Warrantless Surveillance To Continue For Now

hmm... by User+956 · 2006-10-05 13:50 · Score: 5, Funny

It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case

Is it just me, or is this sort of behavior completely unwarranted?

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

Re:hmm... by TommydCat · 2006-10-05 14:05 · Score: 2, Funny

I appeal to your sense of compassion to stop the bad puns, as you're only trying to court the trolls. We'll be watching...

--
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
Re:hmm... by TubeSteak · 2006-10-05 14:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Reminds me of this line from A Few Good Men, where
Lt. Weinberg (Kevin Pollack) is making fun of Demi Moore:

Lt. Weinberg: "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm?
[Demi Moore] "Objection."
[Judge] "Overruled."
[Demi Moore] "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object."
[Judge] "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."

Now replace "Demi Moore" with "the Bush Administration "

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:12 · Score: 5, Informative

Is it just me, or is this sort of behavior completely unwarranted?

The point is that the District Court realized that it didn't have the final say in the matter so they wouldn't unilaterally block its use since the Executive Branch has stated that it was of interest in national security. In the court's opinion, the wiretapping is unconstitutional. But there are hundreds (or thousands) of federal judges in the United States who often make contradictory rulings that need to be reconciled at the Appeals or Supreme Court level. Since there is no question that this case will go to the Supreme Court at some point, the District Court did the wise thing, realizing it wasn't the final say and delaying the order of its ruling until the case reaches higher levels.

Obviously this isn't popular with many people on Slashdot, but it is how the courts need to work. In the reverse, a court could, for example, declare that abortion was unconstitutional. If it didn't delay its ruling until higher courts analyzed it, it would affect hundreds of thousands to millions of women.
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-05 14:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, I thought he was pointing out the unwarrented behavior of editoralizing in a news post. He has already decided that they must be "unconstitutional and controversial".

Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.

It really is getting depressing, I mean we are supposed to be slogging it out here in the comments, not in the post. Heck, what's the point in coming here? You can get all this news in other formats, it is the discussion that is interesting.

Let the post speak for itself and if you want to argue about it, do it here NormalVision.

CowboyNeal should have edited and excisized the editorial comments from the posting.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by Elemenope · 2006-10-05 14:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Now replace "Demi Moore" with "the Bush Administration "

Now, if that only worked in reverse...

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Re:hmm... by TommydCat · 2006-10-05 15:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, I thought he was pointing out the unwarrented behavior of editoralizing in a news post. He has already decided that they must be "unconstitutional and controversial". Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.
I believe this was the court's opinion, not the submitter's, through the formal process of judging, not prejudiced.
That's what the judges in courts do...
Where's the editorial again?

--
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
Re:hmm... by marcgvky · 2006-10-05 15:26 · Score: 1

If you meant to question the authors leap to a conclusion as to the constitutionality of the surveilance, then yes!!
Re:hmm... by NormalVisual · 2006-10-05 15:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Let the post speak for itself and if you want to argue about it, do it here NormalVision.

'Tis NormalVisual, not NormalVision. :-)

The lower court issued a 43-page ruling that explaining why it ruled the activity was unconstitutional, so it was a statement of fact and will continue to be so until/unless the appeals court rules otherwise.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-05 15:52 · Score: 1, Troll

Obviously this isn't popular with many people on Slashdot, but it is how the courts need to work. In the reverse, a court could, for example, declare that abortion was unconstitutional. If it didn't delay its ruling until higher courts analyzed it, it would affect hundreds of thousands to millions of women.

The difference being that your example would be an extreme, violation, abuse and invasion of an individual citizen's body by the government which absolutely must be blocked from happening immediately to avoid trampling all over the most basic idea of civil rights until deemed absolutely necessary (if even then).

The case in question is, as you pointed out, exactly the reverse and should be treated as such, meaning:

It is already happening in direct violation of our civil rights and so until it is proven beyone the shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely necessary it must be stopped immediately.

One is the government trying to shove its nose where it doesn't belong and rightly being smacked down. The other is the government being discovered illegally and unconstitutionally shoving it's head up our asses to see what we are eating and should be smacked down *hard* and you claim they should explore away at their leisure for as long as they choose to delay the case.

Apples and oranges my anonymous friend. Apples and oranges.
Re:hmm... by stevew · 2006-10-05 15:55 · Score: 1

Uhm - Nope.

It wasn't the district court that set aside the injunction, but rather the appellate court!

--
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:07 · Score: 0

One is the government trying to shove its nose where it doesn't belong and rightly being smacked down. The other is the government being discovered illegally and unconstitutionally shoving it's head up our asses to see what we are eating and should be smacked down *hard* and you claim they should explore away at their leisure for as long as they choose to delay the case.

Did you even read my statement? If not, please do so now.

My argument was that individual judges aren't infallible. There are some judges who think that this is constitutional and others who differ. The system places the appellate courts and Supreme Court to sort out the important issues.

While you think this is obviously unconstitutional, I think you are deluding yourself by saying that it is an obvious truth. Much of America doesn't think that way and the system has to work all the way up to the Supreme Court to give them justice. Many people think abortion is obviously unconstitutional as well and they believe that "until it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is absolutely necessary it must be stopped immediately."

If you respond, please answer this question: do they somehow have a greater right than you do in forcing a court order to be enforced before it has been properly reviewed?
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:26 · Score: 0

Fuckthem and fuckoff...

If they have the constitutional power to do it, so be it. You/We/I can't do anything about it. It is too late for us.

Ready. Aim...

Save yourself.
Re:hmm... by bth0002 · 2006-10-05 16:40 · Score: 1

It seems to me its just predatory and threatening to rights in general and it makes me feel as if I have to feel more paranoid generally not a good thing.

--
Far out man -Chong
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-05 16:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have read it and there is nothing in the fourth amendment that says they cannot do this.

It says no UNREASONABLE searches and sezures. There are no sezures here and if you want to make that leap that a communication is a search and sezure then do remember that in these cases the OTHER PARTY is not a citizen and not covered by the 4th amendment.

The current arguement is that during previous wars the president has been able to tap into communications (paper and electronic) in and out of the United States as established by the Supreme Court. Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.

Thus, the warrentless wiretaps are not Unconstitutional as they fall under war powers as granted by Article 2 of the Constitution.

See? Not only did I read the consititution, I read ALL of it, not just the parts that fit my opinion.

Stipulation: Using the data gathered against the parties involved in a normal court of law would be hard to pull off. Using it to stop an attack or kill/capture a legitimate target is OK.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-05 16:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, there is a congressional aproval to conduct war against the terrorists passed in 2001.

No, there was an approval for military action. Against Afghanistan and against Iraq based on proven lies.
There was no declaration of war and this ain't a war. It's not even possible to make it a war.

Therefore, the war powers act doesn't apply, hence it is unconstitutional.

Look at the facts, don't just parrot idiotic lies. You might not give a flying fuck about your liberty, but you are selling mine out with yours and the second amendment should be your biggest worry and that of the shitbags you defend in their assaults on all of the rest of us.
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-05 17:00 · Score: 5, Informative

Interesting thought there.

So it is a fact they issued ruling, but that ruling has been suspended and is on appeal.

Many more opinions have been given that contradict this one, i.e. case law is AGAINST this ruling.

Pendantic reciting of case law follows:

In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), where the defendant was convicted of espionage. The court wrote:

In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."

Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977), a firearms prosecution. The court said:

Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement....

In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant's spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch's inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:

The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.

The court agreed with the government's position:

For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.

The court held that warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes are constitutional, as long as the "object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agent or collaborators," and the search is conducted "primarily" for foreign intelligence reasons.

The state of the law was summed up by the Second Circuit in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984), a terrorism case in which the court, among other rulings, upheld the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted in 1981. The court wrote:

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Finally, in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001. This case arose out of a provision of the Patriot Act that was intended to break do

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-05 17:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are flat out wrong, and the supreme court says so:

The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:

The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].

President Bush was given AUMF in 2001 by Congress. That gives him War Powers Act powers as defined in the war powers act of 1973. End of story.

BTW, nice sig inciting to violence. =)

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-05 17:16 · Score: 1

Hey, when you are in a hole, quit digging.

Ruling in 2004, first Bush appointee in 2005.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by fuzz6y · 2006-10-05 17:18 · Score: 1

Oh, I get it. So you should only delay the ruling if you're wrong. In this case the 6th circuit was right. Hey, you know, maybe we could make this whole procedure simpler by not even having appeals courts, and simply asking the judge who made the ruling whether it should stand or not.

--
If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-05 17:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

You do realize this is an arguement based on the First Amendment primary, brought by news reporters:

The ACLU had brought the case on behalf of a group of reporters, academics, lawyers and activists who believed that their communications with clients, sources or others might have been monitored by the National Security Agency as part of the program, thereby violating their Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches, and chilling their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?Stor yID=20060817-060255-3001r

They haven't proved they were prosecuted by facts found by being tapped, they are saying they might have been tapped and that it is keeping their sources from being frank with them.

It is a pretty weak standing, and likely the first thing that will go on appeal, did they have standing to bring a suit?
Lower court, probably. Higher court? Unlikely.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-05 18:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Oh, I get it. So you should only delay the ruling if you're wrong. I

No, you missed a really simple point.

When the government asks the courts if it can fuck the people, then the answer is "no" until they can prove their case.

When it is discovered that the government is already fucking the people, then the proper response is "stop" until they can prove their case.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with eliminating the courts.

In this case, the government decided that it was better to ask forgiveness than permission.
They knew full well that they didn't have the right and they did it anyway. They only bothered to ask permission when they were caught commiting treason.
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 18:50 · Score: 0

It is curious that someone who has a sig that advocates killing someone with a different political ideology wants to lecture the rest of us on treason.
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 19:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.
That reminds me of another thing mentioned in Article II:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal.
Sure, but you are assuming that this warrantless spying program is not being used otherwise. I have seen no evidence to prove either and neither have you. That's the whole issue here.
Re:hmm... by morleron · 2006-10-05 20:01 · Score: 5, Informative

Why is this news? THe Bush administration has been acting in extra-legal and unconstitutional ways since 9/11/2001. Why should they stop? The majority of the American people obviously care more about being kept "safe" from supposed terrorists than they do about losing their civil liberties; after all, "No one that I know, from personal acquaintance, to be innocent has been arrested by the Bush administration". That line was actually written to me, by someone whose opinion I used to respect, by way of questioning why I expressed concern and outrage over G.W. Bush's grab for dictatorial power. So long as that sort of opinion prevails and it will, because most Americans have no idea what the difference between Natural Law rights and Positivist Law rights is, there will be no change in government policy. To paraphrase Joseph Stalin, "How many divisions does Chief Justice Roberts have?"

I asked the rhetorical question "Why is this news?" because anyone who expects that the Bush administration will respect the ruling of any court is in for a shock. They've already set the precedent with last week's passage of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"; you know, that's the one that not only makes G.W.'s prior military tribunals legal, but goes several steps further in that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" is now (quoting from the Act itself):

948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.(A) The term unlawful enemy combatant means
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Notice how this language does not exclude the possibility of designating American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants". Note further how the power of determining who is an unlawful enemy combatant rests solely with "a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." and that there is no requirement that such findings be based on meeting any part of the defintion given in part (i), e.g., the President can declare anyone he wishes to be an enemy of the State. There is no recourse to the criminal justice system to appeal any such ruling, nor are writs of habeus corpus allowed, nor are civilian defense attorneys to be part of any Military Tribunal process, nor does the defendant any longer have the privilege of invoking his 5th Amendment right agains self-incrimination. Other civil liberties are also trampled upon by this act, including the right to a speedy trial and the right to examine the evidence against one. Again, from the Act itself: (these refer to parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice which are not to apply to "unlawful enemy combatants")

(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.(1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military
commission under this chapter:
(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts martial
relating to speedy trial.
(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory
self-incrimination.
(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.
(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter."

The Act further specifies that the Geneva Convention may not b

--
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 20:33 · Score: 0

Wow, that's the stupidest thing I have read all week. It takes a lot of balls for an armchair quarterback with no knowledge of the law to accuse our President and National Security leaders of committing treason.
Re:hmm... by mikelieman · 2006-10-05 22:54 · Score: 1

Since the AUMF was obtained fraudulently, ( it was issued to remove the THREAT of Hussain's WMD )
is it still valid?

--
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 23:21 · Score: 0

It takes a lot of balls

It took a lot of balls for Bush to invade Iraq despite the fact that without the WMDs (which would permit him to act in defense of our country) and without any link between Iraq and 9/11 (which would permit him to act on the 9/11 AUMF) he has absolutely no authority to do so. He is in breach of the Constitution, and liable for war crimes committed by his orders.
Re:hmm... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · 2006-10-05 23:25 · Score: 1

You make it sound like all of this is settled law while its not. Now I don't think this will be settled anytime soon, but here are things to consider.

1) Since there have been electronic communications the courts have held intercepting them does constitute "search and sezure"
2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.
3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)
4) To use the war powers act we need to be at war which only the Congress can declare. This is the sticky part as the congresses approval to go after terrorists wasn't an offical declaration of war, it may by reasonable people certainly be viewed as much the same.

The real question in my mind (and the problem I have with this) is that a "war on terror" isn't a war. You cannot have a war on an idea and have it be anything like the framers meant with the war powers act. The "war on terror" will never end. There ALWAYS have been and always will be people who use terrorism to push thier ideas. If we accept that the president can use the war powers act during this "war on terror" then we in effect give him the power to perminately by-pass all checks-and-balances and thus destroy the constitution which Article 2 swears him to protect and defend. If you want to take a very literal reading of the constitution (and not apply settled case law) by questioning if the 4th amendment really covers wire-tapping because "is it really a search or sezure?" then litteral reading of Article 2 really doesn't give him any additional powers it simply states he is commander and chief, etc, etc. I certainly doesn't say that in times of war he can override either the constitution or the other branches of government. In fact upon swearing in, he swears to protect, uphold, etc the constitution. Not do whatever it takes to protect the people. Maybe this is cold, but the framers were smart enough to know the constition is the important thing not the people. People will always be in danger and may be killed. If you use that to destroy the ideals of America you lose, thus he is sworn to protect, defend the constitution in a literal reading not the people.

