Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping
inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"
Bullshit. This isn't about terrorists, it's about my privacy and my rights as an American. The true test is whether or not our leaders are competent enough to defeat terrorism without destroying the laws and rights that made this country great.
Offering other means to fight terrorists is not 'coddling' them. And voting 'yes' just for the sake of being able to vote 'yes' would be an even larger problem. My message to congress: engage brain before voting. I would rather have everything scrutinized than making progress for the sake of making progress. When you gather 100 people from different parts of the country together, there's bound to be more than a few that have reasons not to vote 'yes' or 'no.' That's called Democracy and that's how it's supposed to work.
What is it with Republicans and their extreme views? The world isn't black and white. You can't tell me that by fearing for my civil rights I'm less able to combat terrorism. And what the hell is up with this tunnel vision of one and only one option on nearly every issue? Stop being selective about revealing consequences! This might help you fight terrorism but it's also going to give you powers that the wrong government officials could abuse! You cannot deny this so stop sidestepping it.
My work here is dung.
does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
Calls between foreigners and Americans include Americans and are thus totally covered by the 4th Amendment.
What's so hard about that?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Big Brother's just being lazy- he's about 22 years later than he was s'posed to be.
In all honesty, each and every Senator that voted "Yes" to this needs to be removed
from office ASAP- they took a damn oath of office and they just broke it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You have correctly identified the problem: both the Democrats and the Republicans. That's the first step, and I'm glad you have made it. But now what are you going to do? Just rant here on Slashdot? That won't accomplish very much.
I am very glad that many Americans today are seeing the core problems. But what's needed is Americans who will protest. Americans who will take a real stand against the wrongs they see committed in their names. Are you one of those Americans?
Here is the House record on who voted for and against HR 5825.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Funny how an administration who prides itself in defending freedom is the greatest threat to freedom. Illegal wiretaps, torture, suspension of habeous corpus, secret prisons, and kangeroo courts are the markings of tyranny --- not freedom.
When all else fails, run.
For those who saw my post yesterday about the Senate torture/habeas corpus bill... An amendment toning the bill down was rejected early in the day, and then the bill in its full-strength, scary form was passed and will be signed into law by the President shortly:
i -0609290178sep29,1,1387725.story?coll=chi-newsnati onworld-hed0 60928.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ch
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs20
So, a bill legalizing wiretapping would just be par for the course for this government.
Oh, and welcome to the police state . You may not notice any difference at first... but sooner or later it's probably safe to say that you will.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I just love this argument. You must choose: Your supposed freedoms or DEATH?
I think this argument should be used at every end of the political spectrum. Which do you want, Net Neutrality or DEATH?
By the way, Mr. Coward, I believe the american revolutionaries answer to the question of liberty or death would be the latter.
This is fucking insane. More so that most people just can't be bothered with news like this anymore. Too busy. Too distracted. Too apathetic to care even if their nose is rubbed in it.
And 13 Democrats voted for the other peice of shit rammed through yesterday (the Torture bill). No wonder people are turned off to politics.. Washington is too far removed from the needs and wishes of the average American... or is that the other way around. Hell it works either way.
Call your representative in the House (or check their web site) and find out how he/she voted. If s/he voted for the bill make sure to vote for another candidate if the seat is up for election in Nov.
Normally I wouldn't say to vote for or against a candidate based on only one issue. But this bill is unconstitutional and anyone who voted for it is disregarding our rights and the constitution itself and is therefore unfit as a representative. Please vote accordingly.
Developers: We can use your help.
If it can't be delivered to Bush by Nov 7th, the midterm elections could make a significant diffeence in whether this is approved.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
begin to complain? You seem to be saying that until they arrive in jackboots to carry you off, it's too early to complain. Well I have news for you: once they arrive in jackboots to carry you off, it's too late to complain.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Where the rights we all have mean people can do bad things. The right to bear arms mean people can kill other people easily, yet it's a right that also helps guarantee freedom. The right to free speech means that people can incite hatred, or ruin your life, but it's also a right which helps guarantee your freedom.
