Slashdot Mirror
House Panel Approves Electronic Surveillance Bill
narramissic writes "A U.S. House of Representatives Committee has approved the Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, a controversial bill that would broaden the U.S. government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. residents by making it easier for federal law enforcement officials to get court-issued warrants. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month." From the article: "Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism. The bill will provide the U.S. intelligence agencies 'greater agility and flexibility as they try to thwart our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies,' Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month. The committee's action comes after U.S. President George Bush called on Congress to approve a controversial electronic surveillance program conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). "
One thing I do know is that this will allow my government to build a case against me with no warrant, probable cause or charges filed and documented against me. There could be a dossier (digital or hard copy) somewhere in the government's system with my name on it even though I haven't done anything wrong. Worse, the same could be said about every single American.
You can call me a crazed conspiracy theorist and you can call me a tin foil hat-ist but you can't deny it will be it will be a possibility for even you if you live in the United States.
Under the guise of "modernization," this bill will only add to the decline of my country. We sure aren't as "modernized" as Orwell's 1984 so I guess we're 22 years behind and we better get on it -- and who better than the Republicans to lead us there?
For the love of your country, write your representative in the house about how you feel on this issue. Please. Do it by hand with your signature and address on the letter. Physically mail it to them. Take the time to do this. Make sure you are heard about the things that matter to you. Make your concern known to those who represent you. If you spend a lot of time writing it, send it to your local newspaper also as a possible editorial. I doubt I'm alone on my concerns.
My work here is dung.
...(-1, Flamebait).
Argh.
If the Republicans lose control after the mid-term elections will this piece of legislation ever make it to the statute books? Isn't this just another example of the Republicans in an election year trying to look strong on their chosen election issue of terrorism/national security?
Video Game cheats, hints a
the 5th of November.
[How come I feel like "Post Anonymously" gives me no protection from the government in this post?]
At least they're bothering with getting warrants this time.
"to get court-issued warrants"
Why bother when the non-court-issued ones are readily available?
This bill reminds me, it's easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.
...should be members of the House panel. Perhaps if they were the subjects of the electronic spying they were authorizing, they might think twice. Still, this is the House Judiciary Committee, not the full House or Senate, so there's still time to write your Congressman and tell him/her that if they vote for this, you'll help hand them a one-way ticket to unemployment.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
They are an essential part of the terrorists' support chain. After that, the gas stations. Do we care about defeating the evildoers or not? This is no time to be weak!
It's absolutely no wonder that they want to increase their electronic surveillance, they need to find those laptops!! Where has all the money spent on security gone? The basic premise of computer security STARTS with physical security. It seems the dog is getting a good wagging again...
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
First off, I totally disagree with these kinds of laws. But if they're going to have them, they should have a clause that the gathered evidence can only be used to convict for treason/terrorism. That would lessen the likelihood of abuse (well, we happened to hear about a drug deal going down, so...) Of course, with the bad precendent set, the scope will expand anyway :(
One really great thing about being the President is that if you find yourself doing something illegal, all you have to do is tell congress to make it legal, and then continue doing it. Gosh, I wish I could do that!
What I ordered the NSA to do what technically illegal. Now that the public has found out about it please pass a bill to make it legal.
Thanks,
- GWB
p.s. Please redefine "torture" so our interrogators can keep up the good work.
p.p.s. And, uh, please don't hold an official vote on Bolton since some of you may prevent him from representing us at the UN.
Developers: We can use your help.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~ Benjamin Franklin
-1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
its about time we all stop worrying, havent the last couple of years proven that the republicans know what they are doing?
It does not take weeks or months to get a warrant. And I'm sure if you went to any judge and say 'This man is suspected of terrorist activities and here is our proof of reasoning' they will get their warrant. Why does this need to happen without the warrant? Have they found the warrant hinders their ability to conduct their investigations? Has anyone turned around and said 'holy shit! we could have stopped this terrorist plot had we been able to search him WITHOUT a warrant. But that damn judge just took his time on it and he got away! No one seems to be asking these simple questions. No one of importance aatleast.
Intelligence is the first means to have best defense in the war on terror. It is powerful way to keep any country safe. Excesses are best prevented by when intelligence activities are operated within a framework that is controlled...This Bill would modernize and simplify the process of getting a FISA warrant so that they can focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans, it is indeed a vital step!
This bill makes it easier for federal law enforcement officials to get court-issued warrants? Wait, who the hell still uses warrants?! That is so last century, man.
We put ourselves in the greatest national debt in the history of the nation for fear of terrorism.
We shred our own basic Constitutional rights for fear of terrorism.
We blugeon our critics for being weak on terrorism.
We start a war with a country out of fear of terrorism and place our troops on a sacrificial altar.
Our administration runs on campaigns reminding us to be scared of terrorism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we lost the War of Terror already.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
I spy with my little eye something beginning with ...
Hmmm... Can you spot a pattern here? What's next? The coronation of George W. Bush as the emperor-for-life of the United States? What about the return of public flogging and/or public execution of people who dissent with our beloved Emperor?
And, remember, people: We have always been at war with Oceania and its Islamofascists. Ignorance is Strength! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Long Live the Great Emperor!
In other words (and this is coming from someone who loves the USA): what the fsck are you people waiting for??? Get rid of that chimp already!!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Naturally, any given governmental employee is bound to be exempt from this surveillance.
Fuck you, Senate. Give me my country back.
FISA allowed for 72-hour wiretaps before a warrant was required.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Sort of. Previously, spying could start and they would need to get a warrant before the deadline.
With this one, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for a warrant at all (as long as you don't exceed 90 days).
The problem Bush and Co had was that they weren't even bothering with the retroactive warrants. So now it looks like the law is being re-written to coincide with Bush and Co's practices.
Warrantless spying on US citizens.
This isn't a violation of our civil liberties at all. The government just wants to eliminate a lot of paperwork. By removing the need to include completely different branch of government, we can do the same job with fewer agents, thus reducing the tax bill. And all the benfits go back to you, the taxpayer.
Thanks, meringuoid. Like the best quotes, it's what I would say if I were way eloquenter than I am.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Great--they're still asking for warrants.