--
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Re:hmm... by symbolic · 2006-10-05 23:44 · Score: 1

It says no UNREASONABLE searches and sezures. There are no sezures here and if you want to make that leap that a communication is a search and sezure then do remember that in these cases the OTHER PARTY is not a citizen and not covered by the 4th amendment.

Cite the entire thing if you're going to cite any of it. The 4th Amendment also makes mention of just what constitutes a reasonable search - it's reasonable only if there is PROBABLE CAUSE.

There is no basis in fact when you state that the other party is not a citizen, nor do we, or will we, have access to any proof that we are not being illegally monitored. We simply have to take their word for it. I do not believe that Americans should be expected to instill that kind of trust in leaders that have already proven themselves incapable of even the smallest degree of integrity.
Re:hmm... by hcob$ · 2006-10-06 00:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Well, he's using his powers granted in the constitution... so I'd say he's following up on that oath.

ure, but you are assuming that this warrantless spying program is not being used otherwise. I have seen no evidence to prove either and neither have you. That's the whole issue here.
Firstly, do you have the same security clearance of the Senate Intelligence Comittee members or of the President? If not, you won't see the evidence for which you're looking for another 50 or so years. Congress was informed and they deemed it OK. Only after it was revealed in an illegal leak of classified information and contorted by the Media did it become a probelm.

--
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Re:hmm... by lynx_user_abroad · 2006-10-06 00:31 · Score: 1

...this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution...

So, what you're saying is that if we don't like this, it can't just be overruled by one branch of the government, instead it would require an amendment to the Constitution itself?
Funny, I thought we already did that back around Amendment Four?
It sure would make things easier if we could all just pick and choose the laws we wish to be governed by, and ignore the inconvenient ones altogether. But then again, we can't all be President, now can we?

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:hmm... by danbeck · 2006-10-06 00:40 · Score: 0

Our constitution DOES NOT, and IMHO should not, protect the rights of non-citizens, outside of those given guest status. What really is the problem here? Bush *is* upholding the law and just because a lower court has an agenda doesn't mean that the Bush administration doesn't have the right to an appeal process. Or, does your version of the constitution not apply to Bush, only the moonbat wacko-left in this country that thinks Bush is nightly, wacking off to our phone conversations about where to eat dinner and what time the kids soccer practice is?
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 00:51 · Score: 0

I find that the US government always misses the "Oversight" that the UK system has when it comes to matters like these. I could be wrong but I believe that in the UK they have public oversight committees monitoring programs like these for possible abuse, for example like the CCTV system in London which is only used to find criminals and crimes in progress, and not looking down woman's shirts.
Re:hmm... by Politburo · 2006-10-06 01:17 · Score: 1

That legal analysis is, imo of course, incorrect. In the Youngstown Steel case, the Court said that inherent Presidential power is at it's weakest when met by explicit Legislative power.

In this case, Article I of the Consitution grants the Congress the explicit power of regulating the armed forces. Congress enacted such a regulation in 1978 which is commonly known as the FISA law. It was amended in the 90s. This law states that wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes that involves a "United States Person" must have a warrant.
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 01:28 · Score: 0

Fucking hell dude. If you'd really read the 4th amendment as you claim you'd know it is seizure. See, now you just look retarded.
Re:hmm... by OakDragon · 2006-10-06 01:31 · Score: 1

Our constitution DOES NOT, and IMHO should not, protect the rights of non-citizens

I have had many conversations with libertarian types who maintain that the constitution doesn't give or grant (or protect, as you more accurately say) the rights of any persons. It describes what the U.S. government may not do. Therefore, the protections in the constitution would apply to anyone. I think this view has some merit. If it's correct, though, the federal government has been violating the constitution before the ink was dry.

Another thing: even if everyone agreed that warrentless surveillance of non-citizens was OK and proper, there is the matter of the U.S. citizen on the other end of the line (and inside U.S. borders). You can't just listen to one side, right?

--
Dark Reflection
Re:hmm... by EastCoastSurfer · 2006-10-06 01:39 · Score: 1

Who are you going to murder when a democrat becomes the next president and continues on just like Bush? If a dem gets elected you think the world will suddenly love US and the terrorist will stop?
Re:hmm... by Dr.+Blue · 2006-10-06 01:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Interesting opinions there. I'd suggest that you've got several things wrong however.

First, the ruling hasn't been suspended. The execution of the ruling has been suspended. The ruling itself stands until such a time as another court overturns it, which hasn't happened yet.

Second, while you certainly seem convinced that "case law is AGAINST this ruling," a lot of people who know an awful lot about the law disagree with you. In fact, a judge wrote a very clear ruling about why this NSA program IS unconstitutional.

Frankly, most of the citations you give are simply irrelevant. Pretty much everything you cite comes from before FISA, and FISA was in fact put in place precisely to counter those kinds of things. The one thing you have in there that is recent and might apply is the 2002 decision, from a sealed case, which does not necessarily speak to all of this specific program. For example, was this pure foreign surveillance (which the President most certainly has the authority to do), or is it domestic intelligence (where one endpoint of the conversation is in the U.S.), which is what the NSA program is doing (and which I'd argue is in a very straightforward way against FISA) - I think the only way you could possibly rule that this program is consitutional would be to rule that FISA itself is UNconstitutional. I think it's a serious stretch to say that will happen.

So we'll see how this goes - you seem quite convinced that the program is constitutional, and there are people who agree with you (primarily within the Bush Administration, but there are a few independent people who agree). I am quite convinced that the program is UNconstitutional, and there are probably significantly more people who would agree with that (and is what the most recent standing court decision says as well). Eventually this will make it's way to the Supreme Court, and the only opinion that will really matter in the end is what they say.
Re:hmm... by rwuest · 2006-10-06 01:55 · Score: 1

What a despicable tagline. Anyone who advocates murder and calls it patriotic should be watched closely by the government. I think you intend to be some high and mighty liberty proponent and at the same time urge the ultimate denial of the liberties of people who don't necessarily agree with you. How lame can one get.
Re:hmm... by honeymooner · 2006-10-06 01:56 · Score: 1

Actually, the vast majority of the case law applies to soley domestic phone calls. When you bring an international variable in, it could be considered similar to postal mail. Most people probably do not realize this, but postal mail coming from outside the U.S., can be searched without a court order. Then there is the whole national security trumpt card the Executive branch can play. To split hairs even further, the case law also places a lot of emphasis on intent. If we are intending to intercept the phone call of someone overseas and that individual just happens to be talking to a U.S. citizen, (the devil is in the details, but) it very likely is not illegal because of the intent.
Re:hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 02:09 · Score: 0

The "erosion of constitutional rights" (i.e. oppression of individual freedom) started long before 9/11 my friend. Long, long before 9/11.
Re:hmm... by HeyMe · 2006-10-06 02:33 · Score: 1

Prehaps you should delve into just what the wiretap program was doing (as disclised).

The program was tapping certain calls originating from or terminating in certain foreign (not U.S.) countries with certain, and undisclosed, phone numbers.

It is also my understanding that the ACLU whent "judge shopping" to find a sympathetic ear.

And, for the record: No, I'm not a member of the Republican party (or any other politcal party, for that matter.)

--
Look Out Above!
Re:hmm... by poot_rootbeer · 2006-10-06 02:48 · Score: 1

Saying they are controversial is acceptable, prejudging that they are unconstitutional is opinion.

It's not prejudging, it's POST-judging. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has already ruled that the program is unconstitutional, and barring any finding by a higher court that her reasoning was flawed, that means the program can reasonably be considered unconstitutional.
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-06 02:52 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It is curious that someone who has a sig that advocates killing someone with a different political ideology wants to lecture the rest of us on treason.

The fact that you would even make such a ridiculous statement shows your lack of basic reading comprehension coupled with a deep ignorance of current events.

Political ideology has nothing to do with active support for multiple repeated acts of treason.

When a group of people actively conspire to make it legal for my own government to drag me away to a third world shithole to be tortured to death with no recourse to the law, then that is a direct, unprovoked act of aggression against me, you, and everybody else in the world.
My sig quite clearly and obviously advocates nothing but completely justified acts of self defense of my person and my nation.

Where the fuck did you get the ridiculous idea that it has anything to do with ideology?
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-06 02:54 · Score: 1

You have the wrong AUMF, that is the one for Afganistan and there was a second one here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use _of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-06 02:59 · Score: 1

Who are you going to murder when a democrat becomes the next president and continues on just like Bush?

If that happens, then them. It's not like there is anything remotely difficult to understand here. None of the current issues are particularly complicated.

If a dem gets elected you think the world will suddenly love US and the terrorist will stop?

It depends on what they do, doesn't it?
It's not like people magically started hating us for no reason. We had to murder a bunch of them first, kick them around, torture their families and all of that sort of thing.
If we made an honest effort to stop fucking people over and apologized for our history of brutality, then yes, obviously, we would be in a better position and at less risk of terrorist attacks.

The Dems have no history indicating that they'd actually do such a thing, but what might happen in the future does not excuse current crimes, now does it?

How was that nonsense in any way relevant to anything?
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-06 03:25 · Score: 1

1) Since there have been electronic communications the courts have held intercepting them does constitute "search and sezure"

Yes, I agreed that it can cover such things.

2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.

Ok, show me case law against this interpretation, I showed case law for it. OTHER than the one in this article by a lower court.

3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)

Right, and as the case law shows, there is ample evidence that the President can wiretap international calls for foriegn intellegence.

4) To use the war powers act we need to be at war which only the Congress can declare. This is the sticky part as the congresses approval to go after terrorists wasn't an offical declaration of war, it may by reasonable people certainly be viewed as much the same.

Yes it was, the supreme court said it was, has said other AMUF are declarations of war and envoke the War Powers Act. It is cited in my case law.
That you disagree is interesting, but it is not case law.

Finally, the War Powers act was written and passed in 1973, not by the founders or framers. It was passed to prevent another Korea or Vietnam like "war" where we get into the war without any approval for action. I.E. the "police action" crapola.

People are not as important as the document?! I am assuming you mean any one individual, not We The People.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-06 03:41 · Score: 1

"Sure, but you are assuming that this warrantless spying program is not being used otherwise. I have seen no evidence to prove either and neither have you. That's the whole issue here."

Let's be clear here, NOBODY can prove a negative. One can prove a positive, that it HAS happened, but one can not prove it DID NOT happen.

Show me it happened. If you're arguement is "It is going on, but there is a coverup!" then you fall into the Roswell folks arena of logic.

What I can show you is that members of congress on the intellegence committee, including Feinstien and Wyden who are very opposed to the war and the President, saw the full breifing. While not proof that there is nothing going on, it lends credence that there is nothing illegal going on.
I have every condfidence that if they could have pinned something on Bush for what was going on, they would have.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · 2006-10-06 04:03 · Score: 1

2) The question of if such searchs are "unreasonable" is a question of law.
Ok, show me case law against this interpretation, I showed case law for it. OTHER than the one in this article by a lower court.
3) The constitution gives the judical branch (not executive) the power to interperate law (thus warrents are required from a judge who decides of the searches are reasonable)
Right, and as the case law shows, there is ample evidence that the President can wiretap international calls for foriegn intellegence.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Maybe I didn't put it the best way. What I'm tring to say is that its the responsibility of the judical branch to give permission or not to these "searches" in the form of warrents. The police cannot just decide on thier own if its reasonable or not, they must make the arguement to a judge (or other office of the judical branch) and have it approved or denied. On point, this is what the FISA court was designed to do. The goverment certainly has more leaway in these cases and a lower burden of proof, but the law still says in the end a judge still has oversight and ability to approve/deny requests. Unless I've missed some huge sections of law, I don't know of any case where the US government can legally just wiretap US citizens without warrents (even if the call goes over seas) Of course the president or any law enforcement office can wiretap anyone. The question is are they bypassing the judical oversight?

Also, its not so simple as just saying he is wiretaping for foriegn intelligence if it also includes a US based side of the call.
Here in my opinion is one of the better examples of the Supreme Court defining limits on wiretaps. Its (amoung other things) about the person on the end of the other line (not the person the warrent was applied for) does matter and must be considered and should be included in the warrent application if you can reasonably know who it will be.

I don't know what my full opinion on this topic is because at this point it a lot of rumors about what is happening without much fact. However, at least from what you hear it seems they have completely bypassed the judical oversight which is worrisome.

--
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Re:hmm... by funwithBSD · 2006-10-06 04:15 · Score: 1

What I am saying is that if you want to determine if the courts are going to support what you do you go read the case law and see what it says. The case law supports the Presidents interpetation at this time. It is not written in stone, the SCOTUS could rule against it and that's that.

BTW, you are mistaken on the case of cops not being able to make the determination if a search is resonable or not.

If they pull you over, they can search your car if they have probable cause and they are the sole authority at that time, no court is involved. Same if they are in persuit and you enter your house, you no longer have that protection.

The question if the search is admissable or not is determined at a later date by the courts, but it is STILL a legal search.

Note that NONE of the information culled in these intercepts can be used for legal proceedings, it is STRICTLY for intellegence and to identify threats as they happen.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:hmm... by EastCoastSurfer · 2006-10-06 05:10 · Score: 1

None of the current issues are particularly complicated.

That's a pretty naive statement. Outside of the jihad rhetoric that Bin Laden spouts his main reason that I know he's stated for hating the US is the military base that we left in SA after the first gulf war. So lets say we take that base out of SA, will the terrorism suddenly stop? He has a whole group of people now who he's gotten to hate the US just because we are the US.

What about the rest of the middle east who hates Israel? The US policy has been to support Israel. Do we withdraw that support and let the rest of the middle east push them into the ocean?

I have even touched on the religious fundamentalist who need someone to point to in their speeches as someone to hate so they can easily keep power.

