Iraqi people was and is external and organized. Is this not so?

For the most part, it is NOT external. They are a small minority, which gets lots of press attention.

As for oganized, it certainly is, but (just to be clear) Iraqi insurgents have no bearing on the subject at hand: Domestic Terrorism, Domestic Evesdropping, Racial Profiling, Curtailing Civil Rights, Commercial Airliners, etc.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[Greslin]

Problem: Defend our society from those hell bent on destroying it Constraint: Do this without turning our society into something not worth defending.

I'm not sure how you do this.

You start by not thinking of it as a friggin' war. A "war" implies a struggle for supremacy and ultimately one side imposing a political will on the other. It implies that, at some point, one side will surrender and the other will rule, and that the entire dynamic at play is in determining which one is which. A war that doesn't end isn't really a war - it's politics.

Problem is, "politics" doesn't usually scare people - it only pisses them off. Only partisans put on uniforms and march into gunfire for politics.

This whole mess has always been about risk, and this bizarre idea that we can somehow build a machine or pass a law and magically make risk go away. That somehow we'll win the "war" and all the nuts out there, all those displaced by the success of Western civilization, will accept their local McDonalds and Walmarts joyfully instead of blowing up planes.

Thing is, no other area of risk management - business, engineering, whatever - focuses on the ideal of risk elimination. It's always risk mitigation, the reduction of risk. The reduction of error. Keeping the probabilities within acceptable tolerances - the very concept responsible for the success of Western civilization over the last four hundred years. Until mathematicisns started really attacking the idea of probability and risk a few centuries back, learning to accommodate risk instead of treating it like a gamble or the will of the gods, humanity as a whole played the all-or-nothing game.

As any engineer knows, if you believe your work is free of fault, it's YOU at fault. That's the whole goal of terrorism: to attack the idea of acceptable tolerance, to push a society into the very all-or-nothing position that the U.S. has been living in since 9/11. Ultimately, to push society back to a pre-Renaissance culture (namely, the 13th century). They love watching the airlines confiscating shampoo, because they know exactly how futile the exercise is. It's always a lot easier to hack a system than to create an unhackable one.

Problem is, we in the U.S. still think this is a war, which is why we're providing tons of free military training and social support to poor, disgruntled, uneducated, West-hating Arab teenagers in Iraq right now. We can't face up to the fact that no matter what we do, sooner or later someone is going to smuggle a suitcase nuke into a major U.S. city and set it off. We can't deal with the inevitability of that fact. But if we could accept that levies built to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane won't stand up to a Cat 5 - no matter how optimistic we're thinking - that would be a good start.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[Anonymous Coward]

I donno - I haven't heard of anything rotten done by them in a long time. And a few things I've never heard of them doing is destroying skyscrapers using passenger aircraft, releasing gas in subways, bombing subways, sinking military ships, blowing up nightclubs, killing an entire olympic team, and so on.

Skyscrapers using passenger aircraft: If you're refering to the 911 bombings, the cause is both unknown and unproven. The CIA and the president had a vested financial and political interest in using this event to go to war; so it's not enough to trust their word on it. And there's no one else we can ask. There's no proof either way here.

Releasing gas in subways: done in Japan by "cultists".

Bombing subways: done by the IRA, so often that the British are paranoid about packages detonating. Funding for the IRA was often funneled through "terrorist harbouring" nations like the US; citizens in Boston were notorious for sending money home to support the killings in the UK.

sinking military ships: Hard to pull off, but impressive. Given soldiers are hired killers themselves, it's hard to be terribly sympathetic, though. One killer is little better than another.

blowing up nightclubs: This is standard terrorist fare. The IRA has blow up pubs before.

killing an entire olympic team: Why is an olympic team more important than any other group of people who've been killed by terrorism?

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[meringuoid]

the IRA, who are not the problem of the US

Which is why the Americans keep giving the bastards money.

Re:I'm glad this isn't my job..

[Internet Ronin]

Ugh, you're missing the point.

There is a very real, very effective way to accomplish this without circumventing U.S. laws.

Step 1: Find people that you want to wiretap (internationally if that's what you need)
Step 2: Obtain a WARRANT from a closed court which has its records sealed.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Stop terrorists.

The only action missing from much of the presidential wiretapping programs is not that they wiretap, but rather they do it without ANY checks and balances. If you'll recall from your high school civics class, checks and balances are part of the strength of our government. Ideally, no one portion can be given undue influence over our entire government. In instances such as this, the courts are not just thrown in there, willy-nilly, just because. They are meant to be put in place as a bulwark to prevent someone from, I don't know, say, going around an wiretapping people without any necessary rhyme or reason.

Does President Bush have reason to wiretap the people he is? Probably. And it's probably effective at doing things that help unearth and stop terrorist cells. I hope so. You can't have reason alone though. People often only behave in ways the think is reasonable, even if it means plowing airplanes into buildings. You can't have an executive that gets to operate by REASON alone. He needs justification, and accountability. Warrants provide that.

So to summarize, you can wiretap whoever the hell you want, but please, pretty please get a warrant first.

Not a troll, just wrong

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I for one believe this particular program is good, necessary, and in line with the Constitution, so it's not a matter of "security vs. freedom" for me.

Unfortunately, you are simply wrong. The NSA is not doing anything that it couldn't do legally. All that is required is getting a FISA judge to issue a warrant. Since the institution of the FISA court in 1979, the government has requested more than 10,000 warrants. It has been denied four times.

But wait! Today's terrorist moves fast. Maybe there isn't time to speak to a judge! Bzzzt. But thanks for playing. The FISA judges hold court in the oddest of places -- such as the chief judge's living room at 3 AM -- so that they can be responsive and quick. And even then, the law (as amended) allows the government to conduct an emergency wiretap so long as it gets a (retroactive) warrant within 72 hours. So no nasty terrorist plots can slip through waiting on that burdensome due process.

Should the government be allowed to wiretap suspected terrorists? Of course. Not a single major player has ever said otherwise. But that's the question the Bush people want you to focus on, so that you don't notice the real question: Should the President of the United States be bound by the Constitution and the laws passed under it? And this Administration's clear, stark answer is: NO. The President should be entirely unconstrained.

That is why this Administration is the greatest threat to the Republic since the Civil War.

Re:Not a troll, just wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The real questions are: Do you like dead children? If not, are you willing to sacrifice a bit of your beloved liberal bureacracy to save the children from being dead?

Re:Not a troll, just wrong

[kinglitho]

Sorry, pal, but you've only told half the story.
First of all, FISA only applies to the domestic activities of US citizens suspected of spying. It has never been held to apply to communications between citizens and non-citizens.

Secondly, while the FISA judges may be responsive, the FISA application is over one hundred pages long, and takes a normal human more than 72 hours to fill out!

Personally, I wish guys like you would stop simply regurgitating DNC talking points and do a little research on the facts. I hear this thing called the internet is good for that . . .

Re:Not a troll, just wrong

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Secondly, while the FISA judges may be responsive, the FISA application is over one hundred pages long, and takes a normal human more than 72 hours to fill out!

No, I'm sorry. You're going to have to source this pretty well before I'll believe it. If a FISA warrant application took more than 72 hours (3 days) to fill out, then only a little over 100 could be processed each year. In the 36 years of the court (from 1978 until 2004), over 18,000 warrants were granted. That's more than five times the amount possible with your estimate.

Not that it's actually relevant. FISA is the law of the land. The US Code makes it clear that FISA is the sole law governing this sort of surveillance. Wiretapping in contravention of FISA is illegal. Period. If the President thinks the law is bad, he has this amazing option: He can ask Congress to fix the law. He didn't do that. Not only has he never indicated what is "wrong" with FISA; he actually said that FISA (as updated after 9/11) provided him with the tools he needed -- at precisely the same time he began breaking the law.

These post facto justifications are exactly that: Rationalizations after the fact so as to obfuscate the fundamental issue, which is: The President knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly broke the law. Everything else is window dressing and dross.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[spykemail]

The part I don't think you're getting is why they need to do this without getting a warrant. That is, unless you're giving up your rights by default and puting the burden of proof on freedom.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BigAssRat]

Yes, that is precisely whey we are in trouble today, we had a President that was more worried about getting blown than the country getting blown away.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

Nice straw man there. No, I would not rather endow the leader with my blind trust and obedience. I believe that the system of checks and balances placed upon those in power already works. I trust the law, which I hold to be higher than that of any leader.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Philip K Dickhead]

Thank you, Ms. Coulter. You have been uncharacteristicly civil in advocating your position.

Have an Opus Day.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[multisync]

I wonder how long before the Judge is found dead, "of apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds"?

Or her husband outed as a CIA agent

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[erotic piebald]

+2 Very Insightful

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now's it's back to 50-50. There's gonna be a civil war in the U.S., sooner or later, and it will come out as three nations: liberal left coast, dopey, backward "heartland" full of violent, inbred simpletons, and liberal right coast.

If there is a civil war it will be because of ivory tower intellectuals who lack an understanding of what reality is. Your attack of dopey, backward "heartland" full of violent, inbred simpletons shows that you have no clue of what about half the country is like.

One of the worst case results for a civil war will be an authoritarian Government that makes Bush look down right easy going. A slightly better result would involve the breaking of the Liberal movement and either a neo-con or a conservative Government. In the long run there is no way that a Civil War between liberals and conservatives could be won by liberals.

The major liberal costal areas have done an incredible job of restricting and ignoring the 2nd Amendment to the point that they are dependent on the Government for protection. Compare this to more reasonable states that don't have these laws where I can go buy a new handgun with about 30 minutes of paperwork and background check, or I can buy a high powered rifle or I can buy a small caliber high capacity semi-auto rifle in the same amount of time.

I already modded you troll, but this stupidity on your part needs to be called out.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[AJWM]

Judges frequently take into account the "chilling effect" something may have on the exercise of a right, and equivalence that to explicitly violating that right. It's pretty much a term of art. Judges are (usually) strict in their use of words -- but in a legal context, not everyday English.

Indeed the actual ruling may well explain exactly that -- all we have is the CNN summary.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

When it comes to communication with a foreign country, I'd like to see the government monitor it. That's their job. Domestic monitoring is another matter, and not within the scope of the court ruling nor this subsequent discussion.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Mister Whirly]

"backward "heartland" full of violent, inbred simpletons"

You know, that insignificant mass of land between New York and Los Angeles called "America".

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

It's communication with foreign countries. It's a foreign policy/national security thing, which is fully within the scope of powers of the federal government. I'd still rather they record everything and then only get warrants on the stuff they'll actually listen to or analyze, but I'm not going to worry so much about it. We're not talking about domestic calls here, remember that.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of attorney-client privilege, it's still a very big deal even if you "have done something wrong." If you can't consult legal counsel because you're afraid of incriminating yourself or others every time you make a phone call then you're effectively denied representation, resulting in harm to attorneys and their clients.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tip: If you understood the difference between spying and warrantless spying you might gain a little more traction with your arguments. Oh yeah, the "tissy-fit" tone to the post doesn't help much, either. You're burying all of your good points with your childish demeanor.

Trust no agency that refuses Oversight Comitties

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple enough rule that everyone in the US should remind these idiots they are not above the law!
This law plainly states "We the people" not us the government allows and it is the constitution of the US of A. Thanks to the Judge in Chi town now lets see the government appeal this rule and follow it closer all the way up to the supremes.

Also lets now see how many of those warrant-less wiretaps provided by any branch of the government were used by the R.I.A.A. to snoop out piracy.
F.O.I.A. should follow up on this idea now not later!

Anon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Ardeaem]

This is not true. Where do you pull a figure like that from? Your ass?

Questions regarding Bush's trustworthiness have been asked for quite sometime. Before accusing someone of making up numbers, try a search engine. For the period 4/28-30/06, a Gallup poll showed that about 56% of Americans believe that the phrase "honest and trustworthy" does not apply to Bush (who can reasonably be thought to represent the current US government). 41%, on the other hand, thought it applied. A CNN poll and an ABC poll about the same time corroborated the Gallup poll. For the period of 11/10-11/05, a Newsweek poll found that 50% of Americans believed that "honest and ethical" do not apply to Bush (compared to 42% who thought it does). These results, and many more supporting the GP post, can be found at http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm.

Re:only problem with this is the R's have more gun

[rossifer]

Well, I'm from Texas, but living in California. And I brought all of my gear with me (except that one mean-looking hole-punch that California law is still in a snit over). Which basically means that my neighborhood will be really well armed for a California city and about on-par for Ohio.

Although I suspect that California will itself have a civil war if the feces truly hits the rotating air-circulation device. California has lots and lots of rural right-wingers who are continuously at a low boil over the fact that California consistently votes Dem in national elections (durned city-folk!). And those rednecks own *plenty* of firearms.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Dachannien]

They think it's about two teams, one of which must be the winning side and one of which must be the losing side.

As the Vorlon said, understanding is a three-edged sword.

Re:Damned women

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, sure, it may be flamebait, but you know there's a lot of people out there that think just like that. And, sadly, they vote. If it weren't so sad, I'd say it was "funny".

Re:the obvious?

[Cycloid Torus]

It is also obvious that sometimes the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch may get it wrong - often for the best reasons!

Then the court comes along and corrects them and sends them back to rethink how they can accomplish what they need to without violating the Constitution. Happened to FDR with the NRA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Adm inistration.

We don't need to impeach anyone or villify them. We just need to support both the ideals of democratic government and the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Might pinch some of us some of the time, but would you really want it to be much different?

I am very thankful that I live here and not some other places in the World - even if they have nicer weather.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[erotic piebald]

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1, first sentence.

Re:Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - A Known Liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me you aren't Christian.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a long post and there may be valid points. Sadly after reading that idiotic comment I stopped reading everything else from the parent so I'll never know.

Then there should be nothing to stop you from reading this post:

The public at large cannot always be trusted to support the moral or ethical side of an issue, nor can they be trusted to maintain logic or consistency in their beliefs. I think it was Ben Franklin that said (paraphrasing now), "Being in the majority means that most people agree with you; it does not mean that you are right." That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is intended to be a semi-permanent document that does not change with the "whims of the people". It *can* be changed, and in fact it was changed to outlaw slavery once and for all, but it is intentionally difficult to do. And if the Constitution says that this program is against the law of the land, then that's that. Public support is irrelevant. What I was a bit surprised to read in this ruling was that the judge said the President of the United States had willfully and knowingly broken the Fourth Amendment. That's an impeachable offense; in fact, pretty much the worst kind of impeachable offense. Now, there are a lot of things that people on the other side of the aisle have said Bush could be impeached for, but this is the first time that I know of that we have a legal ruling by a federal judge that documents an actual offense for which the President could be held legally accountable. This federal judge has basically labeled the President a high criminal in a legally binding decision. The question is, will anything be done about it? I guess we'll know in November. As we've seen, politics matters a lot more than ethics or legality to the current congress.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[harl]

Did you know the NSA is currently hiring? If you want an application just call your mother and ask for one.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[AndersOSU]

Of course not.

