Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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?
It doesn't mean they won't keep doing it anyway.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
One branch of the U.S. government acts in a sane and rational manner, not to mention appropriate regard for the Constitution.
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.
I wonder how long before the Judge is found dead, "of apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds"?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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.
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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!
This guy's the limit!
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
-EL
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.
"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.
It was the Clinton administration in the 90s that expanded the FISA law to easily allow warrantless searches and wiretaps.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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....
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.
Come play free flash games on Kongregate!
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.
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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...
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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.
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.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
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!"
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
liberal left coast, dopey, backward "heartland" full of violent, inbred simpletons, and liberal right coast.
So, whatcher sayin', is, that yer movin' to Kansas?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
"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"."
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
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'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.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Pay attention children. This is what happens when you try to hold the bong and type at the same time.
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.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
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.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
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.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
The phrase "domestic wiretap" is exactly what they were doing here.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
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?"
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.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
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".
I thought we already said that 'just following orders' does not excuse human rights violations?
I think "zero" pretty much sums up politics.
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.
"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?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If the laws of the future are retroactive, that's a far bigger problem then the data collected today.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
*Picks up a rock from the ground*
Wanna buy my rock? It prevents tigers from attacking me.
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.
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Anybody who argues that, due to terrorism, our country should compromise its most important ideals, is a person that appeases terrorists with their fear.
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?
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
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.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
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.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
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?
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
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.
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."
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
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?
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.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
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).
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
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?
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.
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.