I'm not saying that our current path is the best way to solve the issues, but to say that the issues are simple and easily fixed shows a lack of knowledge about what got us to where we are today. Instead of having both sides bitch over things like if we should be in Iraq or if should allow wiretaps, it would be much more productive to try and figure out a plan to fix the mess that currently is called the middle east. Work that plan out and then align our actions with it.
Re:hmm... by iluvcapra · 2006-10-06 05:29 · Score: 1

That would make Ashton Kutcher first lady, so be careful what you ask for. It might make one hell of a Punk'd episode, though.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-06 05:30 · Score: 1

He has a whole group of people now who he's gotten to hate the US just because we are the US.

Right, sure. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that we made up a bunch of lies in order to excuse blowing their families to pieces. You have a truly amazing intellect to have figured out how that was totally irrelevant compared to the simple fact that we are the US.

Wow.

What about the rest of the middle east who hates Israel? The US policy has been to support Israel. Do we withdraw that support and let the rest of the middle east push them into the ocean?

Why not? It would be the fair thing to do for the people who used to live there before they got tossed out on their asses because the west felt bad about the holocaust. Give them a chunk of Germany and call it a day.

Israel has brought a lot of hatred and anger against itself through their own actions.
Yes there are people who hate them just because, but ignoring their terroristic actions completely and putting all the blame on the Arabs is stupid, ignorant, and yet another *legitimate* reason that we are hated.

I couldn't care less about Israel. They take billions in welfare from us, use it for terrorism, piss off a bunch of people and we *rightfully* get a lot of the blame for it.

The simple basic fact of reality that you continually fail to grasp is that things are not black and white. We are not magically always right and good and people who dislike us are not magically pure evil.

I have even touched on the religious fundamentalist who need someone to point to in their speeches as someone to hate so they can easily keep power.

And of course, had you touched on it you would have completely left out the ones in Israel and the ones here because magically nothing is our fault.

I'm not saying that our current path is the best way to solve the issues, but to say that the issues are simple and easily fixed shows a lack of knowledge about what got us to where we are today.

You're talking about completely different issues than I was when I was referring to their simplicity.
I'm talking about our domestic issues. Those are simple and clear cut. The solution is the impeachment, prosecution and execution of the current administration.

Instead of having both sides bitch over things like if we should be in Iraq or if should allow wiretaps, it would be much more productive to try and figure out a plan to fix the mess that currently is called the middle east. Work that plan out and then align our actions with it.

Yes, and figuring out that since we did make up a bunch of lies as an excuse to invade Iraq that our credibility *is* shit is a major first step.
Quitting spouting idiotic ignorant crap like "durrr they hate us because we're the US" instead of taking an honest look at the real honest legitimate reasons that they absolutely do have to hate us is another major necessary step that has to be taken before we can even pretend to come up with a productive plan.
Re:hmm... by EastCoastSurfer · 2006-10-06 06:01 · Score: 1

I don't think I said anywhere that none of the issues are the fault of the US or Israel. There is plenty of blame to go around to all sides and leaders for the past 20-30+ years. Years of our policies have gotten us to where we are today, and they aren't just policies that were started when Bush Jr. took office. You post like you know exactly how to fix everything yet you don't offer up many ideas. I feel like I'm conversing with John Kerry..."bush sucks, but I don't have any ideas of my own, oh yeah bush sucks."

Oh, you did offer up one idea, cut Israel off and let them get pushed into the ocean. While we're at it we should pull out of the UN (since we're the only ones who give the UN any teeth anyways), close our borders and basically isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Let the rest of the world do what it wants. IIRC, the last time the US went isolationist was prior to WWII. We let Hitler take over most of EU before deciding to do anything.

The simple basic fact of reality that you continually fail to grasp is that things are not black and white. We are not magically always right and good and people who dislike us are not magically pure evil.

I think my whole previous post was about how things aren't black and white. You seem to think things are easy to fix, just toss Bush and all will be right with the world. That seems like a pretty black and white idea to me. I also don't think I mentioned anywhere of people being pure evil. Way to put words in my mouth.

I'm talking about our domestic issues. Those are simple and clear cut. The solution is the impeachment, prosecution and execution of the current administration.

And what domestic issues does this fix? With technology the way it is nowadays the wiretapping issue was bound to come up regardless. Better to have it be settled by the supreme court now rather than later.

If world politic were as simple as you seem to think we should've had world peace years ago.
Re:hmm... by Stalyn · 2006-10-06 06:47 · Score: 1

The President does not have the right to bypass or enact legislation. The debate is not over warrantless wiretaps but rather if the President is able to effectively nullify laws (FISA) during wartime.

--
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Re:hmm... by Darby · 2006-10-06 07:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

I don't think I said anywhere that none of the issues are the fault of the US or Israel.

No, you said that they hate us just becaise we're us and completely failed to address the fact that we have given them plenty of reasons to hate us.

Years of our policies have gotten us to where we are today, and they aren't just policies that were started when Bush Jr. took office. You post like you know exactly how to fix everything yet you don't offer up many ideas. I feel like I'm conversing with John Kerry..."bush sucks, but I don't have any ideas of my own, oh yeah bush sucks."

I'm aware that there were problems already before we got Bush.
My point is that given his multiple acts of treason, and crimes against humanity in specific his entirely made up excuses to invade Iraq that as long as we continue to allow him to keep his office and do nothing to punish him for his crimes then we are saying loud and clear to everybody in the world that we do not give a flying fuck about integrity, honesty, decency or anything else of that nature.

The simple fact is that until we do clean our own house and do show that we actually do stand against murdering a bunch of innocent people to steal their shit, that there are no ideas that can do anything to fix anything.

As long as we continue to *prove* that we are a nation of liars, thugs, and murderers then nobody in their right mind coulkd possibly believe a damn thing we say.

*That* is the problem that has a simple solution.

The problems in the middle east are complex and do not admit a simple solution. We can not even begin any meaningful discussion of addressing it until we do deal with the elephant in the living room.

Oh, you did offer up one idea, cut Israel off and let them get pushed into the ocean.

It's a better idea than blindly supporting *everything* they do and condemning *everything* the Palestinians do.
Dealing with it in an honest manner would go a long fucking way to helping, but it is the exact same problem we face in terms of credibility and caused by the exact same idiotic black and white absolutist thinking.

I think my whole previous post was about how things aren't black and white. You seem to think things are easy to fix, just toss Bush and all will be right with the world. That seems like a pretty black and white idea to me. I also don't think I mentioned anywhere of people being pure evil. Way to put words in my mouth.

No, tossing Bush will not fix everything. It will make it *possible* to even start thinking about real fixes. There is a major difference there. As long as he is in power and even after, as long as he is not prosecuted for his crimes, then our integrity will be shit. That is the point that you are failing to get.
It is a very simple solution to that part of the problem. But until that happens it isn't even possible to talk about a solution to the other issues.

And what domestic issues does this fix? With technology the way it is nowadays the wiretapping issue was bound to come up regardless. Better to have it be settled by the supreme court now rather than later.

The complete lack of integrity which we as a nation have demonstrated by allowing Bush to remain in office after blatantly making up lies in order to carry out a plan the members of his administration had had in place since Clinton was in office.
Hell making up the lies in response to an attack on our nation was part of the fucking plan or do you not even read what your dear leaders write and weren't aware of that little fact?

And dear lord, since people are likely to abuse technology it's therefore good that the President knowingly violated the law and the constitution?
Where do you come up with this stuff?

If world politic were as simple as you seem to think we should've had world peace years ago.

Had I said that, you might have a point. If it were possible to be trusted when everybody knows you're lying through your teeth, then there wouldn't be a *need* to fix that first.
Re:hmm... by jmnet · 2006-10-08 07:55 · Score: 0

People of SlashDot:

The program in question is a surveillance program in which people here in contact with TERROISTS over seas are being listened to. I know you all want to believe that you or little ole grandma are being listened to, but there is NO evidence of that. Come on folks, these people we are dealing with just assume chop your head off with a butter knife then look at you!! I say let this program continue until they are all dead!!

Jackie

So ? by 2.7182 · 2006-10-05 13:51 · Score: 0, Troll

If you've got nothing to hide, then what is the big deal ?

Re:So ? by NoGuffCheck · 2006-10-05 13:55 · Score: 2, Funny

then i guess you will be first in line for the daily cavity search...all in the name of freedom!

i call flaimbait on ur ass!

--
serenity now!
Re:So ? by bennomatic · 2006-10-05 13:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

It depends on who defines what you "need to hide".
What if it became illegal to have blue eyes? To be left-handed? To have a black or Jewish grandparent?
It's a big deal. Trust me.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
Re:So ? by LiquidCoooled · 2006-10-05 14:00 · Score: 1

I'm sure many of us here can think of at least one person who is ready, willing and able.

*shudder*

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:So ? by 2.7182 · 2006-10-05 14:03 · Score: 1

No not flamebait, just a more different view of things.
Re:So ? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you've got nothing to hide, then what is the big deal ?

As someone said here http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/13 32207&tid=217

The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment is a thin, old piece of paper and people's willingness to uphold the words written on it. Please don't be under the mistaken assumption that innocence will protect you.
Re:So ? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:19 · Score: 0

But... but... if you aren't hiding anything in your body cavities, then what is the big deal?
Re:So ? by Larry+Lightbulb · 2006-10-05 14:22 · Score: 2

If the government has nothing to hide, why do they resist providing information to commissions?
Re:So ? by NosTROLLdamus · 2006-10-05 14:29 · Score: 1

Also, I will be performing this search with my penis.
Re:So ? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:32 · Score: 0

It would be nice to have the kind of dental plan that affords cavity searches.
Re:So ? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 17:27 · Score: 1

>If you've got nothing to hide, then what is the big deal ?

If they've got nothing to hide, why don't they make their case to a judge?
Re:So ? by hcob$ · 2006-10-06 00:44 · Score: 1

Equating a legal foreign intelligence activty with Nazi Germany. If there is a sign of fascism in the US, I find it to be with the mud-slinging, sue happy people who do anything they can to quash dissent. It has now come to the point in America where if you don't believe the same way as someone of a more liberal persuasion, you are an idiot, bigot, xenophobe, racist, and any other derragotory and inciteful words. Oh, and then you have to mount a 10's of thousands of dollars defense to prove you were right. At that point, the only satisfaction you have for that money is being right. Save America: Quite whining, suing, and bitching. Get a Job. Someone on welfare needs you to support them!

--
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance

It's been said by a smarter person than I by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 13:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Democracy is giving us the government we deserve.
Now, back to your big SUVs, tiny cell phones and reality television.
Perhaps we will wake up before the world turns its back on us permanently.

Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by zxnos · 2006-10-05 14:29 · Score: 1

Now, back to your big SUVs, tiny cell phones and reality television.
if everyone in the world would take this approach it might just solve terrorism, genocide, arms escalation, etc. just might speed the rate at which civilization advances. i will never understand why man has to have dominance over other men.

--
always mosh clockwise
Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:39 · Score: 0

i will never understand why man has to have dominance over other men.

Because they can. To quote the Sith, there are two types of people in the world - those who have power, and those too weak to seek it.
Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by dave562 · 2006-10-05 16:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic

i will never understand why man has to have dominance over other men.
Because quite honestly there isn't enough to go around, so those who are willing to knock others to the side are going to get what there is. Besides, dominance has its place too. Would you say that the police force dominating those who would dominate others is bad dominance?
Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by Lord+Kano · 2006-10-05 18:51 · Score: 1

Perhaps we will wake up before the world turns its back on us permanently.

I doubt it. If the world turns its back on us, maybe they'll stop taking our jerrbs!

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 21:45 · Score: 0

The rest of the world knows better than to turn its back on USA.

We just don't want to get stabbed in our back. ;)
Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by Stoertebeker · 2006-10-05 23:57 · Score: 1

i will never understand why man has to have dominance over other men.
Because he can only drive so many big SUVs, talk on so many tiny cellphones and watch so many TV shows at the same time. Once that get's boring, he's got to look for other entertainment.
Re:It's been said by a smarter person than I by 955301 · 2006-10-06 01:22 · Score: 1

I hope we don't. I hope it does.

The last thing we need is to limp along indefinately with the rotten stench of self-indulging habits laying about. And while we don't need a complete overhaul, we definately need a flood to come and wash it all away. People will hang on to the wrecked shells of their former lives if those shells are left lying around.

It's like a free junk pile. Most people can't help but rummage about in it ala Mad Max, looking for another drop of gas.

If the world turns their back on us after we've outsourced everything to it, it's the perfect situation. We have nothing but ourselves and the practicality of self reliance to work with.

--
You are checking your backups, aren't you?

I love love screwing my chick by A+Wise+Guy · 2006-10-05 13:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I love love screwing my chick and that's exactly what they will be tuning into nightly. Screwing my girlfriend and hearing her moaning! wow..is that bush in the background hearing this? I'm so honored.

Re:I love love screwing my chick by Kelz · 2006-10-06 04:23 · Score: 1

As far as I am aware, bestiality is illegal in most of the US.

Typical by failure-man · 2006-10-05 13:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the way it's done.

1) Do something blatantly unconstitutional.
2) Get it knocked down in court.
3) Tie it up in appeals for years, continuing to do whatever you were doing.
4) Eventually get it killed by the supreme court, but have made a great run of it.

Politicians game the system and have no respect for the courts. Film at 11.

Re:Typical by GigsVT · 2006-10-05 14:03 · Score: 1

Or just pass a new law that is basically the same unconstitutional tripe with a slightly new spin, hoping it will pass the courts.

Congress is completely out of control. Vote every one of them out of there, except Ron Paul. He's mostly OK.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Typical by dunkelfalke · 2006-10-05 15:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

But you still can learn something from EU:

1) Give records of european flight passengers to a country without data privacy
2) European court of justice says: wrong legal basis, find a new legal basis until 30. September or stop by then
3) 30. September passed, no new legal basis, everything goes on as usual
4) This violation of a court decision is then called "legal vacuum"
5) The airlines won't get sued because "it is not their fault"

But wait, it gets even better

1) SWIFT gives the bank transaction data to the US intelligence
2) It is proved that it is against EU law
3) SWIFT sais it is not against US law so it is a legal grey zone and they can go on as usual

And because EU-Comission thought it is fun it is thinking now about giving phone communication data to US.