What I'm concerned a bit about is that no one with credibility is saying what the government is doing.

Not only that but I'm sympathize with the argument that the government needs to be able to make some information classified. To trot out a tired old example I wouldn't want the details of the Manhattan project to get out, I wouldn't want the USSR to know where our ballistic subs were (are,) and I don't think that we necessarilly have the right to know exactly whom the CIA is getting information from.

The problem is all those examples place some trust in the government, the less trustworthy a government the more transparancy its citizens should demand. Dragnet domestic wiretapping is an abuse of the trust we've placed in law enforcement, and in theory anyways, it is from our trust that they gain their power. The only way to prevent abuse of trust from being a self defeating mechanism is to steer away from democracy and towards autocracy, which reverses the equation.

That is what really scares me. Now while I don't expect George W, or most of the senators to recognize this, I am fully convinced that there are some puppet masters behind the curtain who are all too aware.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that insignificant mass of land between New York and Los Angeles called "America".

Dear Inbred Simpleton,

Our p'resident has clearly renamed that area "'Merica". The other places are "A-Merica". The prefix "a-" means "not".
Please get it right.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say the government DOES get a grant to tap a criminal's phone line. Then YOU call him... now YOUR call is being tapped because of who you called. That's the way it works. Otherwise the government has to have permission to tap both parties phones.

But there does need to be a warrant somewhere along the line. Otherwise, your "proof" that it's OK for the government to tap an innocent US citizen's phone call could be applied to a phone call where both parties where innocent US citizens.

The way I see it, if a US citizen is involved in the phone call, then the government needs to prove that it has a reason for listening in on that call. The reason doesn't have to be that the US citizen is suspected of something but there has to be someone involved in that phone call that the government can show probable cause against.

Actually, I've never understood why the Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens. Fundamentally, people in other countries are just as human and have just as much of a right to civil rights as US citizens. But that's a topic for another day.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BrynM]

Warrants are through a public schema. I can think of two big reasons not to want the existence of monitoring made public:

FISA warrants are not public. It would have been a FISA court the administration would have been dealing with. No public disclosure at all for the warrants. Prosecution on the other hand is public, but that's after evidence is collected.

Bush ISN'T running for re-election!

[gd2shoe]

I guess we'll know in November.

PLEASE try to understand that Bush is not and cannot run for re-election. I am sick and tired of the left spouting this off (no offence intended). What Bush does now should have NO bearing WHATSOEVER on any elections in November.

Back to reality, of course I know that what Bush and "his whitehouse" does will reflect heavily on the Republican party. But that doesn't mean that it should. Individuals should be held accountable for their own actions and choices. I'm tierd of people suggesting otherwise in politics.

Re:Bush ISN'T running for re-election!

[Anonymous Coward]

This federal judge has basically labeled the President a high criminal in a legally binding decision.

The question is, will anything be done about it? I guess we'll know in November.

PLEASE try to understand that Bush is not and cannot run for re-election.

Please try to understand that it is Congress that can impeach (and convict) a President for high crimes. Please also try to understand that Congress is currently run by Republicans who aren't interested in impeaching the President, regardless of the fact that he's commited high crimes (as a federal judge has ruled and should be plainly evident (though how voters vote may well show just how plainly evident it really is)). Finally, recognize that November elections choose who fills in many seats in Congress, effectively deciding who controls Congress; of course even Democrats become a majority doesn't mean they'll impeach Bush, as that would lay creedence to impeaching a future Democrat for doing the same thing. November elections might mean Bush being impeached. And if Bush does something "really" horrible (I don't know, maybe make some racist remarks or kill someone personally or something), it might be enough to drive Democrats to campaign on the platform of impeaching Bush. Understand now?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Pike]

"If misinformation, then it is misinformation that was published in hundreds of newspapers."

I'm shocked!

Re:Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - A Known Liberal

[neonprimetime]

Please tell me you aren't Christian.

Maybe some sort of distorted one, yes.
Please tell me you aren't an Athiest.

Mod parent .... up?

[gknoy]

If I could assign mod points, I'd mod you +1.25 insightful, and about -0.25 flamebait. ;)

Re:Mod parent .... up?

[dave562]

You're rather generous. =) I'd give me +0.25 insightful and -1.00 flamebait for the God decree comment.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

Well, apparently you trust the leader enough to do the right thing with the information they wrongly collected from my phonecalls, without a warrant (violating at least THREE Constitutional Amendments).

Why do you trust them to do the right thing while they are breaking the law as we speak?

Refering to http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=194330&cid=159 28507

Privacy I can understand, but it's not like they're stopping you from freely speaking. They're just listening while you talk.
--
-mrxak

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing about all those who think the Bush administration is the great evil, and those who complain they are losing their rights is that the government has always had times when they listened to phone conversations both domestic and international. The only difference now is that we are actually at war. We are at war with an enemy that should have been dealt with as early as the late 1960's. The plot broke up by the UK recently may have been, in part, broken up with this very program. I can easily imagine that every time this administration sent in a bulk request to get warrants, the New York Times or some other liberal agency would have gathered the info in them and printed it all out claiming the evil George Bush is violating us again. There are many ways to slant a story as we have clearly seen, some even think the NY Times are looking out for us. I do talk from time to time to friends overseas but it doesn't bother me that the converstaion is being listened to. Frankly, those of you who are so upset, shouldn't be. You're really not that important to the government. If you have conversation about blowing things up or commiting terrorist type acts, I want them to monitor you more closely. Oklahoma City and Columbine are examples of why the government is listening to conversations and monitoring the internet and there are many times arrests are made to stop these acts from happening again. I don't feel less free at all, I can still call who I want, go to websites I want, and do pretty much whatever I want and don't feel like I'm oppressed and that there are eyes and ears constantly focusing on me. I leave that to the paranoid folks for a good laugh.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[erotic piebald]

Congresscritters can't be Impeached, only impeached.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Sure, there's the intimidation factor that may lead to self-censorship, but that's only if you're doing something you shouldn't be doing.

Let's see.. like.. talking about how to escape the country because you don't like the current leadership? That was illegal in plenty of dictatorships - they shouldn't be trying to secure their own freedom?

Or how about talking about how much they dislike the administration or XYZ political party, who years later comes to power and decides to data mine those records for whomever said they didn't like them and target them for surveillance and counter intelligence activities - all just for having an opinion (ever heard of COINTELPRO?)?

Self-censorship is NOT a consequence of someone "doing something they shouldn't be." Self-censorship is fear of being punished for saying something someone else may not like - that's called the Chilling Effect and has nothing to do with the enforcement of law.

And finally, in particular, freedom of speech, coupled with the right to bear arms, were our founders attempts to ensure that one day, should the need arise, it is possible for a popular uprising to occur to overthrow a government that has violated its part of the social contract - and people who know for certain that the government is always looking over their shoulder most certainly will not act to secure their own inalienable rights.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArcherB]

When it comes to communication with a foreign country, I'd like to see the government monitor it. That's their job. Domestic monitoring is another matter, and not within the scope of the court ruling nor this subsequent discussion.

I agree with you, but this ruling does deal with calls overseas. From TFA:

They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[subterfuge]

...thats why it was kept 'secret' - so the speakers did not know they were being listened to and would have [theoretically] looser lips.

They can't intimidate you if you have no knowledge or expectation that someone is listening.

just sayin...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

Thank you, Ms. Coulter. You have been uncharacteristicly civil in advocating your position. Have an Opus Day.

Aaah, Internet sarcasm at its finest.

I take it, then, that you can't actually find anything wrong with my position, on account of you'd be pointing out its flaws rather than calling me names, if that were the case.

What were they hidding?

[slapout]

And just what did these journalists, scholars, and lawyers have to hide? (It's a joke. Laugh.)

Seriously though, why was this lawsuit brought by journalists, scholars, and lawyers instead of common people?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

I'm not sure I buy it. I certainly wouldn't hire a lawyer unable to come to where I am to talk to me if I was being charged with something, whether they're overseas or I am. A lawyer's kinda useless if they don't come to the courtroom, aren't they? And surely saying over the phone "Hey Mr. Lawyer-of-mine, I've been arrested and charged with crime x, and I need your help." wouldn't divulge any information that the government wouldn't be able to find out anyway through public record, right? If I wanted to discuss matters of a case, I'd want my lawyer in the same room, not in another country.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Clockwork Apple]

"I believe that the system of checks and balances placed upon those in power already works."

Yesterday, yeah mostly.
Today, not so much.
Tomorrow????

I dont like the path that the trend is following.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[falconwolf]

I'd be a lot more worried about the government passing laws making more things illegal than the government checking to see that existing laws are being followed.

You don't mind if the government spies on you to make sure you're not breaking a law? How about if they install a video cam in your home, your bedroom? Afterall they have to make sure you don't sexually abuse children.

But won't anybody think of the children?

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

Well the USA isn't a dictatorship, and people are allowed to come and go as they please, assuming they're not restricted from doing so by a court order. So, the NSA monitoring such a phone call could only serve to enforce the law, not get you in any trouble.

As for political talk on the phone, that's not illegal. Be wary of laws that make it so. Until that happens, you don't have to worry about it. COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law. Be wary of leaders who would break the law. This strikes me as common sense.

As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case.

As I've said, there's no restrictions being placed on speech, and I have no idea where you think the ownership of arms comes into this. Listening to free speech does not restrict free speech. Listening to free speech certainly does not restrict the free ownership of arms. Quite frankly, if you want to start an uprising, I think you'd be stupid to do it by making calls to other countries anyway. This is not a domestic surveillance case, remember?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[PDG]

Then I guess your law degree failed to point out that you CAN get the warrants RETRO active.

This means you can do your easedropping and get the warrant AFTERWARDS.

Time is no longer an issue here, and its sad when people try to make that case stick.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

That's a very good point. If anybody's causing a chilling effect, it's CNN.com for reporting this. Curse you free press, you've eliminated my freedom of speech!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know; Peter didn't seem to come out all right.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[E 99]

it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively. Yes, retroactively. You can spot a suspect, set up an emergency wiretap, then a day later you can walk into the secret court and tell the judge why it was necessary to set up the wiretap. And you'll get the warrant. It's no hardship, unless you have reason to believe a judge wouldn't grant you the warrant.

These arguements are all based on the fallacy that there's some legal equivalency between criminal investigation and spying on war-time enemies. Do you argue that a submarine captain should get a FISA warrent everytime he activates his listening equiptment? Or every time a satellite picture of an enemy camp is taken? Not if you're sane! A warrent is a document of probable cause of a crime. It has nothing to do with gathering military intelligence. The FBI has traditionally investigated criminal activity, but if they are involved in military intelligence, like they were when they were investigation Moussaoui, then they need procedures appropriate for that task. If they had, then they would have been able to listen to Moussaoui's conversations with the 9-11 hijackers, like they desparately wanted to do (even though there was no probable cause relating to a crime he had committed, so no warrant, FISA or otherwise, was possible), and 9-11-01 would have been just another uneventful day.

P.S. to people who do trust the current administration: just consider that someone you don't like will eventually be in charge. Maybe another Republican, maybe a Democrat, maybe the balance of power will realign and we'll be looking at Republicans vs. Greens or something for the next few decades. However it works out, someone you disagree with will be in the Oval Office at some point. Would you want them to have the powers that this administration has been insisting on?

I know that some people, I don't know who, maybe the Greens, think that the president personally sneaks into people's basements and messes with their phone lines, but that's not how it works. This is a question of whether or not the agents of the FBI and CIA are given the flexibility to do their job. Those agents don't change depending on what president or what party is in power.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

IF they've done something wrong.

IF they've collected information wrongly.

I haven't seen a shred of proof that in this case they've acted wrongly on any information, or even acted at all. Come back when you find some.

I haven't seen any legal argument for why the government shouldn't monitor calls with foreign countries. And I think it's pretty clear that the government has broad authority when dealing with foreign powers. Read your US Constitution. And while you're reading it, tell me which three amendments were broken here, because I don't see any.

Listening to free speech does not restrict

[falconwolf]

free speech.

Listening may not but when the authorities know who's talking it does create a chilling effect. The Founding Fathers of the USA knew this, otherwise a lot of anynmous tracts supporting the revolution never would of been printed. I don't recall for sure which case it was or the year though I think it was between 1810 and 1819 the USSC ruled that privacy was a right guaranteed by the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. And said right to privacy has been upheld by more USSC rulings, including one in 1969 if I recall the right year about abortion.

Falcon

Re:Listening to free speech does not restrict

[mrxak]

But do you have the right to privacy in another country? Again, this is not a case of domestic call monitoring.

Re:Listening to free speech does not restrict

[BalanceOfJudgement]

But do you have the right to privacy in another country? Again, this is not a case of domestic call monitoring.

I have often found that people who try to argue minutae do it because they know they can't win the bigger argument. That statement strikes me as exactly such a thing.

Take a look at the Bill of Rights - you won't find the word "citizen" in it anywhere. The founders believed those to be human rights - and although our current legal establishment does not consider the Bill of Rights to protect anyone but US citizens, the founders DID think the Bill of Rights should protect non-citizens from our government.

That was a consequence of the British practice of rejection of citizenship - strip a person of their rights by declaring that they're not a citizen. That's exactly what our administration is doing, and exactly what you're trying to advocate.

Humans are humans, and they all have rights, regardless of what nation they belong to.

If we forget that, we've already given up everything we claim to be fighting for.

Re:Listening to free speech does not restrict

[falconwolf]

But do you have the right to privacy in another country? Again, this is not a case of domestic call monitoring.

Neither the Constitution of the USA nor the First Amendment, or any other admendment for that matter, says anything about whether one party is in another country. But they are explicit about the rights of those in the US. Even if a call is international without a warrant all tapping of calls violates the rights of the person in the USA. If they have a problem with that then they can get a warrant after the fact via a secret court. But they aren't even doing that.

Falcon

Re:Listening to free speech does not restrict

[mrxak]

I have often found that people who try to argue minutae do it because they know they can't win the bigger argument.

I have often found that people who ignore the details simply don't understand any argument.

Humans are humans, and they all have rights, regardless of what nation they belong to.

So US Citizens should be subject to laws from other countries even though they live in the US? If we follow that kind of logic, it's lowest denominator time all over the world. Let's start stoning people on the streets because in country x they have the right to do that, and since we're all humans here, we're subject to how other people do things. That's a great idea. I'm no relativist, but I do think people should only be subject to the laws in which they are.