That's the whole neat thing about freedom, it won't guarantee your safety, but that isn't something anyone can guarantee in any case..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
I did that because it's what I'm supposed to do. This is how it's supposed to work. I feel a bit more satisfied but I still fear for my country. I urge each and everyone of you who are American citizens to do the same, whether you're for or against this bill.
Which one do I have the most faith in? My fellow citizens.
The rest could be hit by a bus and I wouldn't really care.
My work here is dung.
For you will surely receive it. If there's one thing slashdotters love, it's a simple bumper-sticker slogan that makes everyone feel better.
Yet we all cede various amounts of "essential liberty" for safety - temporary and permanent.
We do not drive as we wish to ensure proper order on the roads (we hold to the proper lane... well... most of us).
We cede liberty to do as we wish when we want to constantly. Building codes, taxes, standards, all interfere with us doing precisely what we wish to do.
Certainly there is a question here between "liberty" and "essential liberty" - is it essential to drive precisely as we wish? - but the fact remains that giving up liberty allows for order.
Quoting Ben Franklin is wonderful and all, but can one quote another founding father in response?
"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain." - George Washington
We can play dueling quotes all we want - do the "pains" Washington mentions include potential conflicts of interest with civil liberties? - but until a mature discussion that doesn't depend on what men said well over 200 years ago out of the present context comes up, I don't think it will be very productive.
At present, I have no opinion on the bill as I have yet to read it and do not trust the media's ability to interpret anything correctly. When I have a chance, I'll read it and some more insightful (non-blog, non-mass media) commentary and then form an opoinion.
Not that I can think of. The Duopoly has no desire for reform - the current system works just fine for their interests. Alternate systems such as Condorcet voting offer honest chances to all candidates, forcing them to compete on the strength of their platforms and ideals. To get someone in who wants reform, you have to work within the current system to elect someone outside the Duopoly. But the current system is unlikely to get that person without reform. It's catch-22 - but you'll never get anything if you don't try! Vote for any party that promises to shrink the size and scope of government and remove power from the gov't to restore it to the people. You may not agree with them 100%, but if the goal is to shrink gov't, they'll have less ability to do those things that you disagree with.
And isn't that the whole point?
Constitutionally Correct
The torture one is. The sad thing is it may be too late as it is about to be passed into law (Only Bush has to sign it).
Basically it will do the following.
- Free Bush from any warcrimes (backdated)
- Remove Habeus Corpus. This means you can be detained for your life and never be charged of any crime or even see a courtroom.
- Allows the use of torture (as long as it is the US doing it)
- Allows extraordinary rendition to continue.
The fun part is that these only apply to non-Americans. But wait theres more! All the US government has to do is declare you a non-combatant and according to this bill you automatically loose your citizenship.
Of course they would only ever use this on terrorists and at least this way we will never need to worry about them ever doing this to an innocent person.
Welcome to the American Taleban. They are essentially calling people terrorists who oppose them. Replace "terrorist" with "the devil" and you start to see how ridiculous the charge is. Consider the unAmerican things they are pushing and it's no longer funny. Their program is so out of line it makes you wonder what they are really fighting for. Look at what they are pushing with their new found powers:
They have come a long, long way from the party of smaller, less intrusive government and meaningful morals. Instead of competition, they have given us "duopoly". Yes, only government intervention can stifle competition like that. Instead of education, they are buying religion and bombs. Instead of enjoying freedom, people have to worry about Big Brother. There's a whole new agency in charge of strip searches at airports and schools are being given similar abilities. Black lists are derived from phone and email snooping. Our abuse of foreign citizens is starkly immoral. The result is domestic fear and international hatred.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil Disobedience.
Use TrueCrypt with the AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI encryption for those partitions.
For phones, you could look into encryption handsets or telephone scramblers. There's this one too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.
Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.
With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy, Tor and i2p and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
Now its OUR turn.
You take from us, we take back.