--
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Re:Typical by shawb · 2006-10-05 16:34 · Score: 1

And Feingold... cause, you know, he was the only one to actually vote against the patriot act.

--
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Re:Typical by DreamerFi · 2006-10-05 17:20 · Score: 1

typical. A lot of americans have similar reactions: "All congresscritters are asshats, except for the fine upstanding gentleman representing us"...
Re:Typical by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:26 · Score: 1

The problem is that anyone who says this is blatantly/irrefutably/clearly/etc. unconstitutional is, in fact, either ignorant or a liar.

There's a ton of case law and precedent that justifies this program.

The simple fact of the matter is that because of the history of this issue -- many decades of similar behavior, the recent FISA court of review ruling, other court cases, etc. all finding in favor of this and similar programs -- there's only one court that can solve this dilemma, and it's unreasonable to accept the judgment of a lower court on the matter.

I tend to think the program is not unconstitutional (as most lawyers do, including most Democrats in the Senate), but that the President doesn't have the authority to do it against the will of the Congress. But there's tons of precedent saying otherwise. Only the Supremes can decide it, and no one else should step in, in the meantime, to stop it.
Re:Typical by pryonic · 2006-10-05 20:45 · Score: 1

It seems they've just reached a deal with regards to the flight data row
From the article "US officials will now only be able to access data by having information "pushed" from airline computer systems. Previously the US could "pull" data from the systems whenever it was needed."
There's very little actual substance in the article but at least somethign has been agreed. Just wish it had before I visited the USA, cos I bet my fingerprints, address and photo stay on file for a very very long time.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:Typical by whathappenedtomonday · 2006-10-05 21:21 · Score: 1

at least somethign has been agreed.

You are being very optimistic, I must say - I find it suspicious that there are no details at all about the agreement. Push / pull doesn't matter that much if the amount of data transferred is not reduced to the absolute minimum; also, the US demanded to be allowed to hand the data over to the FBI - no word on that either. When details become available, we'll probably see a deal that circumvents the legal issues in the EU while at the same time the amount of data transferred will increase...

--
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
Re:Typical by GigsVT · 2006-10-06 00:56 · Score: 1

I'm not fron Texas.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Typical by sfjoe · 2006-10-06 04:30 · Score: 1

Perhaps, however, there is a possibility of an alternate ending:

5) Lose majority control of the legislative branch through corruption and incompetence
6) Opposition party uses its newly-gained subpeona powers to investigate the most underhanded, deceitfiul President in US history, and;
7) sends his ass to prison.

Yeah, I know it's a long-shot but a real American can dream, can't he?

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Re:Typical by ArtStone · 2006-10-06 16:03 · Score: 1

There have been many recent examples of when a single Federal judge has "decided" that some law passed by the State Legislature or Congress is "Unconstitutional" based on very little more than the judge's desired outcome.

IANAL, but to stop the low level District Court judges from violating the seperation of powers principle and creating legal chaos, something needs to be done to limit the ability of a single unelected judge from overriding the entire legislative branch.... perhaps Congress limiting the jurisidiction (which is has the power to do written in the Constitution) that for a law passed by a legislature (or actions of the executive branch) to be overruled by the courts that the ruling must come from the full Appeals Court, and that there should be a presumption that the other two branches are -not- violating the Constitution until convincingly proven otherwise in either a full District Court or the Supreme Court.

--
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
Re:Typical by stinerman · 2006-10-06 22:10 · Score: 1

Well with a name like GigsVT ... whoda thunk it?
Re:Typical by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2006-10-09 09:28 · Score: 1

Pudge! The test came back from the doctor, and the rash is serious. I think you should get tested too. CALL ME.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!

U.S. citizen foreign national by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-10-05 13:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The only situation where they have been able to do this semi-legally (deemed illegal by the 6th) has been in the case of U.S. citizens communicating with foreign nationals over long-distance lines. The argument is that spying on the international wires is not a violation of the 4th Amendment because it occurs outside of American territory, nevermind the fact that one end of the wire terminates inside the U.S.

I think the court will find the action legal. The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area because it wasn't foreseen that anyone could be able to communicate over long distances instantaneously. The U.S. has always been able to search and seize foreign mail, so that is probably the best argument they have to making long distance calls tappable.

It's a shame. The U.S. has become a place that is hostile to immigrants and travelers. Give me your poor huddled masses, indeed.

touche by User+956 · 2006-10-05 13:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you've got nothing to hide, then what is the big deal ?

If I've got nothing to hide, why do they need to watch me?

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

Re:touche by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:55 · Score: 0

If I've got nothing to hide, why do they need to watch me?

They only watch people who hate freedom.

Now explain to me why they are they watching you again? ;)
Re:touche by dbIII · 2006-10-05 16:29 · Score: 1

They only watch people who hate freedom.

Personally I hate the freedom of employees of the state to electrocute the genitals of suspects that they are questioning.
Re:touche by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 17:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

If I've got nothing to hide, why do they need to watch me?

That premise phrase is a cliche. Answer: Because, my friend, we need to gather evidence that you are NOT lying. Oh, where are those MP3s from? and movies? and illegally pirated software? You shouldn't be surprised how much dirty still every person has accumulated, even unknowingly... At the very least, it will be an educational experience: as policemen-babysitters in our own IT jobs we have to tell users all the time "Oh, that click-me button on the Ad? don't click on it." They don't know better and a summons is better than no summons at all. Remember that when nothing is actually hiding, then nothing can be found to imply a crime has been commited in your part. Because you ARE innocent.

Downside is that when the population learns to wisen up with their dirty digital and real life practices, and crime rate is balanced again, the law will not be removed from the system. That's the downside of our predecesors not having a conscience and creating social problems for us. And we are creating more laws that our children will hate us for as well. Think drugs and P2P won't be easy to trace one day? Wait 30 years till enough data is out on all of us that we are all guilty retroactively. Things today will become as easily searchable as your purchasing habits are nowadays. And private things, like in the case of your Public Library card records? Let's say that after watching "Enemy of the State" I have stopped borrowing from a public record anything that could be misunderstood by someone either today or 20 years from now.

Just think how famous people's love letters are "declassified" and published for all to see centuries after they have disappeared. That's pretty low tech and still pretty powerful. The moral of the story is, of course, to be more moral. It will cascade inversely into our governments one day.

Excuses, excuses! by themushroom · 2006-10-05 14:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

> and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue

That's the excuse for everything. You name it, and some pro-security / anti-terrorism phrase will be tossed out, regardless of how irrelevant it factually is. Must be nice to have a bugaboo for all occasions.

Just another year and a month, folks. Just another year and a month.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.

Re:Excuses, excuses! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:19 · Score: 1, Funny

Just another year and a month, folks. Just another year and a month.
What exactly happens on Nov 2007?
Re:Excuses, excuses! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:31 · Score: 0

He is talking about the next presidential election, he just has his dates wrong. Off by a year.
Re:Excuses, excuses! by routerguy666 · 2006-10-05 14:54 · Score: 0

President Abraham Lincoln - suspended Habeus Corpus

President Wilson during WWI - used warrantless searches

President Roosevelt during WWII - used warantless searches as well as interned citizens of the US who might/maybe/could be enemy spies

Clinton's Deputy Atty General in 1994 - "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

One year and one month folks. One year and one month. Till the same thing that has happened before happens again.
Re:Excuses, excuses! by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-10-05 15:01 · Score: 0, Troll

However, there is always hope that V will show up one year early...
Re:Excuses, excuses! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:37 · Score: 0

To be fair to Lincoln, the Constitution does say: "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." While he did suspend Habeas Corpus for States that hadn't yet rebelled, he did it to prevent them from rebelling, which would probably be protected.
Re:Excuses, excuses! by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:57 · Score: 1

That's the excuse for everything. You name it, and some pro-security / anti-terrorism phrase will be tossed out, regardless of how irrelevant it factually is. Must be nice to have a bugaboo for all occasions.

Any time you have a legal appeal, you have to weigh the potential damage done by enforcing the previous ruling, or not. Clearly, there is significant potential for damage if you do not stay the decision (which is part of the reason why even the initial judge, who excoriated the Bush administration over this program, didn't enforce her own decision). It's not about national security, it's about the normal legal process of balancing potential harms during a pending appeal.

This is good. by Animats · 2006-10-05 14:04 · Score: 4, Informative

This is OK. Because this is no longer an urgent issue for Congress, the bill to legalize it probably won't make it through Congress before the election. Especially with the Republican leadership distracted by their pedophile problem. By the time this gets to court, either or both houses of Congress will be controlled by Democrats. Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.

Remember, Congress has the real power in the United States. It doesn't look like that when both houses are controlled by the party that has the White House, and party discipline is strong, but that's an unusual situation, and one about to end. The United States Government works better with some tension between Congress and the President; it keeps both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue from going off the deep end.

Re:This is good. by kcbrown · 2006-10-05 16:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

By the time this gets to court, either or both houses of Congress will be controlled by Democrats. Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.

A lot of people here are predicting this.

I predict the opposite. I predict the Republicans will retain control over both houses of Congress.

I predict this because despite the fact that awareness of the problems of electronic voting is higher now than ever before (keep in mind that awareness and caring are not the same thing), about 40% (cite) of the country will be using unauditable electronic voting machines for the November election. That's easily enough to make it possible to undetectably change the outcome of any race that's reasonably close and where such machines are in use. And the Republicans are in a much better position to pressure the machine manufacturers into subtlely changing (via software) the results in regions that matter the most, if only because they control the two electable branches of government.

The outcome may be "surprising" in some cases, but people will accept it just the same as they always have.

--
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Re:This is good. by slughead · 2006-10-05 16:17 · Score: 1

By the time this gets to court, either or both houses of Congress will be controlled by Democrats. Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.

People who trust Democrats to uphold the constitution have a very short memory. I shouldn't even have to look up FDR, LBJ, etc.

For a more recent example, just take a look at this article.

They may be better than republicans (personally, I find the pissing contest of 'lesser of two evils' repulsive and therefore I don't vote), but democrats certainly can't be trusted with our liberty.

But this is the wrong audience to be dissing democrats. After all, Slashdot's full of former Dean-ocrats, even though his stance on civil liberties wasn't pretty.

--
Latewire
Re:This is good. by TheGreatHegemon · 2006-10-05 16:39 · Score: 1

"By the time this gets to court, either or both houses of Congress will be controlled by Democrats. Which means that Congress can and will investigate this." Do you honestly think that just because the party in power changes that anything will change? Think again...
Re:This is good. by bth0002 · 2006-10-05 16:51 · Score: 1

How can an unconstitutional bill even make its way to congress. Surely our defense department and congress can do their jobs without even looking at unconstitutional laws. Isn't that what software is for to help get the crap out of the system. There needs to be a system where all unconstitutional laws are stricken out. I would not complain in the least. As for the president that tries to write unconstitional vetos well thats what a four year term is for and the cleanup custodial work of wiping away the dimwit laws shouldn't waste their time. Is he bored or what? Trying to win the war and catching osama should be his focus and the economy and katrina etc not dumbass laws. What a moron.

--
Far out man -Chong
Re:This is good. by crabpeople · 2006-10-06 05:36 · Score: 1

Perhaps that kind of massive voter fraud will finaly push americans over the edge and into a titorian worldline.

I seriously doubt that apathy can be overcome in the usa but wouldn't it be grand..

--
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Re:This is good. by Shadowlore · 2006-10-06 06:24 · Score: 1

Which means that Congress can and will investigate this.

Care to show where in the constitution the investigative power has been delegated to the lawmaking body? Go ahead, give it a try.

The Congress as a body can investigate itself for certain things, though criminal investigations are the purview of the executive branch. Investigations of criminal or suspected criminal activities are supposed to be done by the executive branch and decided by the judical branch when evidence supports a case being made.

This notion that the US Congress is the investigative body of the US is a horribly dangerous one. From "investigating" baseball to alleged illegal activities, it is nothing more than a combination power grab and grandstanding opporutnity. Ever watch any? When a congress critter's turn to "ask questions" comes aorund they seem to spend the first 80% of their turn making speeches, sometimes that have absolutely nothing to do with the stated purpose of the "investigation".

The US Congress has no constitutional authority to compel testimony of any sort. It is not a lawful court for anythig beyind it's own internal squables. Not only does allowing it to act as one usurp the power of the two other branches, it serves to further exacerbate the "partisanship" and misdirection so common in the once-hallowed halls of congress.

Tension between the branches of government is not a healthy thing. Checks and balances on powers, avoidance of power duplication and contention; these are healthy things to have.Further, your notion of tension nearly dictates and certaily perpetuates, the notion that there should be only two parties, or that there are two clear and opposing sides to each. This, too, is an unhealthy situation - both for liberty and for responsible governance. History shows us that any effectively mandated choice between two political organizations will result in a situation where it is "the lesser of two evils" that people resign themselves to. Even a review of how the two-party "system" came about in the US will show this to be the case.

Finally, given the number of Demcrats who actually support the action taken by Bush's Administration I doubt we'll see much of an "investigation", if any. They are already jockeying for the next POTUS run. At most we'll see yet another dog and steamer show claiming to be doing something.

--
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Re:This is good. by Shadowlore · 2006-10-06 06:58 · Score: 1

And the Republicans are in a much better position to pressure the machine manufacturers into subtlely changing (via software) the results in regions that matter the most, if only because they control the two electable branches of government.

On the other hand Demcrats are in a better position to do so becuase they can pressure the manufacturers by saying that they will come into power, hold an "investigation" and find no significant irregularities. Since the public, they would claim, will tend to believe the Republicans had a hand in it they (Democrats) will be more trusted to say there was nothing wrong. They can tell them "If you don't we will loudly proclaim that you conspired with the Republicans and keep the agenda on the front page thus putting you in a worse position than you are now." "Indeed", they could say, "even if you don't tamper in either direction and the Republicans win, we can capitalize on the mistrust among the public to make changes anyway, perhaps not accepting your machines at all. So either way, if you want to stay in this market, you will need our help."