NOT. The article and writeup claim that court-issued warrants will be easier to get this way, but the article goes on to say that no warrant is required within 90 days of a terrorist attack. Who wants to bet we'll see another minor incident every three months or so from now on?
Laws like this, ladies and gentlemen, are the true cost of terrorism. Yes, the terrorists did manage to kill 0.002 % of Americans 5 years ago, but the resulting fear and paranoia has led us to a state where everyone is a suspected terrorist and even innocent people are being tortured in the name of the "War on Terror". Far more Americans are affected by the knee-jerk reaction of Congress to 9/11 than by the actual attack itself.
On September 11, 2001, the terrorists took away more than just the lives of 4000 people. They managed to steal our liberties as well. We can't properly consider the impact of 9/11 without also considering the fact that it provided a catalyst for the removal of our Constitutional rights.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
They have a file on me somewhere! I haven't done a darned thing wrong and they probably have some manilla folder somewhere with my name on it! Do you know what this means? Oh, wait. It doesn't mean anything. It just means that our government is looking for terrorists and they're watching me to make sure I'm not building bombs and stuff. Which I'm not. So it works out for the both of us. They watch people and I stay safe. Heaven forbid we give up "some of our rights," to procure a greater freedom. And by "some of our rights," I mean it doesn't affect our lives in the tiniest bit, and yet it's a way to keep us safer. And we legalized torture? When the crap did this happen?
The President claimed that they weren't wiretapping without a warrant, because that would be illegal. He was lying. The media revealed that he was lying. Cue kvetching and moaning about how the media are helping the terrorists. (Apparently embarassing the President helps the terrorists.) Cue accusations of treason against the media. (Ignoring the fact that it's invalid to classify things to hide them because they're illegal.) The Administration claimed that it had the authority either because (a) Congress had made the President into a King when they authorized overseas military action, or (b) the President is a King Just Because.
In reaction to these claims, Congress tries to retroactively legalize the President's actions, and pretend that he hasn't excercised kingly powers, and that they haven't scrambled over themselves to rubber-stamp said powers.
The funny thing is that Arlen Specter's original plan would have only given a 45-day window in addition to retroactively legalizing the President's decision that the law matters only when he feels like it. Apparently Congress can't fall over themselves fast enough to enable him. I am so writing my Congresscritters on this one.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He did that before the testimony. It wasn't retroactive. (Yes, what came out of his lips was a lie no matter the letter of the law).
Major Lie Score
Bush : WMD, "Will prosecute who played the Plame Name Game", "Mission Accomplished",
"We don't spy on Americans", "Osama will be caught", "We will have a stable Iraq"
Clinton: 1 blowjob
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
----
I refuse to give up.
Tap my lack of phone lines
Tap my 128 bit encrypted transmissions of 1's and 0'
Crack my 3 firewalls to the honeypot
My home is a Faraday shield
So PPPTTTHHHH Georgie boy
What if the special hand-picked judge will not approve the warrant because:
a. It isn't specific enough (we want to electronically scan a bunch of phone calls)
b. There isn't enough evidence to support it (we think that he might be a terrorist because he lives in the same building as someone else we think is a terrorist)
The "problem" with having judicial oversight is that, sometimes, the judges do not agree that your "evidence" is sufficient.
The reason we have judicial oversight is so that a disinterested party can evaluate your "evidence" to check that you are over-stepping your limits.
9/11 killed less than half the number of people who are killed every day on our highways and streets. This act destroyed a few buildings...but not as much damage as what happened to New Orleans when Katrina hit.
But hey...improving auto safety or levees doesn't allow for as much of a power grab does it?
Blar.
Instead of just putting you under surveillance without one?
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
Terrorism has 2 functions.
1) Obviously to spread terror.
2) To create distrust of the exisitng government and authorities. By creating an extreme reaction by the exisitng authorities, the populance begins to first distrust and then works to actively undermine the exisitng authorities. This is what is happening in the US right now. Poeple are begining to distrust the governement and its motives.
The terorists are winning as long as this happens.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I was visited last night by the local sheriff.
It seams that you have to register with the government if you own a diesel truck and buy more that 50 pounds of fertilizer and fill your fuel tank on the same day.
Crap, I can't even even spread it in my pasture without somone in D.C. knowing what color the sh*t is.
Ohh well time to go buy another 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39 on the credit card again
I love messing with them.
----
Smile and look stupid and the government will love you...
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Seems like that would be pretty trivial to do; you could just establish a SSH tunnel and then pipe /dev/random to it, and route it to /dev/null on the receiving end.
A more intelligent thing to do -- and perhaps this is already done, I've never investigated it -- would be to configure a VLAN or VPN so that it sends a certain amount of traffic at all times. If there's not enough 'real' traffic to meet a certain minimum, then it just pads with random garbage that gets discarded at the remote end.
Such a thing would be the bandwidth equivalent of a leaky faucet, though; I'd imagine that if you weren't careful and you pay per GB, you could be in for a shock when you get your bill at the end of the month.
There are systems which are designed to defeat traffic analysis by padding and sending dummy messages -- the mixmaster mail-relay system, for instance, does this. I'm not sure if mixmaster is still alive or not, but now might be a really good time to resuscitate it, if it has died.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
At what point, what watershed point do we reach, where our founding fathers would say "Screw it, time for open revolt"? When the government restricts the rights for citizens to gather in peaceful assembly (can't demonstrate without a permit or you get arrested), when is the time for civil disobedience? When is the time for open revolt?
The problem here is each change that sucks is a small one. Look at them all over the last 5 years and it REALLY sucks, but each little nick and chip, here and there, doesn't raise any public alarm. Is there ever a tipping point when each erosion of rights and liberty is so small that few if any notice?
I wish I knew, I can't see how any small action will ever raise enough alarm with the general populace. Did it ever with Germany when Hitler began is raise to power? I'm not educated enough on the goings on of 20-30s Germany to know that one I guess.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
Am I the only one that noticed that, backwards.. Senate's National Security Surveillance Act could stand for ass national security see you in guantanamo prison.