Using the nonsensical word "Islamo-fascist" should disqualify you from any discussion. There's no relation between fascists and terrorists, that's just a made up word to create more irrational fear.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I'm okay with all of this wiretapping on one condition -- every politician is subject to wiretapping 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they expect us to give up our privacy rights, I expect our politicians to give up the same -- and slightly more, since by accepting the role of a public figure they accept a certain responsibility for both their public and private actions.
On top of this, when obtaining a valid warrant, a private citizen has the right to obtain, inspect, and dissemenate all of these conversations. And on top of this, government entities (FBI, CIA, auditing firms) have the right to these conversations at any time without a warrant, and may, at their discretion release any of this information to the public.
It goes both way. Have a nice day.
Titus Barik
One difference between an "occupation force" and an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" is that you can generally tell who the members of the occupation force are and you can tell when they go away and the threat is gone.
Wouldn't it be easier to give up certain liberties to the government to fight an occupation force because you know :
a) who the exceptional powers the government now has is to be used against and
b) when the threat has passed so those powers can be taken away from the government again (assuming they are willing to give them back up).
With an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" how do you know who to use the powers against? There will be obvious targets but due to the nature of the threat there will be very non-obvious targets who look for all the world like ordinary citizens. Are you willing to face the force of those powers yourself so the government can fight the good fight? or are you just happy for other citizens to do so as long is it isn't you (because after all, you have nothing to hide).
And who says when the threat has passed? There is no invading army at the border to tell the threat is still there so when does the government give up its special powers granted to it to fight the bad guys? What if the powers that be decide the threat has never passed?
I think it would be much easier to give up some rights to fight an invading force than terrorist type threat. So if you wouldn't give them up for an invading force you definately shouldn't in this case.
Voting the rascals out only gives you a new set of rascals any more. And they are setting things up so that you can no longer take to the streets. This is an example of "death by 1000 cuts", only it's our civil liberties that they are cutting.
Go ahead, mark me as a troll or ignore me. But if you don't stand up now, tomorrow will be too late.
Don't you think it would be nicer if you didn't have to engage in an arms race with your own government that you (i.e. the electorate of the USA) appointed?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Jeppe Salvesen said, "[A needed reform is c]ampaign finance, because the money dependency in politics means those with money get to dictate/influence policy. After all, the politicians feel more accountable to the donors than they do to the public. With enough money, the politicians can just buy the necessary amount of advertising - and they will get that money if donors know the representative delivers the votes & influence in Congress the donors' agenda requires."
Here's a simple reform - get rid of political ads on TV. It's long been established that broadcast media isn't as protected as print or speech - hence the lack of boobies on TV. The vast majority (or at least plurality) of campaigning budgets goes to TV ads. Most campaign finance reform goes after the supply - limiting how much donors can donate. That, to me, is a recipe for corrupt end runs around the law. This reform, on the other hand, would go after the demand side. Donors could give as much as they want - or at least as much as they can under the current rules - but the politicians wouldn't need them as much. That hopefully would mean that they would be more willing to represent the people, not the corporations. It would also even out the playing field for grassroots candidates, who have popularity but no war chest - the difference in funds wouldn't make as big of a difference on election day.
The problem with this reform is that you would need an act of congress - I don't see the FCC doing this on their own initiative.
And let's not forget that fewer than 3,000 Americans died from the 9/11 attacks. The flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year, according to the CDC. The flu. So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight an "islamo-fascist" movement that is so dire, so dreadful in nature that 5 years ago it killed less than 1/10 as many as are killed by the flu every year? That's the plan? Wow, that isn't stupid at all.
I immediately see how a problem that, over a 5 year span of time, was less than 1/50 (that's less than 2%, mind you) as deadly as the damned flu virus warrants a watering-down of habeus corpus, a precedent of selective exemption from judicial review, and the steady erosion not just of old-fashioned civil rights, but of the very idea of checks and balances that was intended to keep us free. Who needs any of that outdated crap? Oh, wait, I forget, our forefathers were thinking with a pre 9-11 mentality! Now it all makes sense! To follow what the forefathers wanted would be to give in to the terrorists! Am I doing okay here?