And the people would accept the Democrat charade because it would satisfy their mistaken sense of "justice"; they woudl feel that "something was done" and the uppity Republicans put in their place.

What is interesting is that you drew a connection between faulty machines and Republicans the way you did. You didn't predict the Repuglicans would win because of apathy over this issue, rather that they would only win because they cheated. This line of argument is a disservice to the notion of auditable voting systems.

Instead of pointing out that either party can cheat in this regard, you chose to lay the alleged future cheating at the feet of one party. This essentially provides a scapegoat for the system. Rather than assigning cheating to any party at all a more intelligent and effective argument in the long run is to work against the opportunity to cheat, not an alleged future cheater party. By assigning a singular party as the cheaters if that party is taken from power the mind of the public is that the problem went away. And the problem will stay but the public will think it gone.

I realize it is fun to poke at your opponents, but in many cases particularly ones such as this, it is misdirected and ultimately counterproductive. Hence I had to point out a plausible scenario for the Democrats to do what you assign to the Republicans to demonstrate that it is not limited to them.

--
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Re:This is good. by Animats · 2006-10-06 07:45 · Score: 1

The US Congress has no constitutional authority to compel testimony of any sort.
The Supreme Court disagrees:
"A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed." (McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927))
"The power to investigate and to do so through compulsory process plainly falls within [the definition of Congress' legislative function]. This Court has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws." (Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 505 (1975))

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by LiquidCoooled · 2006-10-05 14:04 · Score: 3, Funny

If your constitution is out of date, what is the process for making an amendment?
Do you just submit the changes to CVS and let it filter through?
Perhaps a Patch Tuesday idea could be implimented?

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

We have all been here before... by ExFCER · 2006-10-05 14:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Re:We have all been here before... by lawpoop · 2006-10-05 14:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Seriously, no joke, Great Britain now has shouting telescreens.

Long Live Big Brother!

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:We have all been here before... by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2006-10-06 06:36 · Score: 1

I think you meant "England prevails."
Re:We have all been here before... by lawpoop · 2006-10-06 07:03 · Score: 1

I wish I could mod this "DoublePlusFunny"!

Funny++

: )

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

Specific law covers this case by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 14:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

>The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area

Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.

>The government says it can't always wait for a court to take action.

And doesn't have to. Within the law, they can (and do) wake a judge up at three in the morning, or even get approval after the fact. They can start wiretapping the instant they choose and take it to a judge days later.

>The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.

Actually, the President said the same thing. When he signed the amended surveillance law, amended at his request and the one he is breaking now, he said "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists".

The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.

Re:Specific law covers this case by E++99 · 2006-10-05 14:35 · Score: 3, Informative

>The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area
Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.

I agree it's not gray, but it says the opposite of what you say it says. It says the president is in charge of national defense, and the Congress has no right to usurp that power. It further says that any application of an act of Congress (including that 1978 law) to shift Constitutional responsibilities from one branch (e.g. the President) to another (e.g. the Courts) is automatically void, and that the President has an independent responsibility to honor the Constitution, even if the Congress and the Courts disagree.

Within the law, they can (and do) wake a judge up at three in the morning, or even get approval after the fact.

Sure, but so what? Aside from it being unconstitutional to legislate a requirement of approval from a judge before spying on an enemy force, its also absurd to suggest that there should be a requirement for probable cause of a crime before spying on an enemy force, which is the only basis for getting a warrant.

he said "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists".

Um... that quote was in reference to the Patriot Act.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:37 · Score: 0

before spying on an enemy force

First and foremost, this is not about spying on an "enemy force". As far as we can tell from the leaks, there were two projects: one that recorded EVERY overseas call, and one that tracked every domestic call's destination and duration. Neither of them had to do with "spying on an enemy force", they are 100% about "spying on everyone and hoping that they can find the enemy force before the agents get busted on insider trading charges and ruining the whole thing".

says the president is in charge of national defense

OOoooo, thats dangerous ground to tread on if you're trying to defend Bush. Now that we know that there's no WMDs in Iraq and we know that the government knew that there's no WMDs in Iraq, and that we know that Saddam was not friendly with Al Qaeda and bin Laden, the military action in Iraq no longer falls into the "authorization to use force" against "terrorists and their supporters" nor does it fall under general defense of our country, which means not only has Bush violated our constitution by ordering troops into combat without a declaration of war (or other authorization to use force, which is a fake declaration of war not supported by the constitution), he has most likely committed war crimes by doing so.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

> The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.

My guess is that they are searching all international phone calls, if it matches a pattern, record some or all the conversation, based on score generated by the pattern. The problem might arise from the fact the technology they are using to perform this surveillance might require a large amount of warrants to be generated.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2006-10-05 16:15 · Score: 2, Informative

It says the president is in charge of national defense

Where does it say that? Article II Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States".
I think there's a pretty wide divide between being put in charge of the military, and being unilaterally in charge of national defense, but I guess I can follow that reasoning. Even if it's self-serving.

and the Congress has no right to usurp that power
Oh, I see. Baloney. If that was actually true, military actions wouldn't be constrained to budgetary limitations imposed by Congress. Nor would the War Powers Act of 1973 have passed constitutional muster.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Specific law covers this case by Dausha · 2006-10-05 16:18 · Score: 1, Informative

"Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications."

However, we both agree that all acts of Congress are not constitutional. President Carter's AG claimed FISA violated the Constitution. Clinton's Administration submitted to FISA while simultaneously stating that the President had inherent authority to monitor.

Additionally, "section 1811 of the FISA statute recognizes that during a period of authorized war the president must have some authority to engage in electronic surveillance 'without a court order.'" The Authorization of Use of Military Force is an authorization of war. Therefore, we are at war and the President has full use of his war powers under the Constitution.

But, don't take my word for it, here's the word of an expert on the subject: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110007734

I'm sure I'll be modded down for supporting the President's legitimate use of his authority by the guy who can't come up with a reasoned response.

--
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:58 · Score: 0

RTFC and show where it says all the things you claim it says. And you got modded Insightful by "morans" on /.

The bigger question is: does the President have the power to unilaterally declare someone an enemy with no judicial oversight/recourse? This is the kind of power that Stalin and Mao (to name just 2) used and abused, and now you claim the President of the US can do it too, and still stay within the bounds of the counstitution.

The constitution goes to great lengths to avoid precisely this kind of centralization of power in one individual's hand.

OK boys and girls, all together now: "Hail King George". If you didn't join the chant, you are obviously an enemy.
Re:Specific law covers this case by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:30 · Score: 1

Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications.

I tend to agree, but there's a ton of precedent suggesting otherwise, including the recent FISA Court of Review opinion that says Congress *cannot* prevent the President from such activity.

The only visible reason to skip getting a warrant (which will be granted, literally, over 99.99% of the time) is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.

Perhaps, but that only points out the fact that there's a lot we don't know about this program, that isn't "visible."

Anyway, the main point I have to make is that only the Supreme Court can resolve this, so why is everyone so uptight about it continuing in the meantime, when that's how this has to proceed? There's no other way.
Re:Specific law covers this case by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:35 · Score: 1

The bigger question is: does the President have the power to unilaterally declare someone an enemy with no judicial oversight/recourse?

Yes, absolutely. Just not without Congressional oversight/recourse. The Supreme Court has extremely limited rights to step in; however, one of their more important roles is settling disputes between the Congress and the President, which is what this is.

My main fear with this case is that the people who brought it have questionable standing to bring it in the first place, and the Supremes might toss the case out without really deciding it.

OK boys and girls, all together now: "Hail King George". If you didn't join the chant, you are obviously an enemy.

Wank wank wank.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 17:51 · Score: 0

you need a good jr high school civics lesson

the three branches are designed to be interlocking and limited

the executive cannot and does not override the others as some sort of king

no matter how much you wish for it, it's not true and it's illegal
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 18:03 · Score: 0

So basically the President can do whatever he wants as long as it's in the name of national defense? Is that you Alberto Gonzales?
Re:Specific law covers this case by pudge · 2006-10-05 18:12 · Score: 1

you need a good jr high school civics lesson

Uh huh huh you said "junior."

the three branches are designed to be interlocking and limited

And nothing I said contradicts that.

the executive cannot and does not override the others as some sort of king

Correct. He does, however, override them as some sort of President.

The President has all the power of the Executive. It is his job to execute the laws in the context of his intepretation of the Constitution. If Congress disagrees with his interpretation as executed, they can sue him, and then the Court decides.

Nowhere does the Constitution say the Congress gets to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution on the President, and on the contrary, it says the Supreme Court alone has the jursidiction to resolve disputes under the Constitution.

But hey, you get points for trying. At least you raised your hand!
Re:Specific law covers this case by ben+there... · 2006-10-05 18:35 · Score: 1

It further says that any application of an act of Congress (including that 1978 law) to shift Constitutional responsibilities from one branch (e.g. the President) to another (e.g. the Courts) is automatically void, and that the President has an independent responsibility to honor the Constitution, even if the Congress and the Courts disagree.

Yes, the responsibility to uphold the Consitution, including the Fourth Amendment.

An article
Re:Specific law covers this case by Dr.+Donuts · 2006-10-05 18:52 · Score: 1

"I agree it's not gray, but it says the opposite of what you say it says. It says the president is in charge of national defense, and the Congress has no right to usurp that power. It further says that any application of an act of Congress (including that 1978 law) to shift Constitutional responsibilities from one branch (e.g. the President) to another (e.g. the Courts) is automatically void, and that the President has an independent responsibility to honor the Constitution, even if the Congress and the Courts disagree."

True, however, it's not for the Executive branch to judge what is constitutional or not. That's a matter for the Courts. A court declaring a law or executive order unconstitutional is neither an abdication nor shifting of responsibility. Once the courts have ruled on the question of constitutionality, the Executive branch must recognize that decision and abide. It's up to the courts to decide whether a responsibility has been usurped or shifted, not the Executive branch. The Executive branch may choose to ignore a law and claim that it is void for constitutional reasons, however if the courts say otherwise, the Executive branch must abide. Just because the Executive branch declares something as unconstitutional and therefore automatically void doesn't mean it's so. Again, that's for the courts to decide.

"Sure, but so what? Aside from it being unconstitutional to legislate a requirement of approval from a judge before spying on an enemy force, its also absurd to suggest that there should be a requirement for probable cause of a crime before spying on an enemy force, which is the only basis for getting a warrant."

Ah, but it's not just spying on an enemy force, it's spying on US citizens you believe are acting against national interest in collaboration with foreign agents. Regardless of whether those citizens are acting treasonous or not, they are still US citizens and as such are afforded their constitutional rights.

No one has a problem with the Government spying on foreign agents. Spying on it's citizens because they suspect something, that's what due process is for.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 20:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

>>The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty gray in this area

>Not really. It says the Executive has to enforce laws passed by Congress, including the 1978 law that regulates eavesdropping on foreign communications

And that congress can't pass any law which allows searches without warrants.
Re:Specific law covers this case by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 01:19 · Score: 0

My guess is they are using wiretaps to keyword search for all political talk so they can make a list of who's naughty and who's nice. Now how do we know which one it is since there's no oversight at all?
Re:Specific law covers this case by Twanfox · 2006-10-06 02:26 · Score: 1

Are we really at war? Keep in mind that the President can engage the country in a police action for a set period of time (what, 90 days?) and after that time, he has to seek the approval of Congress before he can continue. The Iraq war was very speedy, really only a 'police action' in name, ended very quickly with Bush's speech upon the carriers ("End of Hostilities") in order to refrain from needing Congress' approval for his act.

Technically, I don't think we were ever officially "At War" with either Afghanistan or Iraq. It just sounds like the Pres wants to have his cake (invade other countries unilaterally) and eat it too (use of wartime articles to justify acts carried out outside of 'war')
Re:Specific law covers this case by Dexter+Alan+Ux · 2006-10-06 04:15 · Score: 0

[...]is to get away with things that you don't want a judge knowing about.
And how is the NSA/CIA/military supposed to know if the judge can be trusted with this information in the first place? Being a judge doesn't mean you're entitled to know about things that anyone else would have to have a security clearance for.

--
Cheney/Bush '08

freedom ringer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
-Ben Franklin

Re:freedom ringer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:28 · Score: 2, Informative

It is unknown whether Ben Franklin actually said (the correct form): "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." As wikiquote notes:

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thofe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchafe a little Temporary Safety, deferve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Note: I substituted 'f' for unicode #383 because it won't render on Slashdot.

I support the correct form of the statement, but I believe it is a little disingenuous to quote the misattributed version because it has a slightly different meaning.
Re:freedom ringer by FLEB · 2006-10-05 15:34 · Score: 1

Yes, but what do you think?
-- Me.

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Re:freedom ringer by bth0002 · 2006-10-05 16:46 · Score: 1

Everyone deserves to feel safe and sound. Ben Franklin was an elitist pig who was hoping for fame and power and trying to rally a nation to do the right thing at a specific time. He wasn't looking down the road was he. Blind as a bat.

--
Far out man -Chong
Re:freedom ringer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 17:17 · Score: 0

Actually, nobody has a reasonable expectation of being safe and sound in this world. Life entails risk. It always will. The world is full of unpredictable and sometimes deadly events, and it always will be.

Hmmm doesn't wash for online gambling etc... by EmbeddedJanitor · 2006-10-05 14:11 · Score: 1

You'd think then that the same basic argument would then be applied to those doing online gambling on offshore sites. In other words, the US constitution & law should have no control over offshre sites.

Unfortunately it would seem that governments are pretty selective to get what they want.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

Re:Hmmm doesn't wash for online gambling etc... by Black-Man · 2006-10-05 14:20 · Score: 1

They don't... and thats why they chose to attack it from a different angle. US Banks cannot accept wire transfers and credit card transactions from these off-shore casinos. Will people find a way around it? YES. Will it slow down the online gambling by kids using their parents credit cards? Probably. Was it political? Of course.

Why unconstitutional? by jafo_2001 · 2006-10-05 14:14 · Score: 1

If someone who is not a citizen can expect to be protected by our constitution when not on our soil, can we enforce our constitution on them as well?