Did I suggest we surrender or run away? No, I suggest an alternative more condusive to listening and thinking than burning and shooting.
Also you misunderstood me, I didn't say "everyone" as in individuals, I said "other countries" specifically the ones we have exerted influence over in order to benefit our own country or economy. I'm not concerned about respecting Osama Bin Laden. Hollowing out countries where he has been in the past in an effort to find him does concern me, however. I feel it leaves long lasting detrimental effects on the populace living there and only creates more anti-American sentiment. We should be fighting a war of words and asking for help from other countries, not blowing up what we want and demanding things. We make our allies look like puppets to the rest of the world and say things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." Stupid.
My work here is dung.
Excuse me, but that sounds like a smokescreen intended to 'soften the blow' that this law has on civil liberties. You know as well as I do that no one in the government is going to focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans because of this bill. The government may or many not have success infiltrating terrorist cells because of this, but they are damn well going to continue infiltrating anti-war knitting clubs and other 'subversive' organisations (Mercury News). That is indefensible and Just Plain Wrong.
The only way to protect civil liberties and gather good intelligence is to have checks and balances and many eyes upon a transparent process.
Russ Fiengold for one.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Instead of trying to defend yourself about being "weak" on "terrorism" ...
Point out how our Founding Fathers had the GUTS to publicly sign their own Death Warrant (The Declaration of Independence) so they could fight for the Freedoms that this country was based upon.
And no cave-dwelling nut job is going to convince YOU that George WASHINGTON or Ben FRANKLIN or Thomas JEFFERSON was WRONG about those FREEDOMS.
If they had lost, they would have been executed.
They still had the courage and the conviction that it was better to die FREE.
If elected, I will vote against EVERY bill that limits ANY Freedom that our Founding Fathers fought and died for.
We cannot honour their sacrifice by selling those Freedoms for the illusion of safety.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/l
Some fights are unavoidable, unless you would rather surrender or run away. The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.
:-)
Allow me to disagree on that. In order to end with terrorism on your country, you have to get to the root of the problem. What is it?, why are the people of the middle east so angered against your country/government/people?
Is it because they hate your "way of living"/culture? (as your government wants to make you believe). I really doubt it. See, I am from the poor country which sits at the south of yours (I am assuming you are from USA). I am from Mexico. One of the things that bothers me (a bit, as I run on the same tunnel a lot of times) is how we (Mexicans) love to imitate the American lifestyle. Hell, you just have to see the spark in the eyes of some Asian guys wen they ask me if I have been to America. America is cool for other people.
So, it is not your culture as the culture in my country is trying *so hard* to be like yours.
Then, what could it be?, what could conutries like Mexico, France, Canada (not sure about them), Japan, Brazil, Chile have been doing to avoid these terrorism attacks, hey, I guess, no.. I am positively SURE that the security systems in my country does not compare to the super technological security here in UK or in the USA.
My country cant afford that, neither Chile or Brazil can do it.
So, what I can tell you is that none of your gadgets/law-bills will help.
It is my view that what you [your government of course] should do to avoid being "terrorized" is to stop puttin gtheir noses everywhere. Leave other countries alone. Spain learnt the hard way, but HEY THEY LEARNT!!!.
It seems UK and USA government hasnt learnt (because they dont want to I guess).
btw, as one sig I read said, dont mod me down just because you dont agree with my opinions
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Government spies on you...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Although Wil Smith is NOT my favorite actor, the movie Enemy of ths State comes to mind here....
Quote #1:
Congressman Sam Albert: [On TV] We knew that we had to monitor our enemies. We've also come to
realise that we need to monitor the people who are monitoring them...
Carla Dean: Well who's gonna monitor the monitors of the monitors.
Quote #2:
Carla Dean: Oh, well there goes the Fourth Amendment... what's left of it.
Quote #3:
Brill: The government's been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the forties.
They've infected everything.
Brill: They get into your bank statements, computer files, email, listen to your phone calls...
Every wire, every airwave. The more technology used, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you.
Brill: It's a brave new world out there. At least it better be.
I think it's about time to stop referring to decisions made by the power elite as decisions that "we" (implying each and every person subject to the rule of government) somehow collectively made. How long is it going to take before the world realizes (or admits) that government is, by definition, NOT voluntary? (Government is the organization holding the unique "right" to employ coercion against others as a business model -- this is the only objective, unambiguous definition of government that holds true for all past, present, and future governments.)
Let's get this straight. I NEVER voluntarily consented to funding this "war on terrorism" -- that's exactly why government needs to employ coercion against me to get my money. If my support was voluntary, then logically, I would be able to refuse! Likewise, I NEVER voluntarily consented to being spied on -- that's exactly why I can't fight back without being thrown in jail. If my support for being spied on was voluntary, then logically, I'd be able to refuse to be spied on!
Common sense tells me that an organization providing a service (or claiming to) doesn't need to employ coercion against people who voluntarily want to fund it! If those people truly wanted the service, then logically, it would be entirely possible to fund that service without coercion. This can't be that difficult a concept to grasp.
It is clear that "we" (implying each and every person) don't make political decisions at all: that's exactly why government necessarily employs its tool of coercion against us in order to FORCE our "support". (No, the social contract theory does not, in any way, remove the fundmental element of coercion from government. You cannot volunteer to be subject to coercion, just as you cannot coerce a person into volunteering! The two modes of human interaction are opposite and mutually exclusive -- that is what gives them meaning. Each can only be defined in reference to the opposite.)
Really, this notion (that the relationship between government and citizen is voluntary) is laughable. How many more years will the human race continue to be fooled by it?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
The truth is we are in a dangerous position here. I am willing to do whatever it takes to keep me and my family safe. I have nothing to hide. So I am not worried.
Yet all we hear about from our corrupt politicians is that the boogeyman Osama and Al Quaeda is coming to get us. Fear! Fear! Fear! I lived in the inner-city for awhile. I absolutely guarantee you that those people living there could care less about Osama or Al Quaeda or Emmanuel Goldstein. The real threat to their lives, to their children's lives 24/7 is the gang problem. Those people truly live in fear.