It's not going to make the terrorists that want to kill Americans go away. The US not doing anything during the 1990s didn't stop them from bombing the Cole or the first unsuccessful World Trade Center bombing. We didn't do anything then, and they just kept coming.
Hello, Mr. Goddamn Liar, nice to meet you.
The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.
At this point, a vote for a Democrat is just to stop everything is the "solution". That's the hope of a lot of those on the left
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Seeing as how the longer we stay there, the worse things get, the more terrorists attacks there are, and the more this war costs, that seems like a good fucking idea to me. "STAY THE COURSE! CUT AND RUN!" I have an idea! Know what would fight terrorism! You hitting yourself in the hammer! Just once, mind you. Oh wait, that didn't stop terrorism? Try it again! In fact, KEEP trying it! It'll work! GEORGE BUSH said so!So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes. Maybe they'll stick. Maybe people will forget what a fascist sack of shit George Bush is. Then again maybe it'll turn around and bite you in the fucking ass because while you're all gung-ho over the GOP and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to, the values and treasure of your country are being willfully destroyed by those same people you so worshipfully defend.
Have a nice day, see you October 5th.
How is it FUD? FUD is calling every fucking thing that you don't agree with "Terrorism". FUD is labeling everyone that doesn't agree with you a "Terrorist". FUD is calling every country that has Extremists as HARBORING "Terrorists". FUD is creating a bill and labeling it "Anti-Terrorist" just to get the fucking thing passed.
So in the above list, what makes you think that a statement made against the current government wouldn't be "labeled" as a Terrorist, "just to make sure". Where would your law suite be? Think you would still win? YOU were just labeled a "Potential" terrorist, who is going to back YOU, now.
This is what SCARES the piss out of me. What country do we live in again? The terrorists ARE WINNING. They have the perfect patsy in GW, he reacted EXACTLY the way they expected. He is promoting Terror more than the Terrorists EVER could.
Until he realizes this, they ARE WINNING.
How many freedoms do we have to "Give up" in the name of feeling safe?
Scott Carr
Individually there is very little that we can do but, collectively, people can make a huge difference. For proof just look to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and other organized groups of the Religious Right. You do not have to agree with them to see that they have made significant changes to the United States. Only the foolish and/or ignorant would deny the power of well organized groups with cohesive messages and clear goals. (Google these groups and see what I'm talking about).
Feel powerless? You are not alone. Feel like your voice doen't matter? By itself one vote rarely does. But collectively, people can move mountains (politically speaking).
Try joining these groups so they can speak for you in matters you care about and know about (and those you don't know about but would care if you did):
1) ACLU
2) EFF
3) Judicial Watch
4) MoveOn.org
5) Amnesty International
6) Union of Concerned Scientists
The list goes on and on and on.
I'm a member of one, two and four and I can't say I *always* agree with everything they do, but I do most of the time for most of the things they do.
Stand up, speak out, ally yourself with groups that share your values and be heard for a change (literally and figuratively speaking).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
The only way things could ever change back to the way they were, the only way we would have to be cautious about how much power we give government, is if a Democrat is elected. Then, yes, it follows that power corrupts, and is inimical to freedom. But until that day, don't get stuck in a pre 9/11 mentality. If you need me to repeat it a few more times for effect, I can. Sorry about not being good enough at HTML to have a flag waving in the background as you read this.
I absolutely can't believe that such a term has come into common use. It boggles the mind. For everyone, here is a definition of fascism from Wikipedia:
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Sound like any government we know?
Now, for the historical parallels to Germany, that everyone who doesn't know their history ridicules. Please feel free to read about:
The Weimar Republic (compare to today's polical and esp. economic situation)
The Reichstag Fire (compare to 9/11)
The Enabling Act (compare to current legislation on torture, wiretapping, habeas, etc.)
Does any of this sound familiar? Hello? Perhaps people need to realize that those comparing Nazi Germany and the United States are not pulling the comparison out of thin air... unlike those trying to compare Al Qaeda and the Nazis, which have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
which were to be the other "compare" that goes with the Enabling Act.