Re:Why unconstitutional? by frdmfghtr · 2006-10-05 14:22 · Score: 1

If someone who is not a citizen can expect to be protected by our constitution when not on our soil, can we enforce our constitution on them as well?

It was ruled unconstitutional because it violates the 4th Amendment rights of the American citizen on the other end of the line. The ruling doesn't protect the foreign participant; it protects the US citizen.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong please but that's my understanding.

--
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Re:Why unconstitutional? by E++99 · 2006-10-05 14:54 · Score: 1

If someone who is not a citizen can expect to be protected by our constitution when not on our soil, can we enforce our constitution on them as well?

Absolutely, we enforce the Constitution against foreigners all the time. E.g., we don't let them become President, and we make them become citizens and live in the country 7 years (or something like that) before becoming Senators. Not sure what else in the Constitution you can enforce on an individual, though.
Re:Why unconstitutional? by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-10-05 15:05 · Score: 1

I don't think you entirely understand the constitution's purpose.

It's not a set of laws to "enforce" on people. It's got two halves. One says what the government CAN do, the other reiterates "these ten rights should never be violated no matters what the first half says". It then concludes by saying the government cannot do anything it has not been given the power to do in the document.

I, for one, would love to see more enforcing of Due Process, Right to a Speedy Trial, and Freedom of Speech.
Re:Why unconstitutional? by geminidomino · 2006-10-05 17:07 · Score: 1

Take a look at our constitution. There's not much to "enforce." It's main purpose is listing specific rights (though not all rights need to be enumerated, q.v. Article X), not a list of prohibitive rules. How do you "enforce" someone's freedom of speech?

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-10-05 14:18 · Score: 1

While there is a test for English given in the naturalization process, there is no such requirement in any other immigration process (from simple tourist visas through "green card" visas). Likewise, there is no national language in the U.S. While English may be the most common language and the language of government, business, and commerce, that is not set in stone and as we have seen in some parts of California is pretty flexible.

Additionally, there is no "stipulation...that the immigrants...meld into our society". That is a goal of the American experiment which has been used by many to keep new immigrants from undesirable backgrounds in the lower castes. It is a noble goal to have everyone getting along together in a shiny happy colorless melting pot of a country, but it is also impossible to expect immigrants to throw away their entire identity just for the privilege of living here. I would expect that a country as great and tolerant as ours would be able to accept those differences and melt those people into society rather than expecting them to do it themselves. I also expect that that sort of idealism is naive.

I see that sort of veiled racism all the time on shows like CNN's Lou Dobbs show. "We want these people to come" but we don't want them taking our jobs or speaking anything but English or holding on to their heritage. No, you don't want "these people" to come. You want them to stay in their backwater countries with the rest of those beheading barbarians. Liberty and Freedom are not for everyone, in that view.

Screw that view.

The Founding Fathers knew their stuff by Gryle · 2006-10-05 14:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Much of the strength and efficency of the government, in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on..the wisdom and integrity of its governors."
Benjamin Franklin
Speech in the Constitutional Convention at the Conclusion of Its Deliberations - Sept 17, 1787

A rather insightful individual I'd say.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein

uneducated, or treasonous? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:22 · Score: 0

You'd think they wouldn't be allowed to graduate from law school without having read the Declaraton of Independence and that we went to war against writs of assistance!

Re:uneducated, or treasonous? by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-10-05 15:07 · Score: 1

We went to war because of a tax on our breakfast beverage.

And it wasn't even coffee!

Why was this heard in the 6th Circuit? by BearRanger · 2006-10-05 14:26 · Score: 1

Just curious, as the 6th covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennesee. Thanks to certain historical oddities (read: who appointed whom to the court) some circuits have, for lack of a better term, an ideological bias. As much as we'd like to believe a fair hearing can be had in each circuit that's not necessarily the case.

It was my understanding that the original challenge originated in Texas. (which I could easily be wrong about...)

Re:Why was this heard in the 6th Circuit? by Politburo · 2006-10-06 01:35 · Score: 1

Original case was in Michigan.

Don't leave things out by deanj · 2006-10-05 14:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just picking and choosing facts, and leaving out things that don't fit in with your agenda doesn't win people to your side.

Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

Every time.

Why is that? Afraid to mention that because it weakens your argument?

Re:Don't leave things out by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

Could you provide us some proof? You know, facts.
Re:Don't leave things out by Twilight1 · 2006-10-05 14:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

If there's a KNOWN TERRORIST on the other end of the line, then there shouldn't be a problem getting a quick and speedy warrent from a judge. But there's the catch -- the system isn't quick and speedy. Why? We could debate that on many levels. I think it's mostly bogged down with what amounts to frivolous lawsuits. The correct solution is to fix the system to handle more volume (or reduce the volume) -- not simply bypass the system of checks and balances because it's inconvenient.

- Twi
Re:Don't leave things out by pNutz · 2006-10-05 14:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Every time.

How the hell would you know? Oh, YOU MUST KNOW MAGIC!!

It really is the 5th branch of government, magic. When the other 4 branches fail us, magic lets us know that things are being done properly. Did you get one of the pointy hats?

--
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
Re:Don't leave things out by lawpoop · 2006-10-05 14:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

Every time. "

How could you possibly know that? How could you possibly know that?

Are the men who run these programs infallible? They never make a mistake?

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
- James Madison, Federalist #51

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:Don't leave things out by TheRealSlimShady · 2006-10-05 14:51 · Score: 4, Informative

So why don't they just get a warrant under the FISA provision? It's exactly what FISA is supposed to be for, why don't they just use it? Cause they don't want to?
Re:Don't leave things out by E++99 · 2006-10-05 14:57 · Score: 1

It really is the 5th branch of government, magic. When the other 4 branches fail us, magic lets us know that things are being done properly.

Um... I think you're thinking of the 4 branches of the military. There are 3 branches of the government.
Re:Don't leave things out by E++99 · 2006-10-05 15:07 · Score: 1

So why don't they just get a warrant under the FISA provision? It's exactly what FISA is supposed to be for, why don't they just use it? Cause they don't want to?

Because FISA is only for warrants, and warrants are only for formalizing probable cause of a crime. And spying on Al Qaeda has nothing to do with prosecuting crime, it has do to with national security. If Joe Al Qaeda (sorry, Muhammad Al Qaeda) is on the phone, and the CIA doesn't have probable cause of him having committed a crime, that should have nothing to do with whether or not they can try to intercept his communications.
Re:Don't leave things out by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:11 · Score: 0

Terrorism is a crime. If he is a known terrorist, the must have proof to that effect. If that's not the case, then he isn't the known terrorist that the grandparent poster claimed.
Re:Don't leave things out by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2006-10-05 15:12 · Score: 1

So, as long as the prez declares something is in the interest of national security, that absolves all government agencies involved from following the rule of law?

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Don't leave things out by ScentCone · 2006-10-05 15:13 · Score: 1

So why don't they just get a warrant under the FISA provision? It's exactly what FISA is supposed to be for, why don't they just use it? Cause they don't want to?

Because the program as currently being worked is designed to take into account the fact that a standard wire tap has about ZERO chance of truly getting a grip on the communications between people using tangled webs of multiple disposable Trac phones, etc. You have to rack up patterns of calls, and then when you get intel (from any number of sources) that suggests that one of the overseas participants in these calls is a bad guy (financier, logistics operator, would-be train/plane bomber, whatever), then you've got the records and the ability to piece some of the communications together. FISA doesn't come close to addressing the fluid nature of the international communications mechanisms that are used to stitch these groups together.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Don't leave things out by SinGunner · 2006-10-05 15:15 · Score: 1

Please feel free to define "Terrorist" for all instances of people labeled as such in the known world. I guarantee it boils down to someone (by and large) possessing of 4 appendages (2 used for motivation), aural and visual senses, a nervous system that reacts to stimuli in a predictable manner (quite like a super-advanced computer), and finally, a circulatory system consisting of a centralized pump that interacts with the nervous system to produce a burning/pained feeling when encountering new/unknown stimuli.

Frankly, that sort of person terrfies me. If you don't kill yourself to aleviate this fear, I will be forced to pay my government huge amounts of money to prepare an army to have you destroyed.
Re:Don't leave things out by JonathanR · 2006-10-05 15:21 · Score: 1

In a fascist regime, is their any distinction between the seven branches of government?
Re:Don't leave things out by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 15:23 · Score: 1

>the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

The *legal* wiretaps happen when there's probable cause. Ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a warrant to record calls with a terrorist, and ye shall receive. Quote about that court: "I was shocked ... I was convinced that the judge would have signed anything that we put in front of him", from former intern Jonathan Turley.

The program under discussion here is an indiscriminate sweep that harms national security, and that evades the minimal oversight of the FISC.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-05 15:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

They're not "afraid" to mention it because it weakens their argument. It's just a dumb way to argue a point. You don't lead with weakness.

But you're correct to point out that the summary is completely one-sided to the point of being intentionally deceptive. It's makes the point deceptively, but with no weaknesses that might be evident in a less deceptive summary. It's the new mainstream mode of political communication and news reporting.

Deception is ok as long as "the good people" win the election, isn't it?
Re:Don't leave things out by Elemenope · 2006-10-05 15:34 · Score: 1

Actually, the law as written before this BS program was started allowed warrants after the fact in cases where timing was critical and a few other criteria were met. So...they don't even have that excuse.

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Re:Don't leave things out by 2short · 2006-10-05 15:40 · Score: 1

You are quite simply wrong. Warrants are for conducting any searches or surviellance on Americans that is constitutional. Nobody has the power to conduct survielance without a warrant; read the 4th amendment some time. The Foriegn Intelligence Survielance Act is generally concerned with survielance not related to crime. It lets you get a warrant for survielance needed for National Security under significantly relaxed rules. And if it doesn't apply, you're left with the standard survielance rules, which are more restrictive. But it does apply, because this is exactly the sort of thing FISA was passed to cover.

The CIA (or NSA) is not legally allowed to spy on Americans, no matter who they think that American is talking to, without a warrant. Luckily, they have a special court made up of top-secret-cleared judges, operating under very permissive rules who can approve warrants retroactively, and who do approve them in virtually all cases. Why is this not good enough? We've been told only that it's not fast enough, because apparently the american people are deemed too stupid to know what "retroactively" means. Does it matter why it's not good enough? No, because the Executive Branch does not have the constitutional power to change the rules no matter why it wants to.
Re:Don't leave things out by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:43 · Score: 0

I think you're thinking of the 4 branches of the military.

I thought there were five: Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.
Re:Don't leave things out by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:50 · Score: 0

Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

Every time.

Truer words have never been spoken, comrade.

It's just like the people insisting on trials for the accused. They never bring up the fact that every time someone gets arrested, the person is guilty.

Every time.

I wish we had more honest, intelligent people like you in power.
Re:Don't leave things out by NormalVisual · 2006-10-05 15:55 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, the inability to be completely safe is part of the price you pay for freedom, and if the government can't do its job without breaking the supreme law of the land then smarter people need to be in office.

I believe that if the US had a reasonable foreign policy that took into account how the rest of the world actually operates instead of just the political and financial interests of those who pay for campaigns, there would probably be quite a bit less to worry about.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-05 16:04 · Score: 1

That's good question. Do you guys even wonder what the real answer is?

FISA warrants are so easy to get that you hardly even have to ask, right? The FISA court is just a rubber stamp for whatever Bush wants, isn't it? That's what you guys are selling.

So why wouldn't they just get a FISA warrant?

Are you trying to tell us that they forgot to ask? Or is it a big conspiracy to listen in on my cell phone conversations to find out that I'm going to be 10 minutes late for my lunch meeting?

Got any idea why? Any at all?

(No. You don't. You don't care that your arguments make no sense. Nevermind. Because Bush is Hitler -- or whatever the new one is these days.)
Re:Don't leave things out by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:05 · Score: 0

1. Lawsuits have nothing to do with getting a warrant, they are two seperate channels. The judge who signs warrants isn't the same judge who settles civil disputes.

2. FISA already allows for retroactive warrants.
Re:Don't leave things out by jackbird · 2006-10-05 16:33 · Score: 1

Not your cell phone conversations. The cell phone conversations of political opponents, pesky journalists, and possibly executives at corporations that compete with big campaign contributors. Find that farfetched? Prove it. Oh, wait... no oversight except the solemn word of a man who has not yet shown any qualms about lying.
Re:Don't leave things out by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 16:48 · Score: 1

Because if they evade the court, they don't have to show cause and don't have anyone who might yell "Whoa" if they do something like bugging Democratic campaign headquarters.

This isn't theory, the government has admitted that they want to change who determines probable cause and to eliminate oversight. See _How Would a Patriot Act_ for citations.

>FISA warrants are so easy to get that you hardly even have to ask, right? The FISA court is just a rubber stamp for whatever Bush wants, isn't it? That's what you guys are selling.

Look for yourself if you question the word of everyone here. Look at the Attorney General's annual reports from 1979 to 2001. Look at the number of FISA warrants applied for. Look at the number approved. Nothing to do with Bush, those are the numbers from the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton administrations.

"Great though Saruman's lore be, it must have had a source". Everything we've found out, you can find out.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-05 16:55 · Score: 1

Yep, paranoia is the answer. It's a vast international conspiracy to spy for power and profit. It must be. And no one will ever find out because they're all in on it.

It can't just be that FISA warrants are harder to get than you're saying. FISA court due process is so minimal that it's hardly a process at all. Of course. But following it is the most important thing and not doing it is evil police-state Orwellian nightmare fascism.

And no matter how paranoid you are, the FISA court can be trusted.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-05 17:01 · Score: 1

Right. Conspiracy and paranoia answer all the questions. Except why someone who is so paranoid believes that the FISA court justices can be trusted.

How do I know you're not in on this giant conspiracy? Trying to trick us by offering weak arguments. So we'll disbelieve them, support Bush, and then Karl Rove can continue to setup his empire of looted secrets?

We're through the looking glass here people.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-05 17:13 · Score: 1

I forgot this part.

It can't just be that when you're applying for a FISA warrant, you know what the criteria are in advance. So you make sure your application meets the criteria before the hearing. And that results in you being granted the warrant. Nope. Can't be.