Re:Listening to free speech does not restrict

[falconwolf]

But do you have the right to privacy in another country? Again, this is not a case of domestic call monitoring.

It doesn't matter if one end of the conversation is in the USA As long as one person is in the US if the call is tapped then the rights of the person in the US is being violated if there is no warrant. And they can get a warrant after the fact from the FISA court. However the Bush admin doesn't even have the decency to do that.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even today, are you absolutely certain how your data are being used?

"Right now, some poor fellow is out for a walk. A rarity. An odd one. Don't think the police don't know the habits of queer ducks like that, men who walk mornings for the hell of it, or for reasons of insomnia. Anyway, the police have had him charted for months, years. Never know when that sort of information might be handy. And today, it turns out, it's very usable indeed. It saves face."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

If you think we've taken a turn for the worse, then quit complaining about it and do something. Posting on a website for nerds doesn't count.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[PeterBrett]

Since it's obviously okay to ignore all the Judges who have ruled the program Constitutional...

Citation needed.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[orcrist]

The gov't wants to hook a computer up to a telephone exchanges to monitor all trafic for works like "Mohamed", "Jihad", or maybe even anyone speaking Farsi or Arabic and begins taping when it picks up one of any number of suspect words. Does the Fed Gov't need get 300 million warrants?

Yes.

Or, does the gov't only get warrants for the KNOWN terrorists for "manual" monitoring and hope we don't miss anyone?

Yes.

That was easy wasn't it? That's the whole point of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and yes they will miss some. Oh well. Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" will convict all 'normal' murderers? Or do you think we might "miss some"? Are you willing to give up that principle too?

The smearing has begun

[rjung2k]

However, how long will it take before Judge Taylor becomes just another of then "activist" judges?

The right-wing feces-flinging over this ruling has already begun.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's down to common terminology and usage of language, what one term implies over another."

Okay what do you call it when a US person is wiretapped without a warrant?

That is the "crux of the biscuit" isn't it?

Isn't FISA pretty explicit about this?

Yes, there is a specific legal definition of US person.

NSA doesn't need a warrant for international international.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

I haven't seen any legal argument for why the government shouldn't monitor calls with foreign countries.

Federal Judge Orders End to Warrantless Wiretapping
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17cnd -nsa.html?hp&ex=1155873600&en=a6f8950517248da0&ei= 5094&partner=homepage

Read your US Constitution. And while you're reading it, tell me which three amendments were broken here,

1st, 4th, and 9th. And quite possibly 5th, 6th, and 11th.

because I don't see any.

pull your head outta your ass?

That's not how free speech works.

[raehl]

The government is not supposed to abridge your right to free speech. Listening to your phone calls abridges that right - the mere fact that the government may be listening to my private communication affects my ability to speak freely.

That doesn't mean the government shouldn't be able to listen to phone calls, but not without DUE PROCESS, i.e., a warrant.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

Hrm.

Good point. For some reason, I was under the impression that another judge, on another circuit, had already ruled the other way. But a quick Google search turns up nothing like that.

Kinda undermines my whole primary argument, doesn't it?

I could say that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal in authority to the Judiciary branch, and that therefore the Administration's claim--absent arbitration by the Supreme Court--carries just as much authority as the claim of a circuit court judge, but that formulation doesn't carry quite the same pep.

Ah, well.

At least my secondary arguments still stand, since I still see this as a case of judge-shopping, and I still think that such things undermine the ACLU's value to us as citizens.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont like the path that the trend is following.

Nothing much:

http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.15/italy

Oh and maybe you'll find out also that to get any sort of information costs you as low as a couple hundreds of euros.

Don't bother about "who controls the controllers", big bro is controlling them :-\

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mabhatter654]

Excellent example, but this would be equivalent to the Govt also performing invasive "Customs" level searches because you were on a plane who's travel heads OUT of the country. And searching every one on any given plane with the only cause being that your flying to the middle east, but you're IN Detroit right now. That would never fly, nor should this. The issue if they could get away with that EVERY flight would "leave" the country so they could inspect you. It's the same with wiretaps only easier because they can just put the sniffer on the physical wire going "out" of the country and catch whatever comes along. That's what the judge is seeing.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[terrahertz]

You took the words right out of Noam Chomsky's mouth:

"I've often been struck by the extensive knowledge that people have of sports, and particularly, their self-confidence in discussing it with "experts." While driving, I sometimes turn on radio talk shows on sports, and am always struck by this. People calling in have no hesitation in criticizing the coaches, the judgments of the people running the shows, etc. In contrast, when discussing matters of concern to human lives -- their own and others -- people tend to defer to "experts," though for the most part the expert knowledge is no more beyond them than how the local professional sports team should play their next game. That's where the indoctrination comes in: in the intensive training that brings people to feel that they must defer to alleged "experts" on matters of very direct concern to them, far more so than sports. I do, however, agree that there can be negative aspects to the heavily promoted frenzy on spectator sports, loyalty to the home team, etc. Depends very much on how it is carried out."

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[605dave]

I do that to freak out some my friends as well. They will answer and I will say something like "Mongoose, the assets are in place. The mighty wind carries a mighty sword. By the grace of god we shall succeed. Oh, and what's up man?" Usually makes people veeery uncomfortable.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Well the USA isn't a dictatorship, and people are allowed to come and go as they please, assuming they're not restricted from doing so by a court order. So, the NSA monitoring such a phone call could only serve to enforce the law, not get you in any trouble.

If you really believe they will only ever listen and never pass that information on to 'interested parties', you are more naive than anyone I have ever met and our conversation MUST be finished now - the capacity to discuss requires that the two parties carry the sounds foundational assumptions, which you and I most certainly do not.

I believe that first and foremost, the government's power must be kept in check by a) a populace willing to defend its rights, and b) restricting the powers the government can ever claim.

You, however, appear to be of the opinion that 'so long as it's not obviously violating my rights right now, it must be perfectly fine."

Since we cannot at least have that common ground, there is very little for us to say to each other. I will, however, complete my response to other points in your post.

If listening in on a phone call were only about enforcing the law, a warrant would not be necessary, becase warrants are required only to protect our rights - that is why they are mandated by the Bill of Rights. If you can't accept even that, then again - we have little to say to each other.

As for political talk on the phone, that's not illegal. Be wary of laws that make it so. Until that happens, you don't have to worry about it. COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law. Be wary of leaders who would break the law. This strikes me as common sense.

You're contradicting your own argument. Obviously COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law - and it happened anyway, demonstrating quite clearly that the government will abuse any power it possibly can to exercise force and restrict political speech. That pretty much answers your following statement of "As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case."

Restricting it to this case is not necessary. You need only look at the history of the US government's behavior to non-mainstream thought to see that I am right - the government cannot be trusted with the power to tap or control speech.

Listening to free speech does not restrict free speech.

Again, please look up the Chilling Effect. No law must be passed for "Listening to free speech" to cause a restriction in free speech. If people believe that exercising their right to free speech may cause political and personal consequences, they'll simply choose not to speak - which is exactly what we're talking about. Alot of journalists and legal professionals are upset over this for exactly that reason - it has the potential to push their sources into hiding.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are judges on a committee that are supposed to check these type of wire-taps which has approved 98% of what they received but even the White House decided that this was not good enough for them. There is something rotten in the White House that they have cause to bypass a mechanism that has a 98% approval is something wrong. The White House is hiding something and really don't like what it is.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[orcrist]

...I wouldn't want the USSR to know where our ballistic subs were (are,)...

I know this is off-topic, but as a former submariner who served on a ballistic sub, I can assure you that not even our government knows exactly where the subs are. They are given a fairly large operational area, then go to complete radio silence and cruise around at the discretion of the Captain. Only the crewmembers who have a need to know (e.g. officers, navigators) even know where the sub is, so there is little chance of an enemy discovering that unless they can actually detect the sub with their own subs.

-chris

Even better!

[raehl]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in court about whether he had sex with an intern.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in a deposition for a civil case?

The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.

Re:Even better!

[theLOUDroom]

The difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush is Bill Clinton thought he had to break the law to cover his ass. George Bush doesn't think the law applies to him in the first place.

There's also that tradeoff of the deaths of many thousands of people versus the staining of a dress.

Re:Even better!

[Scudsucker]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn back the clock 10 years and have our greatest concern about the President be, quite legitimately, that he once lied in a deposition for a civil case?

That's the best part - he didn't even lie (the court decided "sexual relations" == "intercourse", and blow jobs are not intercourse) or break the law.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[illumin8]

Ok, I found this document which is a transcript of Attorney General Gonzales' statement before congress, where he says:

First, only international communications are authorized for interception under this program. That is communications between a foreign country and this country.

Second, the program is triggered only when a career professional at the NSA has reasonable grounds to believe that one of the parties to a communication is a member or agent of Al Qaida or an affiliated terrorist organization. As the president has said, if you're talking with Al Qaida, we want to know what you're saying.

I'll give you the fact that he says the program is only triggered on reasonable grounds, but they are capturing all traffic regardless (how else could you do it?).

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there should be nothing to stop you from reading this post:

Like I was saying, you missed the point.

Most people in the United States supported slavery too.

There is already too much information to sort through and not enough time to do it... We need to filter.
One of my filters is a BS meter. When ever I see comments this far detached from reality my BS meter fires and decide to not waste my time with the following wall of text.

Normally I wouldn't bother with a reply to a post that fires my BS meter but I was trying to be helpful. If you want someone to read what you have to say don't preceed it with outlandish comments.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem to say anything about foreign policy or national defense.

Section 2 gets into Commander-in-Chief of the military and international treaties. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Also, am I the only one who questions the wisdom of the ACLU's tactics in this case?

The wisdom? Sure. Although, I am not sure wisdom had anything to do with it.

I don't for a second, question the strategy - when you have a purpose, strategy is all about getting it done. Make no mistake, our 'duly elected officials' use the same tactics all the time, trying to find judges who will rule their way on rights cases, murder cases, etc. And the worst example is when our duly elected officials decide to redraw congressional districts to ensure the voices of particular minorities won't be heard.

No, strategy is what it's all about - being that our government finds it necessary, it becomes necessary to fight fire with fire.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

"the wiretaps between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen"

What happens if that US citizen works for Al Qaeda? Should we just hang up, even when the suspect's actions may bring the legitimacy of their citizenship into question?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give credit where credit is due. Nixon invented the term "War on Drugs". The first drug czar appeared near the end of the Reagan administration. Clinton doesn't own it any more than Bush does.

Read all about it.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're trying to argue with those who are not really able to think, only say and do what their liberal friends tell them. One of Clinton's staff members, a liberal, is embarassed by liberals like these on slashdot. There is a war on to fight terrorism, hence people on all sides dying. Liberals would like to runa away from it and pay off the terrorists incorrectly thinking they will be left alone. Don't believe me, look into the real history of Rome and Greece. It didn't work then and it will not work now.
While I support the war on terror, I wish things could be better. The world's enemy is being fought by those who have fought for and believe in freedom. The rest of the world is too afraid to fight these people.
You are attempting to get through with individuals who think that they are more intelligent and more informed than all the rest of us and will point you to their liberal sites to prove their point. I have never taken one side of a story to form my own opinion on something.
They think the ACLU is always right, never have political motives for their ridiculous lawsuits, and are really trying to look out for us. Yet they have been more concerened about foreign persons rights than our own, namely the enemies of the world.
No, this president is not perfect, nor have any of our presidnets in the past been perfect. But if you liberals really want to be informed, look further than the liberal sites you visit religously and you will realize your leadership is full of flaws as well. You also undermine your own beliefs while they criticise others. That is what is know as hypocrisy and liberals, whithout knowing it, practice this quite often.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArcherB]

That's the whole point of protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and yes they will miss some.

Well, that's the point, isn't it. We can't afford to miss some. I also think that monitoring a call made to Afghanistan from a brand new pay-as-you-go phone is pretty reasonable. Besides, are 3000 or more lives less important than your own feeling of comfort when you think that no one is listening to your phone calls to Afghanistan? Since you will never know if you calls are monitored or not, that is all we are talking about here... a feeling.

Oh well. Do you think "innocent until proven guilty" will convict all 'normal' murderers? Or do you think we might "miss some"? Are you willing to give up that principle too?

The reason we are "innocent until proven guilty" is to prevent the innocent from being convicted and spending the remainder of thier life in prison. Comparing a life in prison to the chance that someone may over hear your phone conversation is pretty friggin rediculous, don't you think?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Sylver Dragon]

The problem isn't necessaily that laws will be passed to make things illegal. Throwing people in jail isn't the only way to get rid of them. If the government does reach the point of despotism, I expect that due process will be the first thing to go. And death squads in the streets will be perfectly happy to use data collected by a previously benevolent government to pick out targets. The point is that the government has no right to such information and should not be allowed to have it. The question isn't: if you have nothing why do you have anything to hide? The real question should be: why does the government need to know? If they cannot answer that question (i.e. go before a judge and get a warrant) then they should not be allowed to collect that information.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

True, but even though I liked President Clinton way more than President Bush it still felt to me like he was forced into apologizing.

Well... at least he apologized. Bush won't even go that far - he replies with "trust me, I know what I'm doing."

It is said that those who outright refuse to ask themselves if they've made a mistake, have made more than they'd ever like to admit.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Or in other words, proving that the program is within the President's authority would require revealing state secrets?

Yep because apparently, the president has "secret powers" that nobody is allowed to know about.

Smacks of fascism and dictatorship, to me.

Signing statements

[benhocking]

"Bush has used signing statements to accomplish the same thing." Huh? How does a signing statement, which carries no weight of law, 'accomplish the same thing' as a line-item veto. Do you even know what these things are?

Signing statements are Bush's way of saying he's going to ignore such-and-such provision of the law. I.e., he's going to not enforce that law. That de facto accomplishes the same thing as a line-item veto in many cases.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Now everyone is a suspected terrorist I guess...

I think that was facetious, but that's precisely the problem with terrorism and why the government's response is wholly inappropriate:

When the public itself becomes your enemy, you become incapable of serving the public. Our "leaders" are so shortsighted that they actually believe that considering everyone guilty will be effective - and this alone, regardless of what else they've done, renders them unfit for leadership.

That kind of thinking is the first step toward dictatorship.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Jedi Alec]

Do officials actually do the torture, or do they give commands? Ahh.. Furthermore, if a president ordered such an act, wouldn't this amendment absolve him?

And if it doesn't, do we get to drag his sorry ass to The Hague the moment he sets foot on foreign soil?

judge shopping

[falconwolf]

The fact that the ACLU kept shopping around for a judge who would rule their way doesn't actually cancel out the fact that they had to shop around in the first place, on account of there seem to be plenty of judges out there, with just as much judicial authority as this one, who would rule against the ACLU.