If you're not aware of Bush's signing statements, see this.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
What the fuck is this "Stay the course" bullshit?
A PLAN has things like:
#1. Milestones
#2. Budget
#3. Criteria for success
#4. Timeline
If we aren't hitting the milestones on time and on budget, then the plan needs to be re-evaluated and possibly dumped.
So far, all I've seen out of Bush and Co is:
#1. When we kill/capture Mr. X, things will improve.
#2. When the Iraqis do Y, things will improve.
So, an un-limited amount of money, to follow an un-known plan, to achieve un-stated objectives in the un-defined future.
How much money is too much to spend?
How many lives are too many to lose?
How long is too long to wait?
If you cannot answer those questions, then all you have is a fantasy.
"Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away."
Voting for anyone you don't believe is the best candidate is throwing your vote away.
Voting as if it's a sporting event in which you "win" if you bet on the right candidate, is throwing your vote away. You don't win - you lose because you supported someone you don't approve of, and now they're going to govern you in ways you don't like. Loser!
Your one vote has very little statistical significance - but when you vote for a 3rd party that gets 1/10th as many votes as the major parties, your vote has 10 times the impact.
Voting for a 3rd party sends a message to both major parties that you are fed up with both of them, and that you aren't going to fall for the "throwing your vote away" lie any more. That's the only message they truly fear. If 20% voted for a 3rd party, one or both other parties would try to change to win back those votes.
Millions of people believing the lie that voting 3rd party is throwing away their vote, is how we got where we are today. So tell me - aren't you glad you didn't "throw your vote away"? Aren't you happy that you supported the current situation, either by voting Republican, or be contributing to the idea that others who voted Republican would have been throwing their votes away by voting 3rd party?
Sure it's horrible to have one party dominate both houses and the executive branch. But hoping that Gridlock will save you is a loser's game - gridlock just slows down the rate at which you lose. Your only chance to improve things is to vote your conscience, and encourage others to follow your example.
First let me begin with "fascism." Rather than cover old ground again, everyone can just read my other post in this story about fascism and decide for themselves whether facist is an appropriate term for the Bush administration.
Now, on to the show.
"Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever."
Wrong. Appealing to an appropriate level of fear is a moral imperative if the fear is of a real threat. To watch someone face a real threat unbeknownst to them and not suggest to them that they should be afraid and do something about it would be morally unforgivable. What's at issue here is the "appropriate level of fear" that we should appeal to. The government suggests ZERO fear of them, and INFINITE fear of Al Qaeda, which runs not only counter to logic in the face of the size and reach of each, but also counter to actual history of abuse (the government having exercised more of it). The appropriate level of fear to which to appeal is likely a little bit in the case of Al Qaeda (about enough that you can call it "conscious awareness" but not much more) and a healthy portion in the case of the government (enough that you can call it "vigilance and a tendency toward activism" I should think).
"that's the same logic that the President is using to scare people into giving him power"
"logically fallacious bullshit"
It's not logically fallacious at all. You haven't pointed out the fallacy. It is not true that simply because the logic is incorrect in the case of the fear of terrorists, it must therefore also be incorrect in the case of the fear of government abuse. This is because the terrorists are not the government, ergo, an argument about the relative power of the government does not become fallacious simply because a similarly structured argument about the relative power of the terrorists is found to be fallacious.
And the terrorists are not the government. How about a thought experiment:
You post two things on the Yahoo! News discussion board that are not explicit threats. One would make Osama Bin Laden want to kill you if he found out about it, and the other would make Bush want to kill you if he found out about it.