If it wasn't a rubber-stamp, can't-miss, sure-thing, about half of the warrant requests would be denied, right?
Re:Don't leave things out by geminidomino · 2006-10-05 17:13 · Score: 1

a nervous system that reacts to stimuli in a predictable manner (quite like a super-advanced computer)

See? So those whiny liberal commie hippies are wrong. Bush CAN'T be a terrorist!

(Waits for the bipartisan modbomb from the Bushies and those who don't read beyond 'whiny liberal')
Re:Don't leave things out by jackbird · 2006-10-05 17:32 · Score: 2, Informative

This is how easy it is to get a FISA warrant. 16 rejections since 1979 on thousands and thousands of requests. Those 16 rejections are evidence both that it's very easy to get a warrant when you need it, and that there's some degree of oversight to the process. The FISA court can be trusted infinitely more than no oversight at all.
Intelligence agencies SHOULD have a lot of leeway when investigating something legitimate. If that leeway is allowed to extend to activities intended to benefit the party in power or the people at the top, though, we're in banana boat dictator territory (or Hoover's FBI territory if you prefer).
The administration hasn't proposed an alternative check on wiretapping, they want to do away with oversight entirely. Insisting on freedom from any and all oversight doesn't pass the sniff test.
As for allegations of spying for profit being ridiculous, the EU has already accused the CIA of providing intercepts to Boeing that helped them beat out Airbus for contracts. Now we get to do it at home, too.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-05 18:11 · Score: 1

Did they fake the 9/11 "attack" in order to start the war on terror so they could use it as an excuse to start this spying?
Re:Don't leave things out by guet · 2006-10-05 19:09 · Score: 1

Did they fake the 9/11 "attack" in order to start the war on terror so they could use it as an excuse to start this spying?

Maybe you should re-examine your constant recourse to silly crazyliberalbelievesanythinghereadsontheinternet straw men and consider the real problem here. The US Administration wants unfettered power to tap phones - can you not see how this *could* be very very dangerous, if not in the hands of Bush, in the hands of a future president?
Re:Don't leave things out by Scudsucker · 2006-10-05 19:51 · Score: 1

Marines and Coast Guard are under the Navy.
Re:Don't leave things out by Scudsucker · 2006-10-05 19:56 · Score: 1

But there's the catch -- the system isn't quick and speedy.

Yes, it is, and anytime a Republican claims otherwise, they are lying. "Speed" is a red herring, they can get a warrant 72 hours after the fact. "Spying on terrorists" is a red herring, because they can do that to their hearts content under FISA. They want to be able to tap without warrants not to spy on terrorists, but to spy on anyone at all, even if they no suspicion whatsoever that the person is guilty of anything.
Re:Don't leave things out by The+Master+Control+P · 2006-10-05 20:17 · Score: 1

Let me see if I understand this... First you accuse people who distrust no-oversight warrantless surveillance of paranoia. Then someone replies with an irrefutable prior example of what happens when the government decides it can wiretap without warrants or oversight (watergate). Then you reply that it's all paranoia.

So, uh, can we see an example of an argument you have that doesn't involve involve poisoning any well that you don't like by dismissing it as "paranoid?" Perhaps an example of any surveillance of terrorists that doesn't fall under U.S.C. Title 50 Chapter 36? Or are you just trolling?
Re:Don't leave things out by Builder · 2006-10-05 21:35 · Score: 1

Bullshit. There is a foreign national suspected of being hostile to the US on the other end of the line. There's a world of difference between those statements.
Re:Don't leave things out by Jack+Sombra · 2006-10-05 23:11 · Score: 1

Let me get this, The US goverment knows who all these known terrorists are, where they are , who they are talking to but have not had the CIA kidnap them and dump them in a secret prison yet? Suuure
Re:Don't leave things out by jackbird · 2006-10-06 00:55 · Score: 1

No.
Besides the fact that the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is absurd on its face, the US response to 9/11 hasn't been organized or competent enough to make foreknowledge believable. If you read the article I linked about Airbus, the incident in question happened under Clinton. This is about preserving the constitution, not about which party is in power. Anyone in government with a "we have to destroy America in order to save it" attitude (e.g. Schumer and Hillary at their most pandering, and Lieberman pretty much all the time) gets my contempt.
Re:Don't leave things out by Mo+Bedda · 2006-10-06 01:21 · Score: 1

Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

The problem is that this is NOT a known fact. This is a claim often repeated by the administration, but the facts of the program are mostly classified and have never been made public. The fact that the very existance of this program contradicts previous statements by the President, makes me less willing to take his current statements as fact.

It would seem that if this particular claim was true, there would be no need to ignore FISA. Since FISA is being circumvented, it seems unlikely that the claims of the Administration are any more true now than they were when they were claiming that the program didn't exist in the first place. The Executive branch may well have a duty to deny/misrepresent the extent of the program, but it is ultimately up the courts to decide if the program violates the law.

Why is that? Afraid to mention that because it weakens your argument?

Well, for all the same reasons you didn't point out the the Executive is likely tapping all communications (of everyone within reach) and all electronic records and letting the NSA attempt to filter something useful out of it. Because repeating unsubstantiated claims which weaken your position is not a wise debating tactic.
Re:Don't leave things out by plnrtrvlr · 2006-10-06 01:35 · Score: 1

OK, lets take a look at this declaration that "Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line." How do we know this? You see, without some kind of oversight, say, from the courts, there is no way of knowing much of anything about who is and isn't being eavesdropped upon, and this is the major contention of this issue. The FISA courts were setup in the aftermath of the Watergate era when everyone was mindful of the potential for the executive branch of our government to spy on it's own people for nefarious purposes, making some people think that it should be a cut and dry issue: go to the FISA courts and get a warrant. It isn't that cut and dry however, the FISA courts were setup so as to not overly constrict the executives power during a time of war. So now we come to 2006, and the president claims one thing, some of the courts claim another, Many of us will complain loudly about this wiretapping, fearing for our freedoms and liberties, There will be many others who will say "the president is just trying to protect us." The issue will eventually shake itself out in the courts with a result that one side or the other doesn't like. Furthermore, this shakeout in the courts will be decided based upon three issues: 1) being unable to forsee all things, the constitution leaves many issues to the current legislative branch to pass laws on, 2) the legislative branch passes laws that often leave murky "grey areas" that congress did not think about or forsee, 3) the courts decisions are usually made based upon past decisions and withing the current political leanings of the courts. So what does this mean to us? It means, keep your voices heard, keep complaining if you don't like what the executive is doing, keep supporting if you do, vote, and be make it so that if the courts decision does not agree with your own opinion, congress knows you will be voting and that matter is of importance to you, because only congress can alter the law if you deem that the courts decision is harmful to the United States. And yes, I'm aware of the issues concerning our voting and political systems: these things worry me too. But as of this moment in time, there is no concensus for a revolution in this country, peaceful or otherwise. That leaves us working within the system, hoping that we can overcome the flaws before a revolution is needed. Save the flames for the future in case they are needed, use reason for now.
Personally, I am worried about the potential abuses that warrentless eavesdropping allows, and believe that all foreign survelliance should go through the FISA courts, even in a time of war. The courts work effectively enough that I cannot see any harm that would come from this requirement, and furthermore, I can see all kinds of harm that may come from an unrestrained executive. I will accept the courts decision on the legality of this issue, and if I do not like it, I will scream all the louder and use my vote to try to get the laws changed. I want to know that every time a wiretap occurs it is because the government is eavesdropping on a known enemy: I want to know that they are not using their power to supress political opponents. It is important that we stress this issue to those who disagree with us,,. that we make them understand that prtecting our freedoms and liberties are about protecting ourselves from our government.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-06 01:45 · Score: 1

The point is this:

Maybe, just maybe, those FISA warrants aren't as easy to get as you guys are saying. You have no reasonable basis to conclude they're easy to get and no actual knowledge of the FISA court.

That makes a lot more sense than the huge conspiracy.
Re:Don't leave things out by Kohath · 2006-10-06 01:55 · Score: 1

The question remains:

If the warrants are so easy to get, and if the warrants are never refused, why didn't they just go get one? And the only answer you guys have is conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

You have no information that the FISA warrants are easy to get. You don't try to find out anything about the process of getting one.

There are real explanations -- real answers to these questions.
Re:Don't leave things out by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 02:42 · Score: 0

Simple. Going through the FISA process leaves a paper trail, so if you misuse your power to say, wiretap your political rivals, you can be found out and put on trial. Without any oversight whatsoever, you can do whatever you want without any fear of retribution.
Re:Don't leave things out by pNutz · 2006-10-06 03:20 · Score: 1

Popularly, the media is the "4th branch of government". I meant to imply this. There goes my funny.

--
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
Re:Don't leave things out by demigod · 2006-10-06 04:42 · Score: 1

... wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

Who says so?

Oh the guys doing the tapping.

Well I'm sure they would never lie. If there is one group of people you can count on to tell the truth, it's spies. I'm sure they just didn't want to bother with FISA. They don't need no stinking oversight. Right?

--
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
Re:Don't leave things out by will_die · 2006-10-06 05:05 · Score: 1

And how does the number of rejections vs applications prove that they are easy to get verses that people who request FISA warrents do alot of extra work to ensure that all the paperwork and evidence is in order when request them?
Also the investiage of the EU into Echelon has long been over. What happened is that Airbus official were bribing Saudi airline officials to purchase Airbus. The US using "commercial communications satellite" found this out and Clinton told the Saudi government and that basicly killed any chance airbus had. Don't know if Echelon was acutally used for this, but if it was would of required that the EU members in Echelon would of had to approve the release of the info on french airbus officials bribing.
Re:Don't leave things out by The+Master+Control+P · 2006-10-06 06:26 · Score: 1

Alright, I'll feed the troll one last time...

You know that secret warrants are incredibly easy to get under FISA. Go ahead, read USC Title 50 Chapter 36 - I. No, really, put "fisa act" into Google and you'll get a link to cornell.edu. I mean, really, them warrants is reaaaaaal easy to get. Hell, getting into Paris Hilton's cooch is harder than getting a FISA warrant.

If you've read the FISA act, then you know that the warrant request may be filed up to 3 days after tapping starts, that the Attorney General may order tapping for up to 15 days without a warrant during a time of war, and that the President may direct the Attorney General to wiretap for up to one year during a time of war provided he swears it won't be abused.

Now ask what more could possibly be needed on the intel front to fight terrorists than the power to wiretap for an entire year.

Given the premises that the program is not to fight terrorists (because any imaginable need is covered by FISA already), yet the Bush administration is adamant that it be allowed to continue, the only logical conclusion is that the actual reason for it's existence falls under the set "Not terrorism." The actual specific purpose that is "Not terrorism" doesn't matter, because the only justification given is the endless drumbeat that the program is needed "to combat terrorists." However, if the justification given is terrorism but the program is not about terrorism, then the only logical conclusion is that the public are being lied to. To what end? There's no point speculating.

Because after all, it's all just a bunch of "mumbo-jumbo." You've convinced yourself that Herr Bush can do no wrong. You're certain that he and his administration can do nothing that isn't in the true and genuine interests of the American people, and close your eyes and yell LALALALALA at any disagreement. You refuse to see logic or the obvious truth, because then your brain wouldn't give that nice rush of dopamine that self-confirming beliefs always do.

The Reichstag Fire was set by Communists, the ongoing emergency in the Rodina necessitates the declaration of Martial Law, we have always been at war with Oceania, Clinton "did not have... sexual relations, with that woman," and Nixon was not a crook! They all said so, anything else is paranoid mumbo-jumbo!

All hail the Emperor by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:31 · Score: 3, Informative

Check out the latest power grab attempt here:
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id= 16337

Now. Are you all still not bothered about warrentless wiretaps and monitoring of US citizens?
Are YOUR conversations at all critical of the Emperor G?

Seriously, the gubbermint is broken. How can it be repaired?

Re:All hail the Emperor by JhohannaVH · 2006-10-06 04:51 · Score: 1

F. U. D.

That article is the complete and utter DRECK of the internet. Written by anarchists that would rather see government implode than fix it.

Check it's sources, then their sources, and then, of course, follow the money.

I'm so SICK of this article being thrown around by the 'Rats. It's all LIES.

--
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-10-05 14:34 · Score: 1

The argument is that spying on the international wires is not a violation of the 4th Amendment because it occurs outside of American territory

Wait... what?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Does it specifically mention any specific "people"? No, because it applies to all people.

If your assertion is true, then there is nothing wrong with US troops in Berlin searching the homes of German citizens. After all, the violation of rights occurs outside of American territory.

This is just the beginning. by Guitarhero1000 · 2006-10-05 14:35 · Score: 1, Redundant

This is just the beginning of what the government is planning. If people don't wise up to this kind of behavior then you may as well throw the constitution out the door. They claim it's to "Fight the terrorists". In reality it's one step closer to have total control over the american people. Does this sound familiar? Hitler used fear and intimidation to convey his ideals. Nothing has changed, except now they don't have the moutashes and their using terrorists excuses To get away with it.. This brings me to a quote madde by Benjamin Franklin. "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" Think about it. This is a huge deal. And our government is taking baby steps to their fashist ideals. Hoping we dont "Notice"

--
How the hell did I get such bad karma? I blame the meds...

Re:This is just the beginning. by tsotha · 2006-10-05 15:42 · Score: 1

And you know this... how, exactly? You can read minds?
I'm getting so tired of that quote. I'm pretty sure even Franklin didn't advocate throwing security to the wind.
Oh, and if you ever expect people to take you seriously in these kinds of discussions, you're going to have to learn how to spell "fascist".
Re:This is just the beginning. by Guitarhero1000 · 2006-10-05 15:47 · Score: 1

Then what did he advocate? He advocated NOT surrendering your rights in the NAME of security. Sorry for the mispellings. I didn't think that was the issue here.

--
How the hell did I get such bad karma? I blame the meds...

That's not the purpose of a constitution by MarkusQ · 2006-10-05 14:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

If someone who is not a citizen can expect to be protected by our constitution when not on our soil, can we enforce our constitution on them as well?