However, what do our despicable policians do? Do they order the police and national guard to round up all gang members and get them off of our streets? No. They want to grant amnesty to the illegals! (I would say the majority of gang members are illegals or children of illegals.) And what happens when an individual police force tries to get tough on gangs? Civil lawsuits! The police "violated" these murderers', rapists', drug-dealers', and illegals' "rights."
So what do our politicians do? Why they enact laws that are meant to monitor, arrest, and imprison... we, the people!
I do not live in fear of "terrorists." I live in fear of my own government.
Let's see. A . . . B . . . Ah. Here we go. "Cocopjojo."
Hmm. Seems he's been hanging out at the retro arcade at his local video store. For someone his age, that means he's probably watching the little boys. Better keep a closer eye on him. Oh, and look at his browsing history! He seems to really like bigjughoochiemomma.com, fuckcivilliberty.net, and slashdot.org. We know only liberal leftist communist-software dorks hang out on slashdot. This isn't looking good.
He fully buys into the "anything the President does to keep us safe is OK" bullshit, so that's better.
Wait! What's this? He obliquely criticized the President's "No Force Is Too Excessive When Following The Path of Rightiousness" Bill?
Time to bring him in for "questioning."
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I haven't forgotten how easily Democrats were herded into signing the USAPATRIOT act, but in this case, they seem to have finally woken up. Can anyone more up on politics tell me which way the wind is blowing? If the most important item on my agenda is to limit the expansion of executive/police powers, would it be worth it to vote Democrat in the next election, as opposed to a third-party protest vote?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I suppose - got to legitimize the boardroom spies in the interest of national security.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
So let's take an approach (bomb) similar to the way spammers try (attack) to confuse bayesian (Hezbollah) filters... or maybe a better (Zionist pig) analogy would be the way RIAA companies (Jihad)try to "poison" p2p networks... let's (Allah)start sending so much bullshit (nuke) psuedo-terrorist looking (airplane) communication around the Internet, that (smuggle) they get so overwhelmed with (chemical) false positives (liquid bomb)that it renders (Semtex) the system unusable. I mean if (terrorist attack) everyone of us (terrorists) would (Israel) do this we could (Al Queda) really
screw this (tube station attack) up.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Do you think the Democrat Party is the answer? Both parties are the same shit. Both do not uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Only when the majority of America finally dumps this Republican vs. Democrat bullshit will there be any meaningful change.
As with (it seems now) all human endeavour, our only saving grace is the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' ... don't know if that is actually a bill that has been passed.
Let's just assume (for argument's sake) you agree that there is a threat presented by a group such as Al Qaeda and those who support them. How would you handle this threat?
Examples:
a.)Would you allow tapping of phones incoming / outgoing calls where one or more of the parties were suspected Al Qaeda as long as a warrant was acquired prior?
b.)Would you not attack or try to capture any Al Qaeda abroad, but instead just wait for action until they confront us?
c.)Would you try to begin peace talks with Al Qaeda?
d.)Would you put a fence up along both our north and south borders?
e.)If we are attacked again would you respond by holding a press conference, shunning the actions, and then trying to negotiate peace talks?
I just want to know, I don't want to be flamed. I want to understand how you would try to protect us from this threat?
What is the status of non-american regarding privacy rights in the current american law ?
If the CIA is reading my gmail account, is it kosher ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Do it for child pron and woman's abuse, then you are pretty sure to get it accepted. Most bills and law-passing is just to keep them working. They keep themselves busy, otherwise they will be out of work. So first they pass a bill that is pretty sure to get rejected: electronic surveillance on everyone. Then they go for the war-on-drugs angle: electronic surveillance on everyone for them druggies (like Willie Nelson). That doesn't work so they go for terrorism and if they finally want to get some backing they do it for child pron or abuse which will have to get through because nobody wants to be marked as a child abuser will they.
Just shows how corrupt the government really is.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
it's fleece was white as snow.
I know a lot of you Americans have only heard the lines "Remember, remember, the 5th of November" from V for Vendetta and think it's very clever to quote it, but it sounds really dumb to anyone from the UK - you're quoting a nursery rhyme.
Yes.
This is a drag net operation. As in *EVERYONES* calls *ALL THE TIME*. I mean after all how can the government really trust that you are not a terrorist unless they know exactly who you talk to, where you travel, your spending habits, your religious leanings, your ...
My sig hasn't changed in ... wow, almost a decade.
I like to think that it's someone's full-time job to read my email.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
http://slashdot.org/~fudgefactor7/journal/
So I'll just link to it and not repost the whole shebang. It's got my opinions all lined up for you.
A bit paranoid, but in times like these paranoia has a nasty habit of confirming reality.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
I love how this crap gets modded up so much. I think this is a horrible mess and it makes me sick that this crap was even proposed let alone getting support. HOWEVER! You need to RFTA yourself, or stop with your creative editing.
You left out "The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, opposed by several privacy groups, would also allow federal law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. residents for up to 90 days without a court order in the period after a terrorist attack."
So yes...bad freaking law...bad freaking stuff...but kneejerk creative editing only serves to further make the privacy folks that realize this is BAD juju for freedom look like paranoid lunatics. We all know that folks like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are taken so seriously these days due to their overzealous overreactionary nonsense.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
And those wanting to blame Republicans, Bush, the Devil, et al. are just plain wrong. WE handed over our freedoms and liberty in the name of security and protection from the "terrorists." The cruel irony is that Franklin warned us us centuries ago that trading one for the other results in having neither. At least I got to live somewhat free for a few of decades.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
Why doesn't anyone run campaigns saying 'Candidate X voted for 20 bills that restrict individual freedom in the last session?'
Simple: Because, contrary to slashdot, very few people really care. They are much more scared of the boogeyman than losing some ambiguous "individual right". Anyone that sounds weak on crime/terrorism in favor of individual rights is doomed.
I don't agree but that's the reality of the situation.
Did I miss something? I thought that Republicans were for freedom and Democrats were for government intrusion?
My voter registration says "R", but that can't be right. The Republican party that I know would call a bill like this "Democratic Big Brotherism at its worst" or something like that.