In the case of OBL:
- Osama would likely never find out about it, as he'd have to stumble across it on the 'net during one of his marathon Yahoo! News-reading sessions
- If he did by some obscene cosmic conicidence find out about it, he'd gnash his teeth a lot at the fact that he had no idea where you lived or who you are
- Even if he somehow managed (and this boggles the mind) to find out who you are and where you lived, he'd still have a logistical exercise in trying to set up a hit on you here from all the way over there
- In truth, no matter how angry at you he was, he'd never bother, because it isn't worth the expense, complexity, or small potential reward of carrying out the exercise when compared to the risk of its failure
In the case of Bush:
- Given what we know now, it's likely in the national system the moment you post it, filed under "possible subversive, open up a file on him"
- Given corporate willingness to bow to government requests for data, they'd likely have your real name and address if they wanted it within a day or two, if not sooner
- Given the torture bill that just passed yesterday, they could decide that you are now an enemy combatant and can be picked up and tortured; the moment they decide this, you are legally outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts
- Now all that remains is for them to pick you up; a simple matter, just phone the local police and have them deliver you to the feds
- You are gone forever
That is the difference that makes one source of fear minor (terrorists) and the other source of fear major (government). You have made the mistake of assuming that the structure of an argument was invalid on its face
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
That's funny, I could have sworn that by a couple of days into the Normandy invasion, the Germans were gone, the mines were cleared, and the beaches were a pretty safe place to be. And this far out from D-Day, the allies had utterly defeated the Nazis, and were not hemmoraging daily reports of appaling incompetence, cronyism, and nearsightedness Over There. Furthemore, the Marshall Plan was being drawn up to revive Europe's economy and infrastructure, and unqualified cronies and no-bid contracts to American war profiteers did not figure greatly in the plan.
Since Godwin's already out of the bag in this thread, I submit that a different WWII parallel to draw with Iraq is between Rumsfeld and Göring. Both pursued ideologically-driven war strategies (the feasibility of low troop strengths in Iraq and whistling past the graveyard on what to do after the shooting stopped vs. the feasibility of resupplying Stalingrad solely by air) in flagrant disregard of both the reality on the ground and the advice of their best military professionals.
We would arrest a few masterminds, then go about our merry way. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda would just recruit more people in their place and attack us again.
Funny, I recall widespread ridicule from the right when Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at Osama in Sudan and barely missed him. Saber-rattling to distract us from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I believe was the talking point. Oh, and using a million dollar missile to destry a $29.99 tent. I also recall that the people captured in the WTC, Cole, and Embassy bombing investigations continue to be some of our best intelligence sources about Al-Qaeda (and since they've been interviewed instead of tortured, we get information from them more than once, and about things we haven't directly asked them about, and can be reasonably sure they didn't make it up to make the bad man stop.)
we could not let this dictator remain in power after 9/11. He was a thorn in our side.And how's that working out? It sure is a relief not to have Iraq as a thorn in America's side. Makes Iran/Hezbollah, North Korea, Sudan, FARC, etc. really tremble in fear to see our military no longer tied down in Iraq.
You don't seem to mind the fact that the government examines your luggage before you get on an airplane, do you? Your luggage might have your freedom of expressions in it. Letters to your wife, artwork, etc.
If the TSA reads documents in my luggage, I sure as hell do mind, as should you. Their responsibility is to keep weapons and explosives from endangering aircraft, not to be thought police.
The FISA process with its retroactive warrants wasn't broken. The only reason Bush would need to go around it that makes any sense is that he's using wiretaps on political enemies, journalists, or others he has absolutely no business eavesdropping on. And pointing to the internment camps, one of the ugliest episodes in our nation's history, to defend Bush isn't doing him or your position any favors.
And unlike the 9/11 conspiracy, this only involved one person, which means it would have been INFINITELY easier to set this up and keep quiet...
While I am disgusted with Bush and the Republicans, and definitly think they are utter facists who are intent destroying the constitution... I don't think many other people are outraged for the same reasons.
When a Democrat is elected, and he wants warrentless wiretapping in order to crack down on "Corporate Criminals", or "Child Molesters", or "Hate Groups", you will hear most of the people who are "outraged" now rally behind the program and accuse those who are against the wiretapping as being "pro-corporate-crime", or "pro-hate", the same way you now have Republicans calling people against warrentless wiretapping now as being "pro-terrorist".