You know, I News Googled the judge and read the first few results and none of them said anything about the ACLU going judge shopping. Either I missed it or you made it up. So can you provide any evidence this happened?

Falcon

Re:judge shopping

[susano_otter]

Actually, I can't. You're not the first person to raise questions of this nature. I'm in the process of rethinking my point here.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Enigma2175]

Just because 53% of people believe he should have the power to conduct warrantless wiretaps does not mean it is legal. If you want this program to be legal, you are going to have to change the Constitution.

There has been no demonstration of how this program makes us safer. Even if it is making us safer, is it worth the spectre of a totaliarian state hanging over us? Does anyone really believe the executive branch should have the right to wiretap american's calls with absolutely no oversight? I am not ready to give up my liberties for (questionable) safety.

The NY Times says, "The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval 'in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.'"

Facts, schmacts. A majority of americans also believe Iraq had WMDs, even after very meticulous inspections failed to provide any evidence to support this administration's justification for war.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ksheff]

According to the FISA legislation, the government can intercept communications w/o a warrant, but if they want to use it, they have 72 hours to get a warrant. If they do not, they have to destroy the information. So basically, they could have a copy of every communication anyone in the world has made over a 3 day period. Ones that look appear to be promising could be used to get a warrant and would be kept as evidence once the warrant is granted. The others would be deleted once they are 72 hours old.

Is this what is being ruled unconstitutional? If not, how does the above senario differ from what the judge's ruling is supposed to block?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Jedi Alec]

and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.

Hmmm, before arguing one way or the other I'd be most interested to hear the definition of said "reasonable" basis.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he wasn't president at the time - Clinton was. Believe me, Clinton had no inhibitions about getting blown.

Re:Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - A Known Liberal

[Big_Al_B]

Just another typicaly ruling from a liberal judge.

That's sure a well thought out counterpoint you've got there. But why bother with facts when they don't support your side, eh?

They make their own laws on the fly

Apparently so does the exec branch.

How are we going to prevent terrorist attacks if our own government says we can't listen in on their conversations?

Oh for Chrissake. Who has a problem with wiretapping terrorists?! I have never heard anyone say they are against wiretapping terrorists. Not one.

What I have heard is that wiretapping should done within applicable laws. Even congressional leadership (from both parties) has said that. Why is this talking point, that some people are against wiretapping, so stuck in your pea-sized red brain?!

Liberals are too concerned about big brother

As is the Republican Congress who held hearings about this exact issue...

to realized that there terrorists out there laughing it up as they get ready to explode at a town near you.

Oh? I thought we were in Iraq, "fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them here." Was that another lie then?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

No, strategy is what it's all about - being that our government finds it necessary, it becomes necessary to fight fire with fire.

Thank you for providing such a compact justification for fighting terrorism with terrorism. Can we stop blaming Israel for bombing civilians now, too?

Re:Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - A Known Liberal

[The Master Control P]

We need a new tag: +1, Parody.

OTOH, it seems there's nothing one can say that's so crazy that there isn't at least one wingnut (left or right) who actually believes it. Plus there'd be flamewars over Parody vs Troll.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[causality]

I totally understand where wiretapping "innocent" people is a Bad Thing, in principle. It definitely violates "privacy" (although we could still debate whether you can actually expect privacy over public lines to foreign countries- I might not be so quick to assume you can). But there is absolutely nothing here stopping you from talking about whatever you want.

I expect privacy unless clear, unambiguous notice is given that the conversation may be monitored. What bothers me about the situation is that if you make a phone call, domestic or international, you have no knowledge; maybe you are being monitoried right this moment ... and maybe you're not. There's an insidious element to this lack of disclosure that is without explanation -- the question has not even come up so I have not even heard the usual "national security!" excuse used. Rest assured that anyone with a reason to be paranoid already assumes no privacy and uses countermeasures, such as speaking in code. In fact, I would have to say that anyone trying to get away with something evil who fails to plan on such simple and obvious possibilities was too stupid to be much of a threat. So really, whom do they intend to monitor? And why would they have any problem obtaining a warrant? Just maybe the statists who want this are not 100% pure, saintly, full of love for all of humankind, selfless, and charitable but have their own motives which are not in our best interests.

I'm actually not sure which is the bigger threat: the long-term planner who is fine with the idea of an eventual police state just so long as they will play a part in running it, or, the well-intentioned but shortsighted do-gooder who fails to forsee major future problems caused by actions taken and precedents set that seem good right now in a climate of fear.

If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right? And if they're not talking about such things, then you're not going to have the government busting you for anything. I'd be a lot more worried about the government passing laws making more things illegal than the government checking to see that existing laws are being followed.

It seems like you would be amazed at how much leverage over a person can be obtained by this level of surveillance. Accepting this fact is no great leap of faith. When you are prepared to make that leap, consider also that the executive branch in general, and police power in particular, tend towards attracting the power-hungry. This is an artifact of the very nature of the job, and as a result it cannot be remedied by any mere procedural change except for direct and enforcable limits on the scope and extent of that power. Bear in mind that often these are people who know what's best for you, like to enforce it, and often picture themselves as self-sacrificing civil servants with the purest of intentions -- and it would probably be a hard, thankless, unrewarding job otherwise. Making it too easy and efficient for the government to enforce its laws is a direct precursor of fascism.

Also, I'm not really sure how many more things one could make illegal. The tax code alone is so complex that 10 different specialists will give you nine different answers to the same question. Let alone every last local ordinance, state law, and federal law, and as others have pointed out, ignorance of the law is not an allowed excuse. Therefore, I believe that battle has been lost.

You may trust Bush, others may not, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not illegal stuff is going on right now over the telephone under existing laws. This is a country of laws, not leaders. Nixon was proof of that.

I don't trust anyone who wants to be President badly enough that he is willing to perform the type of bargaining and the w

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[jesup]

By the way, I haven't heard of any identifiable, individual Ammerican who was subject to this wiretapping.

That's why it's called a secret wiretapping program. 1/2 joking. The old USENET paranoia of the NSA listening in is now de rigour reality...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[erotic piebald]

Nope.

executive

is that about which I was thinking.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[falconwolf]

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

Ever hear of the tyranny of the masses? Many Germans believed in rounding up all the Jews; Roma or Sinti, as some Gyspies prefer to be called; and the handicapped. Does that make it alright?

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[muonman]

The best that you should infer about your 'position', ms. Coulter, from the
absence of refuting argument, is that, if it were reviewed by Wolfgang Pauli,
he might have remarked that it is 'not even wrong'.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Thank you for providing such a compact justification for fighting terrorism with terrorism. Can we stop blaming Israel for bombing civilians now, too?

Agh, can we please forgo the blatant mischaracterization of my words to make a point?

My post was not intended to relieve anyone of the responsibility of intelligent thought, as your reply would suggest. Nothing can ever relieve that burden from anyone - so understanding that sometimes someone's own tactics have to be used against them is not a blanket justification for any and all unethical actions.

And particularly in this case, I was talking about political game playing, and not for a second about making war.

Your original post was very well thought out, your reply rather surprised me.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there's a well-established method of establishing that a search/wiretap/etc. is justified: it's called a warrant. In fact, for the past several decades, we've had a program in place that makes getting a warrant for wiretapping quite easy. You can get a FISA warrant quickly, confidentially, and even retroactively.

FISA is total, screaming bullshit. They've rejected less than a dozen requests in their history and granted about eight of the dozen when "further information" was provided.

They're really nothing more than a craven rubber stamp for the DOJ et al.

They claim that they grant all but a negligible number of requests because the requests are "so well-prepared". Total bullshit -- why are these requestors so proficient when none of the remaining government attorneys can put together such a high percentage of indictments leading to convictions? These requestors should be out teaching other government attorneys to put together persuasive indictments.

How does it come to pass that the government can claim this high percentage of successful requests is justified when they'd scream rape if an out-of-favor foreign dictator were elected by a similar percentage?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Vancorps]

Thank you for pointing that out but beyond that the constitution doesn't say what the government can't do. It says what the government can do. This warrantless wiretapping is not in there so it shouldn't be done as it is against the constitution. This concept seems to be lost on most people. I'm with Mr Franklin and his statement about those who give up liberty for security deserve neither. Many people have died to protect the rights we've established and I'm completely amazed how much they are slipping so fast. Fortunately the checks and balances are still there so the damage is reversable.

I'd call an election one type of poll

[benhocking]

Don't you recall from your American History class that some territories voted to allow slavery when they became states? I'd say that, in those states at least, a majority of white men (the only people that supposedly counted back then) supported slavery - not just rich land owners.

By the way, rich also meant that you owned 20 or more slaves. Not just that you owned a slave. In order to get out of serving in the Confederate Army you had to own 20 or more slaves.

Storm the Castle and Arrest the King and His Men!

[Bushido Hacks]

I am certainly no liberal political troll, considering I am a red-state moderate conservative, but considering the decision made by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, and the request that have been made to order the end the program immediately, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is defying the orders made by Judge Taylor.

According to this statement

"We're going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington.

This means that "Senior Gonzales" is going to get the President, who authorhized this UNCONSTITUTIONAL program, to continute the program against the judges ruling.

I would be reasonable enought to arrest the President of the United States for treason against his own country.

Hopefully, the Judge thought of the possiblity that Gonzales would go to the President and has a plan to stop the the program from continuing.

Gonzales and Bush are more concerned about protecting that small group of rich men in Washington. Why would $60 Million that is suppose to be used by DHS's science and technology division be used to hire extra security guards at a building owned by the Treasury Department?

NEVER sacrifice true freedom for false security!

Bush ISN'T running, his supporters have the GALL!

[zenyu]

Back to reality, of course I know that what Bush and "his whitehouse" does will reflect heavily on the Republican party. But that doesn't mean that it should.

Yes is should.

If they support that criminal and have the gall to run, they have no moral compass.

The Congress has failed to impeach "the president" and try him for his crimes. Since the "Republicans" are in charge of both houses, any congress critter who has not left the party has implicitly endorsed this inaction and should be fired. Any "Democrat" who has supported the "Republicans", aka Hillary, should be fired. It is as simple as that. If any "Republican" doesn't want to be held responsible for the actions of their leaders should quit the party, and "Democrat" who wants to backpedal on their support for these criminals in power is shit out of luck.

BTW1 I sent in my change of party form last year to leave the Repulicrat party and the change won't be effective until next year. It has not endeared me to the Party that they prevent me from leaving.

BTW2 Yes I'm pissed.

previous USSC rulings

[falconwolf]

Sorry, you can't blame this court for that ruling. The decision that growing a crop in one state for consumption in that state is Interstate commerce can be laid squarely at the feet of FDR and his court in 1942.

Sure the USSC's ruling on medical marijuana can be lain right at the current, er last year's, Supreme Court. This SC like all others could have ruled otherwise and stated FDR's packed court ruled wrong. This has happened before and will happen again.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Vancorps]

Very well phrased since the constitution grants rights to the government not to the people. By default the people have every right to do as they please as long as it does not violete the freedom of another person. I'm tired of people using the nothing to hide no problem logic. These same people could potentially have a drug problem exposed to the public with such policies in place. I agree with you, if the government can't tell you why the need the information then they have no business collecting it. The mechanisms should definitely be in place to gather the information but this shouldn't have without a warrant. If a judge grants it after the fact that's even fine since I recognize sometimes time constraints are the biggest concern. If the judge doesn't grant the warrant then the data should be destroyed however.

Coincentally a policy like that would reduce the increased demand on storage for the government lowing their operating costs. Seems like a good deal to me, maybe another tax cut in the future! Yeah right, oh well

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Dolly_Llama]

The government admitted to tapping all phone calls that had an end-point in any foreign country.

This is turd polishing.

See saying that one party is outside of the united states gets you looking at this as out there, when by definition, the other party must be in the united states and thus clearly covered by the "U.S. Person" qualification in the FISA.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

Wolfgang Pauli was a well-established expert in his field.

Who the fuck are you?

voting for Bush

[falconwolf]

"And FYI, I voted for this guy."

Hopefully only the first time

In 2000 instead of voting for who I wanted to I specifically voted against Bush. What a wasted vote, last year I voted FOR Michael Badnarik and will again if he runs in 2008.

Falcon

Re:voting for Bush

[Money for Nothin']

I'll vote for Badnarik again only if the Libertarian Party somehow can't possibly manage to run somebody less batshit crazy. ("Hey guys, let's go blow up the U.N. building in NYC! I'll bet that'll be popular with voters!! And let's drive there without a driver's license, and sleep in our cars!")

I know it's asking a lot of the LP, but...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[LifesABeach]

FTFA, "The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets."

Strange, the Judicial Branch didn't request to know HOW the Executive Branch was doing this unconstitutional act, just that they COULDN'T do this unconstitutional act. As for the act OF wire tapping, the military routinely monitors other countries communications, for which no one, in the U.S., seems to care. Maybe there's more going on that the Executive branch does not even want the military to know about? Both Bush Jr., and Chaney are "Oil" men, maybe what they're "listening" to has more to do with oil, than with islam?

Re:Storm the Castle and Arrest the King and His Me

[jjohnson]

While I agree with your general sentiment, I believe Gonzales means that they have many legal avenues open to them, starting with several different appeals paths; using any of them stays the order until it's ruled on, I believe, so this ruling is the first act, not the last, in this very sordid play.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

If you really believe they will only ever listen and never pass that information on to 'interested parties', you are more naive than anyone I have ever met and our conversation MUST be finished now - the capacity to discuss requires that the two parties carry the sounds foundational assumptions, which you and I most certainly do not.

I believe that first and foremost, the government's power must be kept in check by a) a populace willing to defend its rights, and b) restricting the powers the government can ever claim.

You, however, appear to be of the opinion that 'so long as it's not obviously violating my rights right now, it must be perfectly fine."

If you're worried about the US Government supporting a dictatorship in any way, you should write to your representatives, the president, and vote them all out of office if they don't listen. You are naive to think that a dictatorship isn't already monitoring their own dissidents. But anyway, if you want to drop that particular issue, I don't have a problem with it. I do however agree with you that government should be restricted in what it does. But don't mistake my agreement on that point for agreement that the government doesn't have the right and duty to protect its citizens from foreign threats and influence, and prevent things like foreign espionage. That's why we have the NSA, and that's why they monitor foreign communications.

If listening in on a phone call were only about enforcing the law, a warrant would not be necessary, becase warrants are required only to protect our rights - that is why they are mandated by the Bill of Rights. If you can't accept even that, then again - we have little to say to each other.

A warrant is about enforcing the law. A warrant gives them permission to do just that. But the requirement for a warrant only applies on US soil, does it not? These monitored phone calls are overseas. I've repeated this so many times, but I'll do it again: this is not a case of domestic call monitoring. I have made no statements in this thread supporting domestic call monitoring.