Maybe its all just a weird dream. When I wake up, things will be back to normal.
"Osama bin Laden must be ROFL wherever he is that he was able to destroy the ideals of the United State of America that took centuries to build so easily."
Point taken but in fact bin Laden can't destroy those ideals. Our own government, with the hearty support of idiots, is tearing it down.
No terrorist can actually wreak this kind of havoc-- they can only kill and frighten people.
9/11 killed less than half the number of people who are killed every day on our highways and streets.
Your numbers are wrong, by quite a lot.
About 3000 people died due to the terrorism on 9/11. On average, around 52 people die per day due to auto accidents in the US.
here's a sort of mortality table for the curious
You have completely ignored the implications of the other posters, that this sort of legislation is unnecessary given the tools that we already have, and have attempted to switch the argument around to once again say that we cannot prosecute or capture terrorists without this bill. No one is saying that we should hold peace talks with al-Qaida, no one except for strawmen erected in the yards of Republican Congressmen to be smacked around as necessary. Don't ask to not be flamed if you're throwing around flamebait.
I'm not going to answer these trollish questions because they are foregone conclusions. If you want to make America "safer," don't continue loading us up with these bullshit bills that provide just as much pass to investigate people who are not al-Qaida suspects. Instead, foot the bill to intelligence agencies to increase the number of agents in the field, increase communcation with foreign relations. What we need right now is not a stronger net with barbs and poison - what we need are more nets. This bill does nothing to actually increase enforcement of policy - it only increases policy.
The answer to your last question, which many progressives have provided and many Democrats agree with, is that we need to begin phasing out military operations in Iraq so that we can shift funds to intelligence agencies, bring our National Guard troops back to home grounds so that they can be ready to serve as first-responders for attacks that slip through our intelligence webs, and to begin preparing for possible engagements with Iran. As long as we continue blowing as much money as possible on the Iraqi occupation, then we're going to continue to hamper ourselves in the real goal, which is protecting American soil from terrorists. No, not the "war against terrorism," but the "protection against terrorism," which involves proactive intelligence and military action based on that intelligence. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read any further into your questioning.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
YES!
I'm not a lawyer but I did look this up.
In the Constitution, Article 1, section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
At this time there is no rebellion or invasion of this country at this time, that is to say none that is requiring immediate action that is known of.
And as for this Bill that is going to be voted on, it is an ex post facto Law, since the warrentless wiretappings have already been going on for several years now. This is my take on this.
Namely, that, whenever 9/11 comes up in the American press there is talk of "the 3000 American victims" which is patently untrue: ~2700 came from the US, ~300 were foreign nationals who worked in the twin towers or were passengers on the flights. And I'd like to point out that other nations have kept much, much cooler heads than the US about these victims.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
The important difference here that the law is being re-written retroactively to cover violations already committed.
Currently, W Bush and Cheney are essentially convicted felons, which is enough grounds to fasttrack their impeachment come November (if the Democrats take Congress, which is not impossible).
Once Bush and Cheney are impeached, Pelosi (as a Speaker), becomes an acting President (and gets the PATRIOT and other 'powers').
And that is why the Republicans desperately need to make what Bush did legal.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
42,000 people die each year from auto accidents?! That's way more than 52 a day! All that carnage and the pussified populace is most concerned about terrorists? Shit.
Blar.
narramissic writes "A U.S. House of Representatives Committee has approved the Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, a controversial bill that would broaden the U.S. government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. residents by making it easier for federal law enforcement officials to get court-issued warrants. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month." From the article: "Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism. The bill will provide the U.S. intelligence agencies 'greater agility and flexibility as they try to thwart our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies,' Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month. The committee's action comes after U.S. President George Bush called on Congress to approve a controversial electronic surveillance program conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)."
An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metam or argumentum in terrorem) is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for her or his idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is extremely common in marketing, and politics.
have we been a democracy?
What does the Administration know about Senators, Congresspersons & Staff and when did they know it?
The Bushies gotta have something on these folks to keep them so compliant.
Damn...I don't know how I ended up modding you +1 for this, so let me respond instead: Your statement sounds like it came from a trained parrot. Law enforcement does not need tools to bypass the protection of American citizens, more of whom should be using the tools at their disposal to see what sort of shams are being foisted upon them using pseudo-logic such as you are repeating here.
Brilliant!
(It is the 1970's again, this & drugs, but no free lvoe.)
...if the honest ones would one day en masse hold a news conerence and say that a coup has happened, and they no longer support the dictators. At this point we are *fucked* because of this "go along to get along" deal with the remaining honest government workers (both civil and military) and the connivance of the main stream media to not call a spade a spade. The rest of the PLANET EARTH has noticed that this has happened. Damn right there is "terrorism" that we need to fight back against, and it comes with a black suit and tie on. Thinking you can "vote" away this fait accompli is naieve, and thinking the current conman-gress is still honest and will "do the right thing" is even more naieve. All they keep doing is instituting more variations on the enabling act.
Better a parrot than an ostrich. The majority of submoronic slashdot contributers would have us pretend that there is no threat and that the current administration is the real problem. Their arguments amount to sticking their fingings in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala".
an ill wind that blows no good
Maybe take a leaf out of the book of other countries that have dealt with terrorism for much longer and on a grander scale than America? Take the IRA, for instance - there have been peace talks for a long, long time now; it is hard, it sometimes breaks down, it takes a lot of intelligence, hard negotiations and empathy for your opponent and is by far not as satisfying as just bombing the hell out of another country, but it can lead to much better results in the long run.
I'd recommend reading up on terrorism around the world and I'd especially recommend publications that actually originated in the countries involved; you'll see that this is not a completely new problem, that people have attempted to deal with it and that it is your administration that chooses to ignore the mountains of experience that have been accumulated on that topic. Oh, and as long as you're in a library: look up "false dilemma", a rhetorical device in which the speakers offers only false alternatives to his chosen course of action. Not to rag on you unnecessarily, but attempting to frame the debate in the "should we kill or be killed" format won't do in a civilized, intelligent discussion.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Nice work. I'm so glad I don't live there, in your country. Good luck with that fascisim.. er, 2 party "democracy" system. A whole 2 parties. Yay.