What you must understand is that there has been a pro-authoritarian shift in society across the political spectrum. Virtually all mainstream political positions have become completly totalitarian. I mean we have cities banning fatty foods, we have laws that make it illegal to say bad things about some protected group of people, we are passing laws that ban cartoon artwork on food packaging... Hell, it is even illegal to place political advertisments during elections!!! The solution to all problems, as seen by both the left and the right, is government crackdown! The left and the right might disagree on what exactly the social goals they want to achieve, but both are in 100% agreement that the state's need to promote those social goals takes precidence over privacy, free-expression, the right to make a living, etc.. The left and the right may have different goals, but they both 100% agree that total government control over society is fundamental to achieving the goals.
So a lot of this outrage people have is pretty non-sensical. If you support the Democrats, or the Republicans, you are fully responsible for this. When you bash Bush and the Republicans (which in itself would be OK, they are pretty evil), you are trying to imply that voting for Democrats will somehow result in a less authoritarian society, which is entirely false.
With the exception of a handful of Anarchists, Libertarians, or other fringe groups on Slashdot, nearly everyone here has completly bought into the ideology of Big Brother. Leftists of course want Big Brother to protect them from percieved exploitation, unpleasant speech, or personal responsibility... Rightists, of course, want Big Brother to protect them from a percived threat of terrorism, or foriegn enemies, or sexual immorality. But the mainstream of people on Slashdot are in love with Big Brother - They only have an ideological disagreement with those in power, not with the type of police-state they are creating.
If people don't stop and say "This is MY fault! I am responsible for this! This isn't the fault of some other party, or group, or belief system! I have been supporting authoritarianism!", then nothing is ever going to change.
Ask the Secret Service how to prevent someone from killing the president. You get the same answer, you can't.
Ask the Police how to prevent people from killing each other. Same answer, you can't.
The only thing you can do it manage the risk level. Yes, a portion of that is intelligence, and investigation to identify threats. A portion of it is bodies in place to act on the intelligence. And a portion of it is there after the fact to track it back & use it as intelligence twords the next time. Terrorism prevention is like your harddrive, it's going to fail, the only thing you can do is try to do the reasonable things to make the MTBF as long as possible.
Note that the word reasonable is the keyword here. You can greatly reduce the possibility of the president not being assasinated if he were to just stay in the nuclear shelter under the Whitehouse for the entire time he's in Office. They don't do that because it's not reasonable.
Now ask yourself:
- If 10X the number of US citizens who died during 9/11, die every year in homicides, is it 'reasonable' to spend $2B a week on preventing another 9/11, and refuse to spend $10M a year for more police?
- If it is 'reasonable' for the Federal Govt to ignore the 4th ammendment to prevent deaths, why isn't it 'reasonable' for the local police to do the same? After all, they handle many more deaths on a yearly basis than the Feds do in a decade.
- If the Feds are going to be 'reasonable' about the use of the wiretapping, why do they insist that any oversight of their behaviour will impeed their job?
The constitution garantees protection from "Unreasonable search and seasure". Over and over the courts have made clear that 'reasonable' requires either oversight (in the form of warrents) or the presence of evidence of immediate threat of bodily harm (a trail of blood leading into a house). It's hard to argue the presence of evidence of immediate threat of bodily hard, 24/7/365 for years.I do not believe that anyone is stating that the NSA/FBI/??? can't perform wiretaps. Everyone I hear is saying they have to follow the rules, and be subject to oversite if they want to perform the wiretaps. If it's a real investigation, with real targets, and real enemies, then provide the list of people you are attempting to investigate to the FISA board & get the taps. Yes, the provisions say they can tap all calls going to a person, as long as they get approval within 3 days of starting. I find it hard to believe that it takes more than 72 hours to print off a copy of a warrent request, rubber stamp it, and have an intern cart it off to the FISA board. Why do they not want oversite? What exactly are they doing/going to do that people outside the department with top-secret security clearance can't know about it, or it will 'grossly hinder' their ability to perform their jobs?
So we're being told that to get the terrorists, we must sanction violations of the Geneva Accords, our Constitution, our laws, and our morals. Apparently, terrorists don't obey those rules anyway, and they get in our way. Where have I heard this argument before?
From Thomas More's A Man for All Seasons:
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
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!