You're contradicting your own argument. Obviously COINTELPRO was illegal under existing law - and it happened anyway, demonstrating quite clearly that the government will abuse any power it possibly can to exercise force and restrict political speech. That pretty much answers your following statement of "As for the being punished for something somebody else might not like, show me one example of this happening in the current case."

That it happened is irrelevant, that they got caught and it was stopped is the important part. Thus, the checks and balances are working rather nicely. They are there because it is inevitable that people will abuse power, and they've worked for hundreds of years. And no, that does not answer my request for proof of wrongdoing in this case. COINTELPRO was decades ago. We're talking about the present, current, non-domestic case. Most of the people working back when COINTELPRO was happening no longer work for any involved agencies, had nothing to do with it, or are dead. Learn from the past if you want, but make sure you learn that the system worked.

Restricting it to this case is not necessary. You need only look at the history of the US government's behavior to non-mainstream thought to see that I am right - the government cannot be trusted with the power to tap or control speech.

It is absolutely necessary. There are many different factors involved. For one, we are discussing, yet again, communication overseas. Also, COINTELPRO clearly showed that the system works. A few bad apples got caught. History shows us that things all work out in the end, that's it.

Again, please look up the Chilling Effect. No law must be passed for "Listening to free speech" to cause a restriction in free speech. If people believe that exercising their

Got it wrong...

[jscotta44]

Clinton is the one that turned down having Osama delivered to him on a silver platter.

Re:Got it wrong...

[Mister Whirly]

Well, he was going to go after him, but was accused of Republicans of "wagging the dog" to deflect from his blowjob malfunction. Also Clinton's staff told the incoming Bushites to make getting Osama a top priority...and they laughed. Probably wouldn't be "good business" to kill the son of the family - the Bin Ladens - that Bush is in the oil business with...

I'm Libertarian... I'm not some teenage Liberal

[falconwolf]

If you're a Libertarian then you are Liberal. Unfortuantely the meaning of the word has been bastardized. A real Liberal, though they're sometimes called Classical Liberal, believes in small government and Liberty.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're really nothing more than a craven rubber stamp for the DOJ et al.

And yet the DOJ claims that it's not enough...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

I know the two examples are very different, but the underlying principles: the ends justify the means, fight fire with fire, and two wrongs make a right; all seem universally applicable.

If we are justified in defeating government evil by engaging in the same evil ourselves, then it seems to me that the same philisophy that provides that justification also provides justification for destroying the village to save the village.

In fact, I think that the underlying philosophy is bankrupt for that very reason, and that we are not actually helped when the ACLU reacts to politicians undermining the justice system by further undermining the justice system themselves.

When politicians undermine the justice system, it is to their discredit. It reveals them as corrupt and incompetent, and devalues everything they do. It also devalues the justice system itself. We can't trust a politician who says the courts are on his side, and we can't trust courts when they side with politicians.

Likewise, when the ACLU uses the same tactics, they may score a few points against politicians, but only at the price of making their score meaningless. We can no longer point to the legal victories of the ACLU and say that they mean something, because the ACLU has sacrificed meaning for victory.

We can't even say that the ACLU had to commit a small evil to achieve a great good, because we only have the ACLU's word that they have achieved a great good. Instead of turning to the judiciary as an independent arbitrator that will give constitutional weight to the ACLU's legal opinion, the ACLU cynically uses the judiciary as a propaganda mouthpiece for their legal opinion.

And while the branches of government have checks and balances to mitigate the effects of incompetent and corruption, and elections to give the citizenry itself some voice and authority in government, the ACLU has neither of these things. This judge-shopping tactic undermines the only thing remotely like an independent arbitrator with proper binding authority over the nation, without actually increasing the ACLU's credibility or the validity of the ACLU's opinion.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

And from the quote you listed, it seems like the ACLU is purely speculating about what has or has not happened, and sued based on a guess. I don't see how a judge can rule on what the NSA does overseas anyway.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[rjstegbauer]

But I don't believe that "executive powers" should give him UNLIMITED powers.

Enjoy,
Randy

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[evilmousse]

yet, we're all born into such a situation: parents.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Riverman2]

It's a shame your liberal arguments are the only one's people see. If you would take 2 seconds to google it, you would find the polls. I'm sure others have already posted links to them.

I agree with you on the "trust" question. It's a stupid question to be polling, and it is meant to deceive people, like many polls are. The question "do you support warrantless wiretaps" is a valid question though, and that's what the polls were asking, but a poll can be easily tarnished with this question, referenced:

57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has "gone too far in expanding presidential power."

This type of polling doesn't need to be accurate either, because a final conclusion will not be made, as in a presidential election poll. They could be way off and nobody would ever know, and few would even care.

Word it a little differently and this is what you get:

A Rasmussen poll found that 64% of Americans support warrantless wiretapping of international calls made to or from suspected terrorists in the US

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

... it is certain that the Government is likely ....

I know you can probably....

I'm pretty sure you can definitely ....

I have no doubt you should be able to ....

C'mon, people -- up or down -- do you know or are you just guessing?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[BalanceOfJudgement]

If we are justified in defeating government evil by engaging in the same evil ourselves, then it seems to me that the same philisophy that provides that justification also provides justification for destroying the village to save the village.

In fact, I think that the underlying philosophy is bankrupt for that very reason, and that we are not actually helped when the ACLU reacts to politicians undermining the justice system by further undermining the justice system themselves.

Believe it or not, I wholly agree. I have begun to come to the conclusion, however, that those rules only work in a system that is fundamentally fair - which the current system is not.

Once, the government held exactly as much power as the populace's ability to overturn - but that hasn't been true for a hundred years. Unfortunately, that changes things a bit.

Let's presume (or assume) for a moment that the ACLU had allowed whatever random jurisdiction to rule on the matter, and had lost - what would happen to the balance of powers then? Unfortunately our judiciary tends to follow judicial precedent, and that kind of a loss would set a precedent I don't even want to begin to grasp. And more and more, people are using 'appeal to authority' as justification for a whole host of things that are completely unethical and contrary to the principles of liberty and freedom, to and judges are no exception.

We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Sometimes, the ends DO justify the means - but the really important part is understanding WHEN. It can't be a tabula rasa for doing anything you think is justified. But there are times when it can be possible for the ends to justify the means... revolutions for freedom, for example.

I am undecided as to whether the ACLU tainted the victory by judge-shopping. But, that's mostly because I don't have enough details about it to really make that kind of judgement.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[rjstegbauer]

Of course the submaring captain should not need a warrant. But you already knew that no one would disagree with it.
(Not necessarily disagreeing with you...)

There is a huge difference between fighting the military from a different country and the need to gather intelligence about possible terrorists.

I always thought that the CIA and NSA could do just about anything they wanted...as long as a USA citizen was not involved. In that case, the FBI would have jurisdiction and would require (a possibly secret warrant) to do any surveillence.

To me this is a good and clear distinction.

I'll never understand what's wrong with going to (a likely friendly) judge and getting a warrant. Perhaps the judge will become less friendly if it seems that your suspicions are well...warrantless.

Enjoy,
Randy.

Good point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an argument for ownership of guided anti-tank missiles.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Achromatic1978]

Well, that's the point, isn't it. We can't afford to miss some.

At what point do the efforts gone to to ensure you don't miss some dehumanise you to a point where it's unacceptable?

Listening in on phones? What happens when that's not sufficient next time? Do they install cameras with audio in your home? After all, we can't afford to miss some.

What if that misses something next time? Maybe they met in an open field? What then? Are we curfewed to be in our homes outside of work time? After all, we can't afford to miss some.

What happens if that fails, too - I mean, you can't perfectly enforce curfew, after all. Maybe we discover that a certain lobe in the brain lights up on an EEG when you think destructive thoughts. That's alright, we'll all check in for our brain sensor installation. After all, we can't afford to miss some

Think I'm exaggerating? Perhaps. But that's the logical path you're leading down - more and more incursions into the life of innocents is being justified in the name of preventing a possible tragedy that kills a mere fraction of those who die every year from cancer, a just as tragic, and possibly preventable, disease. Whilst throwing money at a problem only works to a certain degree (similar to the mythical man month), I'm sure some of the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at "the war on terror" (which, lets face it, was the result of one single incident) would go ... rather a long way ... to preventing some of the 600,000 deaths a year as a result of cancer in the US alone (not to mention the 1.5 million or so diagnosed with it each year).

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Riverman2]

http://www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press200 60623.asp

Oh wait, I know what you're going to say. 500, big deal! Well then, how many WMD's is enough? Give me a number.

On second thought, don't bother.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[torpor]

Guess what? Elected Officials are representative of the general populace. Its a Democracy.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Riverman2]

Ever hear of the tyranny of the minority? Me neither! Go to the U.S. Senate and see it for yourself.

Many terrorists believe in killing Jews. Many terrorists, like Yasser Arafat, have direct links to the Nazi's. Can you imagine if one of our ex-presidents said "Yeah I served under a Nazi in WW2". Link

Are we still talking about warrantless wiretaps?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[kelnos]

I think another interesting point is that they don't mention on which side of the call is the suspected member/agent of Al Qaida. What if they suspect that the person on the US side of the call, who is potentially also a US citizen, is the member/agent of Al Qaida? Then, regardless of with whom they are talking, the NSA has just illegally tapped the phone of a domestic US citizen. The "international" part is moot here.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[susano_otter]

I think that what you see as the people's inability to overthrow the government is actually nothing more than governing authority being shared by several million people who don't all agree on anything. I am not at all surprised nor at all bitter that my idea of how to run this country never seems to get implemented. Even my elected representatives, in addition to being fallible human beings in their own right, are also the elected representatives of hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens, none of whom actually agree with me on all or even any aspects of governmental policy.

I chalk it all up to simply being how democracy works, especially when that democracy's system of government was precision-engineered to damp tendencies towards radical, meaningful changes in policy.

Some people look at a goverment that doesn't do what they want and assume the government is broken. I assume it's working perfectly, and that mostly what people want is broken--if not for them, then for their fellow citizens.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[x2A]

I'm not in disagreement at all with regards to right vs wrong, should be allowed vs shouldn't be. I was just disagreeing with the person disagreeing with the terminology (or something :-p)

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[x2A]

"Okay what do you call it when a US person is wiretapped without a warrant?"

Another nail in the coffin of their[/your?] dying constitution?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

Well, I agree... in my summary, I said the administration shouldn't have done it without the easily obtained warrants. It can't be that difficult, and better to err on the safe side.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArcherB]

Listening in on phones? What happens when that's not sufficient next time? Do they install cameras with audio in your home? After all, we can't afford to miss some.
Nope. Gov't officials can not enter your home without a warrant. Besides, that would be intrusive, listening to my phone conversations makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. I don't even know they are listening, nor do I really care.

What if that misses something next time? Maybe they met in an open field? What then? Are we curfewed to be in our homes outside of work time? After all, we can't afford to miss some.
Survelence in public is perfectly legal. If they want to follow you to a field and listen in, there is no law against that.

I think you are missing the point here. A couple of US citizens from Pakistan were just arrested with over 1000 pay-as-you-go cell phones in their van. These phones come with 40 minutes for $20, no questions asked. Now lets say that Achmed uses these phones to receive orders from Osama himself. As soon as the feds see Osama is making a call to a number in the US, they have to stop listening, go to a FISA judge and request a warrant. By the time they get the warrant, Achmed's minutes are up and he's moved to another phone, which sends the Feds back to a judge... wash, rince, repeat. There is no legal way that the Feds can monitor calls in this situation. Now if they could get a warrant to tap phone calls from particular phones overseas, regardless of who they call in the US, I'd be OK with that. But as it stands, they must request and wait for a warrant for every phone in the US, wether they know it's held by a citizen or not. With terrorists changing phones every 40 minutes, this is not feasible.

Background info from a constitutional lawyer

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

How would a patriot act?. Read it. The guy was an apolitical academic until the administration began ignoring habeas corpus.

The author looks at what the law is, why anyone would want to break it, and how our situation compares with other threats throughout history. For example, when foreign troops were burning down the White House in 1812, when half the country was in armed revolt in 1861-1865, or when thousands of nuclear warheads were half an hour away from burning the US out of the pages of history. It was during that last crisis that FISA passed, by a Senate margin of 95-1.

This has nothing to do with national security, which was satisfied just fine when FISC judges were reviewing wiretaps. This has nothing to do with partisanship, as the 95-1 vote back in 1978 demonstrates.

This is about whether we accept the idea that a President can place himself above the law by announcing a never-ending "war".

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ssrs396]

I think the court must be in on terrorism or something. That's why Bush doesn't follow established law...

Saddam

[falconwolf]

Please do remember that Saddam Hussein made a habit of thumbing his nose at the United Nations, and that instead of following up on all its condemnations of his actions, the UN just laughed at his antics.

Yes, let's remember Saddam was using WMDs while Reagan and Bush Sr supported him. He could do no wrong before he invaded Kuwait, which was then and still is now a monarchy. Also let us not forget that after the first Gulf War then pres Bush Sr urged the Marsh Arabs, Kurds, and others who were against Saddam to rise up against Saddam then left them dangling in the air to be massacred.

The protections in the Constitution only extend to legal residents of the country.

Can you show me anywhere in either the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or other documents from the founding of the USA that states rights are enjoyed only by citizens? Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". All men not just citizens. I can hear it now, "But Thomas Jefferson owned slaves." Yes he did but he was an abolitionist and wanted to end slavery.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

also. even though 3000 was a tragic event. What right does the U.S. goverment have to kill over a million lives through the iraq/afgan/lebanon war?

I agree with the other poster. for the amount so called america has spent on the "war on terror" they could easily cure AIDS or Cancer

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Sylver Dragon]

I find that the two most often ignored amendments are the ninth and tenth.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, the often used bullshit argument that there is no right to privacy listed in the Constitution is just that: bullshit. We have rights not listed in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was never meant as a full list. On the other hand, if we look at the tenth amendment:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If a power is not given to the Federal Government by the Constitution, the Federal Government is not supposed to be allowed to wield it. I wonder how many powers the Federal Government is using these days which aren't really constitutionaly justified? Unfortunatly, the Constitution left open the hole that, ultimatly it is a federal body which decides which powers the Federal Government gets, with the only checking on it is done by the Federal Government. Ideally, this would have worked, as the Constitution was written, but we moved away from some key points. For example, senators were not supposed to be democratically elected. It was intended that they would be selected by the state governments, which means that the states could make sure that the senators would be interested in preserving state's rights. Once the senators were no longer beholden to the states, it opened up the possibility for the Senate to start taking powers from the state governments, with little repercussions. And now we have the expected end result, an out of control Federal Government with no respect for the states or the people.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[tksh]

It's an inevitable consequence of a populace that understands football better than politics.