So they can monitor in 89 day chunks, take a day off, and start back up again, all without a warrant?
Gee. Sounds reasonable to me!
And I will mod you appropriately.
If you are saying that treating countries with respect is counterproductive to preventing "terrorism," you could not be more wrong. It would just add legitimacy to the US attacking the "evil terrorist" country if the US respected everyone else.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Same thing with the McCain "torture deal" yesterday. Legalizing crimes against humanity, retroactively, so that the Republicans don't have to worry about investigations and trials post-election if the Demos win. Not that I see those spineless corporatocrats even daydreaming about doing their jobs.
> full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month."
How wude
I always make it clear to anyone I talk to about politics that I, in all honesty, am very ignorant when it comes to the subject. I can obviously give you my opinion if you make a proposal to me but I will openly tell you that you should probably seek another opinion. With that in mind, it still doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when something sounds shady, as is the case with this. I understand willfully giving up personal liberties in the interest of national security but at the same time I feel like it may be going too far. It seems almost each month I've heard about government either abusing their current powers or attempting to gain more. What will happen when we are longer at war(whenever that is), will these powers be released? I have a bad feeling they won't. But like I said, I am no expert so don't take my word for it. (Queue in LeVar Burton)
I will forever be a student.
The problem with the "war on terror" is that no one can define Victory for us. When will we know we've won? As long as there is no way for us to know when we've won, then we are in a never-ending pursuit of something that doesn't exist and will never be found. No amount of surveillance will be enough, no amount of "alternative interrogation methods" will be enough, no amount of data-mining will be enough because there is no way to achieve victory as long as it can't be defined. There will always be people on this planet who hate America and have a plan to hurt us, and that will never change. The goal for us should be to demand a definition of victory from our government in this "war" and if they can't give us one, then we must tell them to end it.
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Yes of course, the logical "opposite is true" argument. You just converted the quote incorrectly:
"Those who are not willing to give up non-essential servitude to obtain long term safety deserve neither servitude or safety."
Or maybe it was: "We who are willing to receive liberty to obtain a lot of temporary safety deserve both liberty and safety."
"x willing to y to obtain z, etc."
I'm sorry but your argument is stupid. While the opposite of a mathematical calculation is usually true, the same can not be said of quotes.
People like you, who think that the government can take away rights from people just because they're from a different country or have a different skin tone than you, are the reason that the current Congress thinks it can get away with legislature like the bill we are talking about now. You cannot have it both ways. You either support the Bill of Rights and the rule of law, or you can support dragnet round-up of gangs, and mass incarceration and deportation. We cannot bypass due process. That sort of flagrant disregard for the law is what led to a Canadian citizen getting deported by the CIA to be tortured in Syria. Besides, some MS-13 members use deportation as a free trip home, and others use it as a recruitment technique. By the way, El Salvador is in Central America, not South America.
Please think of the implications of your accusations.
But this week I've been so perturbed by the progress of the torture-enabling bill that I didn't even notice a surveillance-enabling bill slipping through the pipeline.
So what is the average apathetic voter thinking right now? CNN's current headline for the former bill is "GOP, White House snap terror bill deadlock" (see, because we would only torture terrorists) and I didn't see any mention of the latter bill at all. The only thing that's been even lower on the news radar is the Democratic Party - are they being shut out of the media and ignored by the blogs, are they pro police state, or are they just being quiet so as not to lose too much of the pro police state vote in November?
Imagine the day when EVERYONE has caught on to bullshit propaganda statements like "our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies" and we ALL take to the streets and remove these crazy idiots from the offices of OUR government.
Just imagine it for a second. It IS coming. We will take the power back and Bush, Cheney, all the rest of them will shiver and weep in some dark corner while it all comes crashing down.
Get ready to rise up people because they are ASKING for it.
Just because you're the first person I've heard who's familiar with it in a long time ... do you know if there's a HOWTO or any kind of documentation on how to set up the client software on Linux? I tried to do it a while back, and it seemed like everything was geared to somebody who wanted to set up a relay server...the client software to send messages is buried somewhere in the same package, but damned if I could figure out how to get it working.
Has it gotten any easier, or is there any documentation on how to do it?
The only time I've ever successfully used Mixmaster was via a MacOS classic client program back around 1999 or 2000, but that software is now defunct. Too bad, because it was a fairly neat GUI thing, but the author got on the wrong side of the OS9/OSX war, I guess, and decided not to rewrite it.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Not flamebait... just my 2 cents...
If you ever get the chance watch the documentary "The Goebbels Experiment". It is the narration of excerpts from the diary kept by Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister from the 20's until his death in 1945. It documents the rise of the Nazis first hand from an insider's experience. Cabals of driven individuals, fixed elections, censorship, propaganda, secret surveillance, intimidation of critic, and war for peace are not new concepts. When undermining a Republic use a proven formula that works!
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
...I wasn't using them anyway.
In a democracy, the people always get the government they deserve.
The Bill number is H.R.5825, "Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act"
You can plug that bill identifier into this html page , select search on bill number, then click search.
Many of the provisions of this bill are unconstitutional, (due process, separation of powers, 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th amendments etc), but that process would take a long, long time to wind itself through the court system.
When a citizen's fear of one's own government is more than he fears the Terrorists !
Then the War on Terrorism is already LOST !
Why people like you leap to offer every orifice to international criminals who mean you harm escapes me. Your parable only highlights the fecklessness of your views.
an ill wind that blows no good
What these people need to learn is that Congress can pass no ex post facto laws. It's in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Some court decisions have said that ex post facto laws only apply to not punishing criminals for things that were made illegal after the acts took place. I'd be willings to wager that the same courts would say you can't stop someone from being punished for something that was illegal at the time, either.
Usually when someone says defending the borders they mean defending against a foreign power, ie. an army.
Are you saying that keeping Joe the busboy out of the country falls in the same category as repelling the British from America in 1812?
I really doubt that the foreigners are that much of a threat, and honestly you seem extremely xenophobic. If you can provide some objective evidence that proves that overall, the influx of foreigners is sufficiently detrimental that it is worthwhile to curtail their freedom (and in some sense american's freedom due to the variety of reciprocal immigration agreements we have entered into) by creating a huge bureaucracy to regulate this.
If you don't have time to read the whole book, I put together a summary of "How Would a Patriot Act", a lawyer's review of the history and issues of wiretapping and other Administration policies.
He optimized out a NOP from the code.
. html#4).
Every day is within 90 days after a terrorist attack, given that routine criminals like meth lab operators and currency smugglers are getting charged under terrorism statutes(http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0310
Elsewhere a terrorist act is defined as anything the president says it is. "Anti-terrorism" surveillance has already targeted Quakers.
In 1978 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed the Senate 95-1. In other words it had near-unanimous Republican support.
This isn't your father's Republican Party.
Lots of Republican Congresspeople were willing to hold Nixon to account, for example. The only way a President can "tell Congress" to do something is to have a party machine so powerful that Congresspeople vote the Party line instead of their conscience or their constituents's wishes. A party machine like that is a dangerous thing. It overrides the will of the people.
Fear of gays, Fear of Terrorists, Fear of invisible men in the sky that claim to know all, and do all, but statstically seem to ignore their followers.
Basically, the fly-overs states shit their pants when the towers went down, despite having nothing that terrorists would want to blow up. The poor, low-educated and low intelligence folks who believe in god and jingoism hijacked my nation.
I voted for the lesser of two evils...I voted for Kerry.
Blar.
You'd lose, then; its pretty well established that the ex post facto clause does not prevent lots of retroactive application of laws, including passing laws reducing the available punishment after an act has been committed, and passing laws making something not criminal after the act has been committed. The Supreme Court's fairly consistent view on the issue is articulated, among other places, in Beazell v. State of Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925):
It is settled, by decisions of this court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto. The constitutional prohibition and the judicial interpretation of it rest upon the notion that laws, whatever their form, which purport to make innocent acts criminal after the event, or to aggravate an offense, are harsh and oppressive, and that the criminal quality attributable to an act, either by the legal definition of the offense or by the nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission, should not be altered by legislative enactment, after the fact, to the disadvantage of the accused.
Reducing punishment or decriminalizing activity after the fact obviously does not raise the kind of unfairness to the accused that the the Court finds as the focus of the prohibition of the ex post facto clause.
Somali gunmen treat Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant better when confronted with Common Article 3.
This should not even be a discussion. Look who's lined up against the pro-torture legislation: generals, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, people who know what war is like better than we ever will.
This shouldn't be a discussion, not in this country. Here's the letter my wife wrote to our President and Congressmen:
I strongly oppose any legislation that would authorize indefinite detention, unfair trials and immunity for torture and cruel treatment. This is a nation of laws - keep it that way.
I support the Constitution of the U.S., which outlaws torture and guarantees due process of law to all accused. It says what our country may and may not do.
As the daughter, granddaughter, niece and sister-in-law of combat veterans, I support the Geneva Convention as it has been interpreted in the body of international law to date.
When I was an employee of the Defense Department I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. As a citizen, I take that obligation seriously. Do you?
Media consolidation (and enterprises which conglomerate news media 'product' into a larger money-and-influence concerns) is at the heart of what has gone wrong in this country. They propagandize heavily and with impunity, especially after they've helped install their favorite corporate errand-boys (BushCo) into public office.
So of course, no one who isn't himself a corporate executive is going to be portrayed favorably in the media. The favored halo will go to the politician who has to most friends working at Exxon and Disney and GE, especially if they can be expected to appoint those corporate friends to government agencies that regulated them.
We have all the economic underpinnings of fascism in place. Now. Only the general public still have not yet been pumped with enough irrational fear to make the nation Nazi-esque. The test-marketing of the new domestic scapegoat (not Jews... Chicanos) has not exactly cristalized, although we do already have something of a vigilante-brownshirt-fascisti in the form the Minutemen. I don't think enough media executives or shareholders see much profit potential yet for their oil/military/prison-building interests by scouring the country for Mexicans and deporting them.
But hey... you never know, someone might come up with a great new angle...
H.R. 5825, the "Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act," authored by Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM), gives the president the power to declare a pre-emptive state of emergency and have free rein to wiretap Americans and search their homes without court warrants if the President submits a secret letter to the heads of Congress, Congressional Intelligence committees, and the secret court set up to handle wiretapping warrants.
Each certification lasts 90 days and can be re-authorized indefinitely in 90 day increments by sending another letter. Neither the court nor Congress can contest the declaration.
Like the Specter bill in the Senate, Wilson's bill redefines surveillance so that capturing any international communication to or from an American is defined as not-surveillance. Acquiring the phone records and addressing information of any or all American's domestic emails, text or instant messages is also not surveillance.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
Should we "respect" the dictator killing his people and crushing dissent, or the people of that country? Anyways, France and Germany suck up to all the tyrants and terrorists and they're still big terror targets.
So I could mod this drivel as +1 Funny.
I sure hope that was sarcasm. (otherwise, I hope *you* forget to vote in November, as I'm not a big fan of the folks taking over our country)
Let's play "Jeopardy":
A: Strong militant nationalism, favoring a partnership between government and corporate interests, and against organized labor.
.
.
.
Q: What is "fascism"?
(from the italian term "fasci" for their corporate rulers back in the day)
(Godwin's law be damned, the shoe fits)
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
The sad thing is that this does not have, and never has had, anything to do with keeping citizens safe. This is all about (a) being able to wiretap DNC headquarters, and (b) asserting that the President is actually a king. There's no other legitimate reason for all of this.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Currently, W Bush and Cheney are essentially convicted felons, which is enough grounds to fasttrack their impeachment come November (if the Democrats take Congress, which is not impossible).
Once Bush and Cheney are impeached, Pelosi (as a Speaker), becomes an acting President (and gets the PATRIOT and other 'powers').
Jeez, who's wearing the tinfoil hat here? Bush and Cheney would have to be *CONVICTED* by 67 votes in the Senate for the Speaker of the House to step in. That would obviously require a fair number of Republican senatorial votes for that to happen - which is obviously beyond the realm of possibility unless the President actually committed murder or something (and the victims were proven to be non-Democrats).