Well actually, I think most of the world understands football better than politics...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ignavus]

Only in America is half the nation more concerned about whether the President screwed one person than whether he screwed 300 million people.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

Yes, but they didn't do that (without a warrant). That would be domestic wiretapping, unlike what happened here.

I'm agreeing with this court ruling and don't see why they couldn't just go ahead and get the easily available warrants. I'd think your number programmed into the phone of an Al Qaeda member should qualify. But this whole kerfufle is over international calls.

Now, that said, I agree with the court ruling because, if it were a legitimate excuse, the government could legally tap all calls going into or coming out of the U.S. The bottom line is they should have gotten the warrants, but believing the way the tapping was described, I'm equally upset with the mischaracterization of the media of this as "domestic" wiretapping.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[nuzak]

> The Federal Judge has ordered NSA to stop wiretapping international calls that the Government says targets suspected al qaeda members.

No she hasn't. She has ordered them to stop doing so without a FISA warrant. In other words, to comply with the law.

FISA is a goddam rubber stamp -- it exists largely to document the process so that the people with proper clearance can be aware of what's going on. But even that wasn't good enough for our "unitary executive", who has his own intelligence apparatus that doesn't include anyone who might be a political opponent. So we got the warrantless programs, and a congress that is too chickenshit to confront the executive on this very impeachable offense.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I would argue that your right to free association is being violated. After all, the wiretaps
> between a US citizen and foreign national always involve the US citizen, even if its the
> foreign national whom the goverhment is really interested. You can't collect the data without
> violating the rights of the US citizen (unreasonable search, freedom of association). Hence,
> they should always need a warrant.

Hate to argue with you because I don't like warrantless wiretaps either, but the constitution of the US does not guarantee privacy. A major oversight, but there you are. Thus tapping a phone call involving a US citizen would not violate freedom of association. Does it constitute an unreasonable search? I guess it depends if they can get a retroactive warant.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Aardpig]

If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right? And if they're not talking about such things, then you're not going to have the government busting you for anything.

Comments such as this show a remarkable naivete in their understanding of what the right to privacy is all about. What happens if the ACLU is talking about stuff that is both legal but also damaging to the administration? Should we really give the administration -- this one, a future one, perhaps a tyrannical one -- the power to listen to such conversations?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, do you trust your neighbor, or better yet, some guy on the other side of the country who you have never met before more than the government. I am sure if you asked the public if they would trust a perfect stranger with their lives you would have 98% of them saying no. The other 2% were retarded and didn't understand the question, so they just said yes because it was the first choice.

I think I trust the government more than you. After all, if they fail their job I can vote against them the next time their is an election. I can protest them, I can run against them. That is how our system works. Stop acting like you have a better way of doing things.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[makohund]

Yeah. Everything is black & white. Everyone disagreeing with you is a whiny-ass "liberal". People fall into neat categories and are either with you on everything or against you on everything.

*slaps knee* Damn dude, that's a good one! HAR HAR HAR!

What a limited scope of thought you appear to hold, for one accusing others of lacking in the thinking department no less. Somewhere between fascinating and horrifying.

Your entire statement falls on its face by dwelling in naive radio-talk-show style catchphrasing, and the oversimplifications that come with it.

>One of Clinton's staff members, a liberal, is embarassed by liberals like these on slashdot.

And that should matters to who, how?

>There is a war on to fight terrorism

There is a war on to put into action the pipe dreams of the PNAC and other neocon thinktanks, an attempt to impose their own worldview and vision of "democracy" upon foreign nations in particular areas of the world for both idealogical and strategic purposes.

They are also intent on increasing the powers of the executive above the other branches of our government, and imposing limitations on individual liberty resembling policies one would expect to find in a police state rather than our own. All in direct opposition to the US constitution, and in violation of the very priciples they feign to cherish and protect. All in the pursuit of creating and keeping stronger centralized government power, to better reach their aims.

Actions taken in pursuit of these goals have been conducted under the auspices of "fighting terrorism", which recieves little more than lip service, as far as effective strategies for identifying and containing real threats are concerned.

They are crucifying the very core of conservative ideals, in the name of empire building for their own idealogical and personal gains. They attempt to appeal to conservatives by gutting/ruining government entities they themselves find no use for (typically those with potential for common good, even given their faults) while they are busy building the ugly Orwellian machine behind the curtain. The very "big government" traditional conservatives despise the most.

Furthermore, this "war" is being conducted at the top levels with such incompetence as to be a complete embarrassment, and falling far short of the leadership our troops and other persons (the ones on the ground actually doing the finding, fighting, and dying) deserve. (I can't believe there was even talk about voluntarily opening another front. The idiocy of that kind of move is astounding.)

>hence people on all sides dying. Liberals would like to runa away from it and pay off the terrorists

Running away from what? From hunting Bin Laden to go have ourselves a grudge match with a fucking global has-been like Saddam?

>incorrectly thinking they will be left alone. Don't believe me, look into the real history of Rome and Greece. It didn't work then and it will not work now.

You appear to be referring to Danegeld style policies. You're right... they don't work. And you're stupid to think that is what anyone has in mind, or bears any resemblance to any policies anyone is suggesting.

>While I support the war on terror

Great... as currently conducted , you must support our brothers/sisters being shortchanged in force levels, equipment, and workable strategy, to be shot at and often killed for some bullshit diversion instead of what they should be doing.

>The world's enemy is being fought by those who have fought for and believe in freedom. The rest of the world is too afraid to fight these people.

And you're the fucking bastard who would throw away the very rights and freedoms that they believe in and fight for, the ones that make our country what it is supposed to be, because you're a scared little pussy... worried to death that "the bad guys are gonna get me and mine".

How about honoring their sacrifice with a little balls of

Read between the lines

[Chris Snook]

Although it is shrouded in carefully constructed legal formalism, the judge's anger is veiled quite thinly. My favorite excerpts from the ruling:

Page 40:

We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent powers" must derive from that Constitution.

Translation:

"Good morning children. Today we're going to talk about the Constitution. Can anyone tell me what makes the United States different from a monarchy?"

Page 41:

Indeed, since Ex Parte Milligan, we have been taught that the "Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace. . . ." Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 120 (1866).

Translation:

"Since 1866, every law student has been taught that the constitution applies to everyone at all times. You went to law school, right? How can you even argue this with a straight face?"

right to privacy

[falconwolf]

Privacy? No. Invented by the Supreme Court in some abortion case, as I recall.

The SC ruling you're thinking of just reafirmed the right to privacy. Prior to that case, sometime in the early 1800s, the SC ruled in a case that the First Amendment's free speech clause included the right to privacy. I couldn't find that case, the earliest case I've found yet is Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891):

"The Court today reaffirms the long recognized rights of privacy and bodily integrity. As early as 1891, the Court held, [n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others. . . . Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). Throughout this century, this Court also has held that the fundamental right of privacy protects citizens against governmental intrusion [505 U.S. 833, 927] in such intimate family matters as procreation, childrearing, marriage, and contraceptive choice. See ante, at 847-849. These cases embody the principle that personal decisions that profoundly affect bodily integrity, identity, and destiny should be largely beyond the reach of government. Eisenstadt, 405 U.S., at 453 . In Roe v. Wade, this Court correctly applied these principles to a woman's right to choose abortion."

The page from Findlaw above lists more cases some of which involve abortion but not all.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

Thanks for backing up what I said...

I also want to point out that the cellular phones were found in Afghanistan, but they were tapping all the numbers that were stored in them, they weren't actually tapping those phones (what's the point? They'd already captured them.)

I'm sure the tapping was broader than that (not limited to those numbers), but the point remains - suspected terrorists living outside the U.S. were being tapped. I'm not sure, but I think, then, it becomes more of a gray area if you are a U.S. citizen, but outside U.S. territory.

But, as I've been agreeing all along, that'd be a moot point if they'd just get warrants. I don't know what the big deal is. Instead of going through with this lawsuit, wasting time, wasting millions more of tax payer dollars, the administration should just say "Well, we don't think we should have to get them, but if it'll make you feel better then we will."

It's sort of half-assed, non-apologetic, not admitting a mistake, but it should ultimately make everyone happy.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mrxak]

Very funny. But unless you're the judge that made the ruling, you have yet to do as I've asked.

Since you haven't explained why those amendments prohibit what the NSA has done, I'll just guess at your intentions then.

1st: I assume you're talking about "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". I've been over this. Listening to free speech does not prevent the speech from happening. Rant about the chilling effect all you want, but there's no proof this has occurred, and if it had, the *secret* wiretapping would have to become not-secret in order to have this chilling effect, wouldn't it?

4th: I assume you're talking about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It's a moot point because the supposedly unconstitutional actions took place outside of the country and thus inapplicable to the Bill of Rights, but here goes: Nothing was seized, and nobody was searched.

9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Uh, okay. You're just gonna have to explain how this is relevant. I see nowhere that our right to one thing is being used as an excuse to take away our right to another thing.

5th: I assume you're talking about "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Nobody's been killed in this case. You've yet to come up with anything better than a hypothetical chilling effect which would not be caused by a secret NSA program, so the liberty part is out. And nobody's lost any property as far as I know.

6th: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." If they don't find a crime, then this amendment doesn't matter to the situation.

11th: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." I really think you have no idea what the 11th amendment means if you think it relates to anything we're talking about.

In short, did you just pull a bunch of numbers out of *your* ass?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[peacefinder]

Well... if they're really scanning all calls passing through some point, then they have actually listened somewhat to every conversation. Which means that they would have to get a warrant covering (at least) each distinct conversation that they monitored. Which, if the reports are to be believed, could amount to every phone call into, out of, or within the US.

That's probably an impractical amount of warrants to get even later, so I guess they have a point.

(Personally, though, I think the search is just overbroad.)

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's grammar nazis, and then there's didn't-RTFA-nazis.

warrantless tapping

[falconwolf]

You're wrong in listening to phone calls, they can get a warrant after the fact from the FISA, or whatever that secret court is called. The judge can sign a warrant for conversations after the conversation had occured. But the Bush admin isn't even doing this.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Technician]

I hope the judge gets a clue that we are in a war. I hope he gets a clue before a plan is executed that brings a plane down on my house. I would rather have it go like the most recent foiled plan. Sorry guys, but in war, military inteligence is important. Lets let them do their job and protect the freedom. Protecting the terrorists freedom is a good way to get hurt.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

If the ACLU or whoever they're representing is talking about illegal stuff with people overseas, then the government should probably be listening, right?

What if a lawyer in the employ of the ACLU is speaking to a client? What if a doctor calls up their patient to inform them of the results of some medical tests the doctor performed on the patient? What if someone calls their priest to confess something they've done?

If the government is listening in, and the conversation with the lawyer or the priest allows them to find some evidence that they would not have otherwise found, should that evidence be allowed? Should Medicare be allowed to use information the government overheard during the conversation to determine a person's coverage?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[megaditto]

You asked for a legal opinion, which I have provided. You may also read up on ACLU and EFF legal arguments. I am indisposed to writing my own legal brief just because you ask me to (sorry).

I did say 1st, 4th, and 9ths (and possibly 10th if viewed as an extension of 9th) were clearly broken. One *could* believe Bush's Article 2 Presidential powers trump these, but that's not the claim you make.

Additionally, one *could* construct a hypothetical -but plausible- situation where 5th, 6th, and 11th (re: foreign nationals) would also be violated. I have no way of knowing if such situation had occured, hence I have not asserted these were in fact violated, just that they might be.

Hope this helps.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. What's being ruled unconstitutional is that they're not bothering to get a warrant at all -- not even retroactively.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, about the 9th. It basically says that some of my rights are listed explicitly, but I have any number of other rights that the government cannot violate; even if the right I assert is not listed, I still have that right!

In constrast, the government is limited to the powers explicitly listed: if these are not listed, the govt. cannot do it! I.e. the *only* way to wiretap me is by getting a warrant (since the 1970's the telephone comms are explicitly covered under the 4th!)

See if your local community college offers a civics course: it's a great and cheap way to educate oneself.

undermining the justice system

[falconwolf]

In fact, I think that the underlying philosophy is bankrupt for that very reason, and that we are not actually helped when the ACLU reacts to politicians undermining the justice system by further undermining the justice system themselves.

First you accuse the ACLU of judge shopping now you're accusing them of undermining the justice system? How do you base that conclusion and can you provide any evidence to backup your accusation?

Falcon

Re:undermining the justice system

[susano_otter]

Actually, I'm doing two different things here.

First, I'm accusing the ACLU of judge-shopping. Now, this is wrong. I totally misunderstood the situation, and jumped to a conclusion without doing proper research. I have no evidence that the ACLU engaged in judge-shopping in order to get this decision. Some people, including myself, have formed the opinion that the ACLU shopped for a judge in this case. But that's just an opinion. I do not know if there are any facts which support it.

Second, I'm arguing that judge-shopping undermines the justice system. When organizations do go shopping for judges, it undermines the justice system and discredits the legal victory the judge-shopper seeks. If the ACLU were judge-shopping, it would undermine the justice system by definition.

However, the second thing is pretty much moot, since I was wrong about the ACLU judge-shopping in this case. I think it's still interesting as a hypothetical case, and as something to take seriously and think deeply about the next time my favorite activists win a legal victory for my faction.

HTH. HAND.

Clinton is the one that turned down having Osama

[falconwolf]

delivered to him on a silver platter.

If it was so important for Clinton to have gotten Osama then why did Bush give the Taliban, whom Osama was with, $43 million in taxpayer money without asking, or making the handover of Osama as a condition of the money?

Falcon

Re:only problem with this is the R's have more gun

[ltbarcly]

You're confused about a major point. Right wingers are cowards on their own. They crave a strong ruler to command them. Leftists are the ones who tend to go out into the woods and have revolution on their own.

sigh

[/dev/trash]

the terrorists have won.

Re:I'm Libertarian... I'm not some teenage

[JordanL]

You can use whatever label you want. Even classical Liberals are concerned with things like social welfare and security, which are the business of society, not government.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

he government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.

Note that there is effectively no way to force the government to divulge their evidence of such a connection ("It would involve disclosure of operational details" and such like bullshit). Therefore the interception is totally unsupervised and un-investigateable.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Apoklypse]

no one can carry on an intelligent conversation with such as mrTROLLxak

Question Authority before Authority Questions YOU ...

a people can only be FREE when those in power fear the people, on the other hand, a dictatorship exists, when the PEOPLE FEAR the government. What is the current state of affairs?

Clearly the PEOPLE ARE in FEAR of the US Government, specifically Fuehrer Bush.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Vancorps]

Good point although I tend to think the issue would cause less problems if political parties were prohibited by law. Funding could be federal ensuring that anyone with enough signatures could receive the same level of funding as anyone else running for office. There would be a set amount of money for the express purpose of campaigning and that money would be equally distributed to the citizens running for office. It would make for a much more honest government I would think.