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
The only thing worse than no government is an effcient government.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Maybe not, but it's certainly the way to bet. In proximity to a politician, when you hear hooves think Satan not zebras.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
seig heil
Minority Report
It (da law) don't mean nothing to them now, so does this make things any different?
GDub's armies lead by Rummy kicked ass and took names in a lightning invasion that would have made Genghis Khan proud. Saddam was a creep who deserves what he got. He's not the last. Get over it.
Unless you are communicating with or passing money to your terrorist buddies overseas, or making threatening speeches in your local mosque, you don't have anything to worry about.
an ill wind that blows no good
That's decent reasoning, but starting from a mistaken premise.
You see, the decision you cite has the _defendant_ being protected from the _government_.
In the case of what we're talking about, the defendant _is_ the government. Allowing the government to act in the way the White House and the Congress are trying to allow hurts the non-government defendants in any investigation and trial for which the surveillance is used. By legalizing what the _government_ is doing after the fact, it _narrows_ the rights of the _defendant_ after the fact. The illegality of the surveillance makes it inadmissable as evidence. That's a legal defense.
Legalizing an illegal act of the investigators or of the prosecution after the fact _is_ something "which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed".
By this reasoning, making it legal to tap a phone without a warrant in certain cases cannot be done for wiretaps that have already happened. Making the framework for when the warrant has to be issued different in the future is another story. In any case, I'd still be willing to wager the courts won't say no law has been broken _by_the_government_ if the government tries to cover its ass after the fact.
Yes, that's always the case in the application of the ex post facto provision.
No, wrong. The defendant in a criminal case is never the government. The defendant may be a government officer (or, in the case of the President, a former officer since the President, while in office, has absolute immunity to criminal prosecution, since that is an executive function and he can't prosecute himself, even by proxy.)
But the government is always the prosecution, and some individual person against whom the government is acting is always the defense, in a criminal case. At least in the US: some foreign systems allow private criminal prosecution.
Actually, no. In general, material gathered under FISA (or even the EMSA modifications) procedures for foreign intelligence material, but not under the procedures required for surveillance for law enforcement purposes which are different, may not be used in any criminal prosecution.
Changing the rules of information gathering after the fact is not "ex post facto", only changing the substantive law (the definition of crimes or their punishment) is "ex post facto".
Changing the rules of information gathering for criminal cases may violate the fourth amendment whether or not the change is retroactive, and probably the provisions of FISA and even moreso those of EMSA would violate the fourth amendment if some of the information gathered that is currently prohibited from use in criminal cases were allowed to be used in criminal cases. It may violate the Fourth Amendment to gather it in any case, especially with the expanded authorization in EMSA, but in either case that concern is separate from the ex post facto issue.
Properly speaking, its a legal argument for the inadmissibility of the evidence, not a defense. And that it is illegal under statute may make it inadmissible, but that it is illegal under statute is not required for it to be inadmissible, and much of the the information gathered under FISA might be inadmissible even if it weren't prohibited by statute to use it. Further, even if it were an ex post facto issue to change the information gathering rules after the fact because of the impact on other defendants, all that would mean is that such evidence would be inadmissible against affected defendants, not that Congress' removal of the criminal penalties for the illegal surveillance would not be applicable retrospectively.
So what you're saying, in effect, is that it's acceptable according to the Constitution and the intent of the founders for the Federal statutes to allow the government, or individuals acting on behalf of the government, to be allowed to break the previous Federal statutes after they have been broken? And that this is the case even if it is clearly to the detriment of the people?
Any kind of misconduct and illegal acts can be undertaken by the Federal government without restrictions and without any redress on behalf of the people if this is the case. After all, the only way a law matters to a criminal is that it's enforced and there is a penalty for its breakage.
So, effectively, the Constitution of the United States, as written and as the writers of it intended, does not limit the power of the government against the people so long as that government can change the laws or the Constitution itself to protect the government employees _after_ the fact?
That's some seriously shaky ground there. I'm not a lawyer. From the authority with which you're responding, it seems you might be. Please tell me that's not the case. If it starts becoming the view of lawyers that the Federal government is not at all accountable to the people, it's time for a revolution. Hopefully a bloodless one using ballots, but if that becomes the prevailing view, I'll take what I can get.
No, I'm saying that according to the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, the avenue of recourse to prevent that is the democratic accountability of legislators (and, outside of the Constitution but within the conception of the founding fathers, the ultima ratio of replacing a failed government through force), not the ex post facto clause being read to prevent retroactive loosening of criminal statutes.
Look, even if the ex post facto clause did what you wanted, it wouldn't stop that from being just as true with regard to redress through criminal prosecution since (1) criminal prosecution is never mandatory even if a criminal law exists, it is in the discretion of the executive, and (2) the executive also has an unrestricted power to pardon offenses against the United States, and protect them forever from prosecution, even if they are contrary to the criminal law.
Criminal process isn't the only sanction available against the top decisionmakers of the executive branch; at any rate, criminal process isn't going to be an effective constraint on the President or those acting with his knowledge and support in most cases, for the reasons discussed above, however the ex post facto clause is interpreted.
Well, clearly so in terms of changes to the Constitution, since the Constitution at the time any action is contemplated places a firm line determining the authority, or lack thereof, of the government to take action. The degree of retrospective effect of other laws will vary from case to case, both by the framing of the law and other factors. But, yes, a law that, on its face, loosens a criminal prohibition retrospectively will pretty certainly be given that effect in any criminal case where someone was charged with breaking the old law, though the fact that a criminal law had existed prohibiting the conduct at the time it was committed might be recognized as having some impact in other circumstances.
A law student with an undergraduate degree in Political Science.
The Federal government is certainly accountable to the people. The mechanism by which it is held accountable is not, principally, the application of the criminal process against top decision-makers (and, where such process is applicable, the ex post facto clause applies to process against those decisionmakers exactly the same as against everyone else: it prevents changes to the definition and punishment of crimes that are to the detriment of the defendant from being applied retrospectively, not those which benefit the defendant.)