I am glad that there are others on here that care about the constitution. It's kind of scary how many people either have a complete misunderstanding as to what the constitution is and the others that are completely apathetic about the expansion of powers. If Bush wants to do warrantless wiretaps then he can put forth a constitution ammendment and it will be voted on.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Apoklypse]

yes, they can and do enter your house without a warrant, and yes, listening to my conversations IS a major intrusion, surveillance in public is perfectly ILLEGAL, if this is not feasible, then maybe the police should learn to do their job, instead of breaking the law and violating my RIGHTS. incompetent twits. and regardles, ½ of the conversation IS in the states and it is therefore illegal to tap it without warrant or datamine it under any circumstances. welcome to Stalin and Hitler's woodie inducing Utopia. Bushie is accomplishing what they never could.

Injunction

[bar-agent]

Well, the court has granted an injunction against the secret program ("TSA," heh).

According to the Guardian, the NSA plans to appeal, but that doesn't keep the injunction from taking effect. But the NSA has asked for a stay until it has appealed, and the ACLU has agreed to that.

So, despite the injunction, the program continues, and everyone seems okay with that.

But if the NSA does not win its appeal, the injunction really takes effect, right? The injunction orders all NSA employees, and everyone else helping the NSA, to stop using the program and doing wiretaps. If they don't, they (each?) face contempt of court charges, according to Wikipedia. I'm guessing criminal contempt of court, rather than civil.

But I don't see where it is directed that the program actually be removed from the books, or that the program cease being funded. I suppose some Executive branch housekeeping function will eventually remove it?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Apoklypse]

"Comparing a life in prison to the chance that someone may over hear your phone conversation is pretty friggin rediculous, don't you think?" This statement alone PROVES that you are completely unaware of what you are talking about and therefore are merely TROLLing.

By your own statement are you hung on your own petard. They are identical in ALL aspects.

No, trolls are hairy

[Anonymous Coward]

*NM*

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[surprise_audit]

What I was a bit surprised to read in this ruling was that the judge said the President of the United States had willfully and knowingly broken the Fourth Amendment.

You may be interested in this impeachment story. The author was on the Committee to impeach President Nixon, so her opinion ought to be worth something...

My Biggest Issue

[queenb**ch]

My biggest issue with all these terrorists is that their families know who they are. The corner grocer knows who this guy is. His neighbors know who he is. The guys at the mosque know who he is AND THEY DON'T TURN HIM IN!

In my mind, that makes the just as guilty. They are guilty by tactily condoning and abetting his actions.

Until we solve that problem, the war on terror will go no where.

2 cents,

QueenB

Re:My Biggest Issue

[gedhrel]

That doesn't hold up to inspection. With the radicalised British natives responsible for 7/7, their nearest and dearest were genuinely shocked and appalled by their actions.

Unless, of course, by "know who they are", you mean, that people know folks who complain about the government, perhaps express frustrated opinions that they should just shoot the sods, and don't toe the party line. Should any (muslim) who meets that criterion be suspected and reported? The US has already tried this before, and those witchhunts didn't do anyone any good.

Re:My Biggest Issue

[queenb**ch]

I so sure that none of the people in these communities have any idea that the wierd guy around the corner who's been making small explosive devices and torturing cats might be a terrorist.

I've worked among them. Their society is geared toward creating "the best muslim you can be" and that's been interpreted as the one who's willing to do the most "for Allah". What more can you give up than your life? When families are taking ads out in the paper publically praising their children for their "committment to Allah" - before the bombings - how else would you interpret it? This behavior is acceptable to a segement of our population. Either the idea that the behavior is acceptable must be eradicated or that sector of the population must be. They leave the rest of us no choice.

2 more cents,

QueenB

Re:My Biggest Issue

[gedhrel]

What about the wierd guy around the corner who's not making small explosives (whether or not he totures kittens) and isn't a terrorist?

I'd like to see a citation in support of your claims about advertisements. You imply that "they" were doing this prior to their children being involved in a terrorist act (which one?)

Lots of families celebrate their children's religious rites of passage: announcements of christenings, bar mitzvahs, etc, are not uncommon in the papers. How am I supposed to interpret that?

"Either the idea that the behavior is acceptable must be eradicated or that sector of the population must be. They leave the rest of us no choice."

Oh, grow up.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Greslin]

Most people in the United States support the wiretapping program.

The overwhelming majority people in the United States don't know anything about the wiretapping program, other than one exists, because the government's fighting like mad to keep us from knowing anything about it. Relying on a popular poll today for that kind of insight is akin to asking the average on-the-street American in 1944 how they felt about the government using secret high-explosive weapons on Japan to bring the war to a quicker close. I'd venture to say the positive vote would have been pretty high.

The numbers likely would have been different if those Americans knew exactly what was happening in New Mexico at the time, or what the ultimate consequences would be.

As usual, education makes all the difference.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[McFadden]

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.

I'm probably showing my ignorance of process here, but what is to stop a future government repealing the War Crimes Act and replacing it with new legislation which allows the current administration to be prosecuted? Surely there must be precedents where legislation has been replaced with new laws which contradict those passed earlier. So in other words, the current government is simply protecting itself as long as no one decides to change the rules. Or am I talking bull?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[freedom_india]

A judge would wait in jail, looking like a political prisoner, while the whole world protests.

NOT the whole world. Other countries know better than to protest at such things, for fear they may be "liberated"...

Oh yeah, the citizens of US will protest, until the time for Saturday Sale selling Video iPods at 51% discount...

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArcherB]

maybe the police should learn to do their job, instead of breaking the law and violating my RIGHTS. incompetent twits.
Got a small problem with authority there?

welcome to Stalin and Hitler's woodie inducing Utopia. Bushie is accomplishing what they never could.
Both Hitler and Stalin killed hundreds of millions. To you, this is as bad or worse as maybe listening in on your conversation? Wow! I hope I don't sit in the next booth the next time you are in McDonalds. I'd hate for you to think that I might be listening in on your conversation.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Riverman2]

That's ridiculous, on both counts. That's like saying nobody has heard the "he lied about WMD" propoganda. It's been plastered all over the news for months. You'll just have to face the facts that not everybody is paranoid and delusional.

And it appears you're convinced we'd have been better off if the manhattan project never existed. Is that correct?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[jafac]

Actually, it gives me hope: The executive branch is still afraid of something..

Actually, be aware that they're most likely not driven by fear in this case.

More likely that they're trying to bait critics to complain, so that said critics can be outed on FoxNews as shrill, liberal, crazy, lunatic-fringe, unpatriotic, terrorist supporters.

The game is the same since McCarthy.

Character Assassination.

It's just more sophisticated now.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[mOdQuArK!]

The only reason why Bush & Co. _wouldn't_ want to go through the secret court is because they don't want to leave a paper trail of who they chose to wiretap. Makes you wonder why.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Jedi Alec]

aha, so effectively he's above both national and international law then? Even if say Congress, the part of the US Government that is apparently "supposed" to be calling the shots when it comes to declaring war, decides it is necessary for him to stand trial?

Re: Your sig

[some guy I know]

Your signature line says:

The President is allowed to break laws and lie about it, however he must not get a blow job and lie about it.

Lying while under oath about getting a blow job is breaking the law. It's called "perjury".
The current president may have the blood of tens of thousands of innocent people on his hands, and may be turning this country into a fascist dictatorship, but at least he never committed perjury about naughty things he did with his pee-pee in the oval office.
Get some perspective, man!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[shaitand]

You would be right if I only had the right to speak freely, but what I actually have is the right to speak freely without reprucussion from my government. The only way to ensure this right is not violated is to assure that one can speak anonymously. This is the exact same reason voting is supposed to be anonymous.

Basically, my right to privacy exists to protect my right to speak freely without fear of government retaliation. Warrants provide a way to allow the government to enforce the law (personally I think the violation of law should have to involve imminent physical harm or political corruption since free speech is constitutional law that should trump other legal violations) with oversight to assure that the they are not merely listening to see if I am saying bad things about the government.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[MrNemesis]

Tell that to the parents of Jean Charles de Menezes. Shot seven times at point blank range in the face.

Half the details provided to the press were false - he wasn't wearing any odd clothing, he didn't have wires hanging out of a rucksack, he didn't jump the ticket barrier. He basically had the misfortune to be a foreigner in an increasingly xeonohpobic country that no longer seems to give a shit about civil rights.

And yet the police officers who shot the guy face no penalties, and the majority of the public here seem to be of the opinion that if gunning down the occasional innocent brown person is all it takes to stop terrorism, then that's fine. War is peace.

Lawyers sympathetic to the result are worried..

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been a series of posts over at The Volokh Conspiracy (a legal blog) from lawyers generally sympathetic to the view that the program in question was not legally authorized; they are not complimentary about the actual content and structure of the judge's opinion. Since this is a district court ruling of a single judge, it has a ways to go through the appeals process - first, to a 3-judge panel, then to the entire 6th circuit, and then to the Supremes. To use an american football analogy: we're at the end of the first quarter, and the anti-wiretapping folks are ahead by a field goal, because they weren't trying hard enough to score any touchdowns.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

Violation of privacy, sure, but who ever said you are guarenteed privacy communicating on public lines to a foreign country?

The lines are private, as in no one is legally allowed to listen to the conversation without a warrant. Its clear from the decisions when the network was being built that a phone call is to be treated as the equivlent of talking to someone in the same room; that fact that you call outside the US doesn't change this. A warrant is required.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[plague3106]

Whatever happened to good old fashioned meetings in a dark parking garage late at night?

Well, its not quite as easy when the informant is in another nation, and even attempting to travel to the US could be viewed as suspisious.

But look. As far as I can tell, nobody did anything illegal and nobody went to jail.

Wiretapping a US citizen without a warrant is illegal. Its trivially easy to get a warrant too.

It's not a violation of free speech because no speech is being suppressed.

Threat of being arrested for exercising speech is suppressing speech.

You have a lot more to fear from the government passing more laws than the government's efforts to enforce existing ones.

You have even more to fear from a government which doesn't follow its own laws.

Re: zero

[hany]

I see a need for negative numbers when giving scores to politics and piliticians. Zero is ussualy too good score fot it/them.

Folks don't seem to understand

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought /. readers were smarter than this. I 'm sure the NSA really takes interest in what dvd you want to rent for your girlfriend from Blockbuster. We are in a war folks. Maybe you don't understand. These folks want you DEAD!!! They don't care how....just DEAD

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Broken Bottle]

It's a remarkable testament to the state of our society today that the Clinton's boner smooching scandal seems so quaint now.

lulz ameriniggers.

[Anonymous Coward]

discuss.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[ArtStone]

International.

Inter = Between National = Pertaining to a nation.

A domestic phone call is one between two parties in the same country. An International phone call is a one between parties in two different countries.

Are you this dense or just incredibly full of hate? Or both?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[dlthomas]

"FISA also specifies that it is the only law covering such surveillance."

Technically, it's 28 USC 2511 (2) (f) which specifies "procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance [...] may be conducted." This of course does not substantively affect your argument, but it's a detail many have been getting wrong.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[LionKimbro]

When Clinton launched rockets at Al Qaeda, August 1998, the Republicans got angry. They said that Al Qaeda was not an actual concern; That he was just trying to distract from Monika.

Good thing that the Republicans didn't get their way; It would take Republicans in office, for security to get out of hand, and then to make the decision to pin terrorism on Iraq within days.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

I agree with you in principle that they should just get the warrants. From what it sounds like, it's really not that difficult.

But I have to argue against your statement that since half the call is in the U.S. that's it's illegal.

When the FBI get a warrant to wiretap a mob guy's phone, and you call it, half the call is someone for whom they do NOT have a warrant, yet it's still legal and it's not considered a violation of your rights.

The problem here is that they DON'T have a warrant for those international calls, so if you extend that logic to this situation, they can arbitrarily monitor EVERY international call.

So I agree with the ruling, in principle, and think the administration should just go ahead and get warrants. I mean, what's the problem? They can't trust their own FISA court?

But I also want to again admonish the mainstream media for mischaracterizing the situation by calling it "Domestic" wiretapping.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[einhverfr]

First of all, you have just proven the point-- the warrant was required and the scope of the search was defined and overseen by a court.

There are two issues that are involved here-- the potential (passive monitoring presumably of *all* international calls) and the specific (actual recorded/reviewed calls). Because there is no oversight, the system is horribly ripe for abuse.

I think it is possible to create a system which would allow blanket wiretaps on systems by voiceprint, and so forth. The probem is that there is no oversight and no effective means to ensure that our rights are protected. We certainly don't need such a widespread surveilance program with no judicial oversight.

Re:I'm Libertarian... I'm not some teenage

[falconwolf]

You can use whatever label you want. Even classical Liberals are concerned with things like social welfare and security, which are the business of society, not government.

Some classical liberals may of been concerned with social welfare and/or security but most definitely not all were. Thomas Jefferson who was a liberal was against social welfare programs as well as security. And as the wiki page on classical liberalism I provided says:
"The qualification 'classical' was added to distinguish this early conception of liberalism from the modern American/progressive interpretation. This article's purpose is to educate the reader on the distinction not to dictate which definition of the word Liberal is correct. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, since in much of Europe, 'liberalism' does not refer to the modern American social welfare variant."

I don't know if you went through the list of key thinkers of classical lioberalism but it included Thomas Paine and Adam Smith and they both were against social welfare by government, both had a healthy distrust of government. Can you name one classical liberal who did support government social welfare?

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[einhverfr]

The issue is that there are definitions at work here. I suspect that *all* calls are passively monitored by technical means. THen when certain criteria (the reasonable basis bit), the call is shipped to the NSA for analysis.

Does this mean that all calls are tapped? Or only some? It depends on how you define a wiretap.

Re:I'm Libertarian... I'm not some teenage

[JordanL]

Ah... I was thinking 1950s "classical", not 1850s "classical. My mistake.

Not if you're George Bush...

[raehl]

The staining of that dress was the deaths of man MILLIONS of (potential) people.

1850s or 1950s classical liberal

[falconwolf]

Ah... I was thinking 1950s "classical", not 1850s "classical. My mistake.

Closer but Thomas Paine, who died in 1809, wrote "The Crisis" which begins with "These are the times that try men's souls" while he was fighting under General Washington's command during the Revolutionary War or War for Independence.

Falcon

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Alaska Jack]

Great point. For all the mindless yammering on this thread, you'd never gather that this is very much a gray area, and there are good points to consider on each side.

    - Alaska Jack

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[isellmacs]

Congrats! You've just encoutered the REAL reason for the war in the first place: Not WMD, not oil, not democracy, not vengence, not profit for bush supporting contractors. All of those things are just icing on the cake... the real reason is that the President gets special war-time powers, that have allowed Bush to grant himself even further power. Without the war, Bush would never have been able to do even a fraction of the stuff he's done without all hell breaking loose.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[isellmacs]

Nope. Gov't officials can not enter your home without a warrant. Besides, that would be intrusive, listening to my phone conversations makes absolutely no difference in my life whatsoever. I don't even know they are listening, nor do I really care.

They need a warrant to wiretap. If you take away the requirement (of a warrant) for a wiretap, is that really any different than taking away the requirement for entering your home? Thats the next logical step.

What happens if they sneak in while you're away, and do their deal? Do you not care, since you don't even know they are monitoring you?

I stand corrected

[gilroy]

OK, thanks. It's important to get the details right, since the wackos on the other side are going to harp on every mis-statement (while ignoring the bald-faced lying engaged in by the President).

Re:I stand corrected

[dlthomas]

Really, I'm worried more about an honest person reading through FISA and saying, "Everyone's been saying it says this, but it doesn't!" Despite the Attorney General asserting that the laws governing wiretapping are extremely complicated, anyone who's had to maintain someone else's program of any reasonable size should be able to wrap their head around it pretty easily, and there's some interesting stuff there - I do recommend making the effort.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[herbiesdad]

right, but the dialogue to date treats it like 300 million americans are being wiretapped. in reality it's probably dozens, all of whom are receiving calls from foreign nationals in know terrorist states, from phone numbers under scrutiny, or from sources under scrutiny. the aclu has not identified any "normal" americans (not terrorist sympathisers) whose rights have been violated. you think with all of the leaks so far they might have some concrete infomation. when you speak about the progam as an abstraction it's easy to exaggerate its reach. also, everyone seems to forget why any of this is occurring.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[NMerriam]

Warrants are through a public schema. I can think of two big reasons not to want the existence of monitoring made public:
        1. it tips off the bad guys to their being monitored and they respond with counter-surveillance, and
        2. unsavoury corporate or political espionage, notably when designed to subvert competition in either area

The prior is legitimate, but could maybe be appeased with a time-delay on making the warrant public.

No, the federal government has the FISA court, which is 100% secret, to approve such warrants. That's the amazing thing -- they aren't even willing to let a secret court they control completely oversee the program!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[NMerriam]

I mean, we trust and respect the ACLU because it stands up for our rights. When it finds instances of rights abuse, it takes them to court and makes sure justice is done. But if the ACLU is no longer willing to trust the courts, and instead insists on shopping around until it finds a Judge who will rule according to the ACLU's own opinion, what then?

I don't think there's any mystery to this -- the ACLU specifically argues that every constitutional right should be interpreted in such a way as to give the most amount of freedom to the individuals. That some people (judeges or not) disagree with this interpretation is self-evident, but that doens't change their argument or the principle behind it. And generally speaking the ACLU tends to be correct in the long run -- though sometimes it takes a few generations for the courts to agree that the people have as many rights as the founders intended. Pretty much any federal case filed will be filed in the jurisdiction perceived to be the most favorable to the filer.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[einhverfr]

I don't see any good points for the governemnt side. I think that one could create a similar system that was legal, but when the Executive does this without the oversight both other branches of government, this is a danger that cannot be allowed to continue.

Re: zero

[Reziac]

I can think of a few politicians whose score would be an imaginary number!!

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[gfxguy]

That's right... if we trusted the government, this might not be a problem. I have no problem with what they are doing if they are doing what I described. If they are doing what they described, though, it seems pretty trivial to get a warrant.

Who's in charge of EVERYTHING?

[TibbonZero]

And what branch is above all others, and stops at no ends to beat terrorisim?

The executive branch!

Re:OK, libs.. enjoy it while you can

[Straif]

This ruling will stand about as long as it takes to get an open slot on an appeals court docket. Not because of any government interference, or a conservative judge over ruling a liberal one, but because few legal experts can muster any defense for the judges reasoning.

I've already read several comments along the lines of "without much reasoning or even explicit arguments", and those are just from those who agree with the outcome.

All in all it appears that the Judge had a preconceived outcome in mind and merely wrote a half hearted decision to try and justify it. You can google for expert opinions on both sides of this issue and hear their reasoning both for and against the program but the one thing they all seem to agree on is that this ruling will not, and can not stand based on what this judge wrote.

Re: Rock(s) Used For Terrorism!!

[TaoPhoenix]

Early Edition, Washington:

"Upon being tipped off by a citizen, Authorities are investigating the potentials of Rocks to aid terrorism. As a consultant reported, 'Rocks can be dangerous. When applied with force to any person, that person sustains serious injuries.'.

Gravel contractors, who professionally sell Rocks by the ton, are being issued orders to suspend business for the duration of the investigation.

Once a declining subject in Universities, Geology has heated up, because its practitioners can distinguish real Rocks from compacted mud.

Update: Alehandro Balthasarriej has been arrested for the creation of a weapon suspected to be used for terrorism. From the initial hearing: 'Inspired by the recent news about the newfound powers of Rocks to be used to forment dissent, suspect has created a weapon that fires Rock Music CD's at seventy four feet per second.

The RIAA is assisting, because all the stock located consisted of copies of Rock Around the Clock, said to be a seminal influence on Rock in this country. Therefore, the suspect was violating copyrights while producing his Terrorist ammunition.'

--- Goodson Prowley, Washington MonkeyOrgan Tribune

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[jesup]

The sketchy details that have been leaked (and the fact that the government seems determined to avoid the normal FISA court, which will give them a warrant for a tomato if it looks aggressive) implies that they're not targeting individuals. There would be no need for a "secret, warrantless" program in that case, so they'd just have gotten warrants.

The very strong implication of what's known of AT&T's involvement implies they're "trolling" for data by monitoring large numbers of people, or a portion of all traffic at random (perhaps through speech recognition to flag for further review). Perhaps they're tapping anyone who ever called someone who called a suspect (which, I'm sure, would be thousands). Or anyone who called *them*.

And like I said semi-sarcastically, if it wasn't secret perhaps I could answer your question about who's rights have been violated. Catch-22.

This is why FISA is there - to block "fishing expeditions" and provide some at least cursory review to avoid blatent abuses of power. (Minor abuses likely would get by FISA, given that the court almost never denies a request.)

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[E 99]

I always thought that the CIA and NSA could do just about anything they wanted...as long as a USA citizen was not involved. In that case, the FBI would have jurisdiction and would require (a possibly secret warrant) to do any surveillence. To me this is a good and clear distinction.

But it doesn't work... The FBI and the police conduct criminal investigations against non-U.S. citizens all the time, but those suspects are still, as they should be, protected by the Bill of Rights. In other words, the right of individuals to be free from unreasonable searches is considered a basic right in our legal system regardless of the citizenship of the individual. Things that would make a search reasonable would include A) probable cause of a crime (usually formalized in a warrant) or B) that it is a requirement of military due diligence.

The only thing that makes sense both practically and legally is to draw the distinction based on the purpose and intent of the intelligence gathering. Now, you could also make a distinction by organization, and say that the CIA has different rules than the FBI, but in that case we need to get the FBI out of the anti-terrorism business, and expand the CIA, since terrorism is now THE mode by which war is being waged against the U.S.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Mumia]

The judge is a moron. Her opinion reads like a post on democratic undergound and will be overturned. Gathering signal intelligence is a military operation. You don't need a warrant to listen to what the enemy is saying. The Roosevelt administration listened to every overseas phone call during WWII without any warrants. The president of ITT talked to Adolph Hitler once a week throughout the war. It was an intelligence gold mine and to claim a warrant was needed is pure madness. These arguments are all a result of BDR, Bush Derangment Syndrome. The lawyers that argued the case before this ACLU ringer are Muslims that have ties to terrorist:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/01/wh os_behind_the.html

Are you sure you are really a liberal?

[daninaustin]

Or are you a libertarian... real liberals don't have guns :)

NRA is full of shit

[Scudsucker]

I guess you haven't considered that most of the military won't fight against the citizens.

I guess you haven't realized that 1) a full blown civil war is just a liiittle unlikley, and 2) plenty of shit goes on right now that the NRA doesn't care about. For example, take the case of the young black man who's house was raided by cops who had the wrong address. One of the heavily armored officers burst into the man's bedroom, where his kid was also sleeping. The man would make Dirty Harry proud: he protected his child by grabbing his gun and shooting the intruder. The police should have been charged with breaking and entering, but since the man was black, and the officer who was shot (and later died) was white and the son of the sheriff, he's on death row.

Now, where the fuck was the NRA. This case was a poser child for justified use of force against law enforcement. They should have gotten the guy the best laywers available and demaned congressional hearings, but that didn't happen.

I must be!

[FatSean]

I support public schools and gay marriage! :D

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Artagel]

There are some subtle points that need to be considered. Just because someone gets to call President Bush to task, does not mean it is anyone who walks in the door of a Court. So, just walking in the front door, and saying "I don't trust the president, let me run through any and all files of the entire government without limitation" should not result in immediate access to the country's greatest secrets. Like him or not, President Bush was the person elected to protect them, not the man off the street. The rest of the world did not elect President Bush, and in fact, he was elected to promote the interests of the United States against their interests. Al Qaeda does not like President Bush not telling them where all his spies are. They are represenative of lots of people who do not trust President Bush precisely because he is on America's side. So, let's discard the rest of the world, or the minority of Americans argument for America unilaterally disarming in a world where intelligence operations are important.

So, you are in this country, and think you have been particularly harmed, and that the things that you need to show you have been harmed are government secrets. After all, if you think it isn't a secret, then you would not need to go into that stuff. Take for example espionage cases. There are very few attorneys who have the type of high security clearance needed to represent accused spies. People like Plato Cacheris. They do not get to see everything the government has. Why the lawyer off the street? He does not have any clearance. You cannot represent an accused spy effectively unless you are cleared at least to the level he was.

Now, a whole different hill of beans is the judge. It is true that the judge is an official of the government, but not all executive government officials have access to all secrets. That is part of how they stay secret. But the judge has to be able to determine what kinds of secrets might be at stake. This is often handled by the government bringing the secrets over for the judge to see, and then removing them when he is done. This is because courthouses are not designed to keep national security secrets. Their employees are not screened to that level. A judge may exercise some independence in checking on the nature of the secrets, but would have separation of powers issues with going through too much.

Alas, warrants are not a solution if you think the problem is a Constitutional one. Why? Well, the Constitution outlines what kinds of warrants solve constitutional fourth amendment problems:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4

Now, what does a Warrant require? 1) probable cause, 2) an oath or affirmation by the agent specifying what he knows about what is to be searched or seized, and 3) particular description. That means that "program warrants" (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/06/08/AR2006060801992.html) where NSA would have an entire program warranted at once might be a control by the legislature on the president, perhaps grounded in its power to fund programs, but not in a Constitutional meaning of Warrant. Therefore, if you buy the constitutional argument of rights without any balancing test, require a warrant, that warrant must be particular, and NSA has to stop listening to any communication involving America, an American, etc., and therefore is constituionally forbidden from searching for terrorism where any of those are involved.

Please put that position in your political party's platform

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Rakarra]

I could say that the Executive and Legislative branches are co-equal in authority to the Judiciary branch, and that therefore the Administration's claim--absent arbitration by the Supreme Court--carries just as much authority as the claim of a circuit court judge, but that formulation doesn't carry quite the same pep.

Not quite, it's really the court system's job to rule on the constitutionality of the executive and legislative branches' decisions. That they can strike down those decisions doesn't give them more power than the other branches, it means that they have more power in the others in that particular area. The other branches have more power than the court system in different areas (the power to make and enforce laws..). It doesn't require the Supreme Court to rule on a policy either, a lower court has the authority to do so, unless the Supreme Court decides it wants to hear the case.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

there is one side saying protection by the government against terrorists is always illegal, and one that says it is possible. I'll take possible.

Nice straw man, there. No, one side is not saying that protection by the government against terrorists is always illegal. That would be moronic. If you actually believe that's the liberal position, you must be paying more attention to propaganda than information. What that side is saying is that the government still has to play by the rules when protecting us from terrorists. That some of the tactics the government seems to be taking might be too draconian, and could ultimately do more harm than good.

Over-thinking the problem here

[Maximilio]

The issue is not how to protect society from those hell-bent on destroying it. Though through the sheer incompetence of our government "terrorists" have managed one very spectacular success, I find it necessary to repeatedly point out that as a whole society is at approximately the same risk of being "destroyed" by lightning strikes as terrorism, and far more at risk of being destroyed by rather less exciting threats such as flu, weather, and automobile accidents.

So calm down already. You don't need to balance your civil rights against your life, because the risk that you take just walking out the door every day has been grossly exaggerated by hyperventilating, bed-wetting Panic Puppies. Sure, a terrorist might "get you" someday. But he's about 100 places down in line behind several major diseases, automobile accidents, and ordinary everday street crime. Quit giving these people (the terrorists, I mean) power by letting them instill fear in you. They aren't worth it.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[jander4263]

i really don't have time for your foolishness. you obviously don't get it, nor the dem judge. a warrant takes as long as long as long as long(get the drift?) not to worry if u-r-clean.

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "obtainable retroactively" don't you understand?

Re:Trust us! We're the government!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

We may have said that, but that wasn't the topic under discussion, @ least not by me.

Re:Bush ISN'T running, his supporters have the GAL

[gd2shoe]

If they support that criminal and have the gall to run, they have no moral compass.

Very few (if any) politicians still have a working model. It's a matter of picking the ones LEAST likely to do harm (and ideally the ones most likley to do good). It is my belief (and only that) that the republicans do less harm on average than the democrats.

...any congress critter who has not left the party has implicitly endorsed this inaction and should be fired. Any "Democrat" who has supported the "Republicans", aka Hillary, should be fired. It is as simple as that.

Not quite as simple as that. I wish. First, there have been no real calls from the democratic party as a whole to impeach. And why not? Because they know that it wont happen. Let's flip it arround. Why would any republican who doesn't support Bush not call for impeachment. Because they too know that it wouldn't happen.

Ok second: why wont they leave the party. Partly because the party is not defined as "people who support Bush". It's something closer to "people who have the same general viewpoint and are willing to work together most of the time." The rest of it is more to the tune of campain finance. Other party members hold the purse strings.

Besides, they have no real chance of being elected from any other party. (a very small chance, requiring a hugh charisma - This is a result of our broken election system, causing a two party system.)

Above all else, remember: congress critters are sheeple too.

I sent in my change of party form last year to leave the Repulicrat party and the change won't be effective until next year.

What? This is new to me. Please elaborate. I didn't think this was in party control at all. My impression was that you could simply reregister at the DMV and the change would happen in the county government. Where do you live? How could that happen?