That's not the purpose of a constitution. A constitution doesn't grant rights to the people or offer them protection. And it isn't something that can be "enforced" on people, citizen or not.

The one and only purpose of a constitution is to set limits on the power of the government.

Read one, sometime. Ours, for example. The whole thing is a mass of "this branch of government may not do so and so, except in these very special circumstances" and "this branch of government is required to do thus and so".

Why?

Because the founders of constitutional governments are almost uniformly recent survivors of abuses of government authority. King George's belief that he could do anything he felt like (the equivalent, in his day, of the unitary executive, or the "If the president does it it isn't illegal" school of thought) did not sit well at all with our founding fathers.

--MarkusQ

Re:That's not the purpose of a constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:24 · Score: 0

The one and only purpose of a constitution is to set limits on the power of the government.

This is wrong; the US constitution does not set limits on the power of government, it grants power to the government. Without the constitution, the government is assumed to have no power. The constitution gives the government certain powers, which are enumerated within. Everything which isn't covered, the government is not allowed to do. In techie speak, the US constitution is default-deny, followed by a list of exceptions.

People are often confused about this because the only part of the constitution that most people are familiar with is the Bill of Rights, and that appears to set limits on the power of the government. And indeed it does, but it was just intended as a failsafe for when people forgot about the whole first part which says "you can't do anything except what's listed here".
Re:That's not the purpose of a constitution by jafo_2001 · 2006-10-06 02:55 · Score: 1

The reason I phrased it the way I did is because we have started enforcing the constitution on state and local governments (something not originally there). It is much of a streatch that if we grant constitutional protection to people not citizens, some future administration might then take that the next step and say "These guys in Elbola have no freedom of speech! We should go enforce their rights!"?

It would probably help that I believe both parties are power hungry. By changing our stance that has served us well since Kenedy came up with this and all the sudden saying it is unconstitutional really concerns me.
Re:That's not the purpose of a constitution by stinerman · 2006-10-06 23:05 · Score: 1

In techie speak, the US constitution is default-deny, followed by a list of exceptions.
True. The only problem is that it is default-deny with a list of exceptions and then a list of more denials (see powers denied to the feds and then powers granted to the feds). The problem is that neither is exhaustive, so people are understandably confused as to what is and isn't allowed. The Bill of Rights made a half hearted attempt with the 9th and 10th Amendments to let people know they didn't mean the Bill to be a listing of rights, but a singling out of specific rights. Sadly, the 9th and 10th Amendments are the most ignored clauses in our Constitution.

In a similar issue, our federal code can be described as running off of diffs for around 200 years. I say its time to do a complete rewrite of both.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:36 · Score: 0

What does this have to do with immigrants and travelers

What a Farce by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:37 · Score: 0

So.... The courts said it was unconstitutional but go ahead and keep doing it anway. What a farce. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by The+Master+Control+P · 2006-10-05 14:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Every time a case such as this, or any other criticism of the Bush administration's policies regarding terrorism comes up, we hear all but the exact same thing: We need this [power | program | law] to fight terrorism. [If you disagree, you must support the terrorists.] Why is it that we never get to hear exactly why [power | program | law] is necessary to stop terrorists? I guess they're assuming that if they beat the drum of "We need this!!!1" long and hard enough people will believe it.

But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 99.8% chance of getting a warrant. If there's no time to waste, start tapping and you can file for a warrant (which in an emergency case can be approved within an hour) any time in the next 3 days. To those who support this program: What conceivable set of circumstances would simultaneously require so many resources that there isn't one intern left over to file a request sometime within the next 3 days marked "urgent" with an institution that rubber-stamps nearly every request that crosses it's path, yet also be totally unknown and not under any previous surveillance. Such a set's parameters are absurd: it doesn't exist. Bush's warrantless surveillance program is nonsense in this regard.

But debating the merits and usefulness of any such program is a moot point. The Fourth Amendment forbids any unreasonable search and any search not affirmed by a judge. The Bush administration refuses to provide evidence that the wiretaps are reasonable (instead insisting that we take it's word), and the fact that they are not affirmed by a judge is the whole point of the program. Therefore, this program is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment and any program or law contravening the Constitution, it's Amendments, or Treaties is illegal. End of debate, national security be damned. This is a nation of law, no matter what might be convenient, useful, or even life-saving. No one with even the foggiest clue what America is about petitions to destroy the 4th Amendment because it would be a great help to other criminal investigations (and hell yes it would be more convenient and efficient to not have to deal with judges and evidence beforehand), yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear. That is wrong, and history provides abundant evidence why.

Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by ScentCone · 2006-10-05 15:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bush administration's policies regarding terrorism comes up, we hear all but the exact same thing: We need this

Funny how you're leaving out the fact that the leading figures in the party that bitterly dislikes him also say we need this. At least be honest - it gives you a better shot at being credible.

But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 99.8% chance of getting a warrant.

You can't get evidence of what a loose group of people in several countries using a trunk full of disposable cell phones are working on until you assemble data about the network of calls. You get the evidence of these overseas communications by looking for patterns. When you get on-the-ground type intel from other sources, that can sometimes expose a cell phone number (or a collection of them) that in turn provide an anchor to more pattern matching. The only internation calls that are "tapped" are those that actually include such contacts (those, in other countries, known to have such ties). FISA doesn't help you at all when you're dealing with a shifting network of multiple, one-time-use trash phones, VoIP, etc.

If that network of international calls does point to someone here in the US as part of the picture, then the FBI does go and get one of those pretty-easy-to-get warrants, and there you go.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 15:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

>End of debate, national security be damned.

Please don't reinforce the fraud that national security is an issue here.

During the Cold War the USSR had spies in the US, their own US political party, and thousands of nuclear ICBMs half an hour from deleting the US from history. We won that conflict with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intact.

What we're doing now is more on the scale of suppressing the Barbary Pirates (who, remember, destroyed entire cities).
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by E++99 · 2006-10-05 15:41 · Score: 2, Informative

But what real use is this warrantless surveillance program to fighting terrorists? If you evidence, get a warrant. If you have a shred of something resembling evidence, go to FISA and you have about a 99.8% chance of getting a warrant.

Oh yeah? I read it was 99.99% in another post. Now I'm all confused. ;-) Exactly what kind of evidence do you think is going to get you a FISA warrant??? Evidence that the person on the phone belongs to Al Qaeda? There's no law against belonging to Al Qaeda. Seriously, what sort of evidence are you suggesting that there should be before the court allows a military spy mission to proceed??? And what does that have to do with a warrant???

The Fourth Amendment forbids any unreasonable search and any search not affirmed by a judge.

It does nothing of the sort. It protects the security of people in the persons, their houses, their papers, and their effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and it requires probable cause for a judge to issue a warrant. I don't think it has ever been interpreted by any court in the history of the U.S. to require the affirmation of a judge for any search.
The Bush administration refuses to provide evidence that the wiretaps are reasonable

If a person feels that their possessions have been searched or seized unreasonably, then they have recourse to the courts to bring suit against the Administration for their damages. At that point it becomes incumbent upon the Administration to provide evidence of the reasonability of the searches. It's an absurdity to suggest that they need to broadcast that evidence for every search they conduct, and I can't imagine why anyone would even suggest it, unless they were intentionally hoping to undermine the ability of the country to protect itself.
the fact that they are not affirmed by a judge is the whole point of the program. Therefore, this program is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment

If the 4th amendment said what you thought it said, you'd have a point. Sort of.
and any program or law contravening the Constitution, it's Amendments, or Treaties is illegal. End of debate, national security be damned.

So we agree. The FISA law is illegal and void insofar as it appropriates to the courts powers given in the Constitution to the President.

This is a nation of law, no matter what might be convenient, useful, or even life-saving. No one with even the foggiest clue what America is about petitions to destroy the 4th Amendment because it would be a great help to other criminal investigations (and hell yes it would be more convenient and efficient to not have to deal with judges and evidence beforehand), yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear. That is wrong, and history provides abundant evidence why.

Well, I hope it will be a nation of law again one day. It hasn't been that for a very long time. The justices this president has appointed are the best shot at moving back in that direction. But the point about terrorists vs. criminals needs more careful scrutiny. We have never applied the 4th amendment in the same way to battlefield searches and seizures, or to spying on our enemies. I'm sure that they thought of that when writing it, which is a big part of why it is stated so vaguely... the test is simply if the search or seizure is "reasonable". Warrants have always been about criminal prosecutions, and they kept that part separate. So the question is, is it reasonable to listen to Osama's phone call to his grandma in Florida. Well, of course it's bloody reasonable.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Zorque · 2006-10-05 15:52 · Score: 1

Maybe it's not illegal to be a member of Al Qaeda, but it's certainly been enough in the past.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by The+Master+Control+P · 2006-10-05 16:38 · Score: 1

Ok, so a lot of the Democrats are fascists who would betray the Constitution too. Not suprising; They and the Republicans are both sides of the same, rotten-to-the-core coin IMO. That doesn't change the fact that no new arguments are being put forward in support of the warrantless surveillance program.

If the people using the cell phones are in other countries, then the CIA is free to tap away, infiltrate, and pattern-recognize to their heart's content. Since the calls are not between American citizens, the Fourth Amendment is not in effect and I never claimed otherwise. But then you go on to claim that the only phones being tapped include those known to have ties to terrorists, and that the FBI goes and gets a warrant within the US. You may recall that no one not in the US spy agencies knows which calls are being tapped, as senior Bush administration officials made quite a show of claiming that such knowledge (or even knowledge that it happens) would endanger national security. And why are you claiming that the FBI goes and gets a warrant, when the article that nucleated this thread is titled "warrantless surveillance?" If the calls in question involve terminals within United States, the call may be tapped at the remote terminus or it may be tapped in the US terminus with a warrant.

But again, this is moot. If FISA doesn't help with shifting networks of one-time phones or other technologies, too bad. Unlike the Soviet Constitution, the US Constitution does not have an article 121, line 15 that lets the President suspend the Constitution "in the interests of defence." Either the government can get a 3/4 majority and revoke the Fourth Amendment (in which case the United States is dead anyway) or accept the rule of law.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by TubeSteak · 2006-10-05 16:39 · Score: 1

FISA doesn't help you at all when you're dealing with a shifting network of multiple, one-time-use trash phones, VoIP, etc.
::Cough Cough::

I think what you meant to say was: FISA won't approve the blanket spying required, without sufficient evidence, when you're dealing with a shifting network of multiple, one-time-use trash phones, VoIP, etc.

If that network of international calls does point to someone here in the US as part of the picture, then the FBI does go and get one of those pretty-easy-to-get warrants, and there you go.
The problem is that the information, which lead to those "pretty-easy-to-get warrants," was obtained illegally.

AND, since all this spying was secret, nobody knows if the evidence used to obtain those "pretty-easy-to-get warrants" was the fruit of that poisoned tree.

Which ultimately leads us to the problem with Bush's War on Terror: If you don't treat terrorism as a Law Enforcement Problem, you will never be able to convict anyone in a civilian court of law.

Why does that matter? Because Military Tribunals aren't fair. Because they aren't transparent. Because they undermine the moral high ground. Etc etc etc.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by ScentCone · 2006-10-05 16:46 · Score: 1

no new arguments are being put forward

Why should there be? The circumstances are the same as they were when the need for it (and capacity to do it) became obvious in the first place. Are you making new arguments against actual search and seizure? Why not? Possibly because your argument doesn't need to change? Unchanging merits don't make something less important over time. Stop signs and traffic lights, despite their interference with my liberty to travel, don't require fresh analysis and debate every day, either.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by jackbird · 2006-10-05 16:52 · Score: 1

Oh yeah? I read it was 99.99% in another post. Now I'm all confused. ;-) Exactly what kind of evidence do you think is going to get you a FISA warrant??? Evidence that the person on the phone belongs to Al Qaeda? There's no law against belonging to Al Qaeda. Seriously, what sort of evidence are you suggesting that there should be before the court allows a military spy mission to proceed??? And what does that have to do with a warrant???
Add it up for yourself. To summarize, from 1979 to 1996, not a single application for a warrant was rejected, with requests per year rising steadily from ~200 to ~800 during that period. Then, in 1997, one application was rejected out of 749 submitted. 15 requests total have been rejected since, on a yearly volume of ~1000 to ~2000.
FISA was implemented in response to Nixon's abuses of our intelligence apparatus for political gain, culmninating in Watergate and his resignation. A history of the Nixon presidency, with a possible detour into the professional life of J. Edgar Hoover, is quite persuasive as to the wisdom of requiring warrants for domestic spying.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by NormalVisual · 2006-10-05 16:54 · Score: 1

If a person feels that their possessions have been searched or seized unreasonably, then they have recourse to the courts to bring suit against the Administration for their damages. At that point it becomes incumbent upon the Administration to provide evidence of the reasonability of the searches.

Good luck with that. All the Administration has to do is say that testifying in the case would reveal state secrets that could endanger national security, and with that your case is over. "National security" trumps all else, and there's no way for the citizenry to know if those claims are valid.

In the words of Mel Brooks, "It's good to be da king". I use the word "king" pointedly, as our current President appears not to be particularly accountable to anyone.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by ScentCone · 2006-10-05 16:59 · Score: 1

Which ultimately leads us to the problem with Bush's War on Terror: If you don't treat terrorism as a Law Enforcement Problem, you will never be able to convict anyone in a civilian court of law.

Who cares? The whole point of most counter-terrorism efforts is to stop the events from happening in the first place. Law enforcement can never do that (it's called "prior restraint") unless they've got plain-as-day evidence of conspiracy, preparation, etc. Most law enforcement is still aimed at catch-the-perp-afterwards type investigations, with the possible side benefit of catching other associates that may or may not be working on something similar.

But when you're dealing with someone that's planning on driving a handful of truck bombs up to a refinery or shipping port, you have to act. Usually on very, very short notice. Especially when that's happening overseas, the traditional law enforcement channels are completely toothless, or just unworkably slow. Someone willing to do a Cole-style attack on a LNG tanker near a US port isn't a law enforcement problem, they're a military problem. And to the extent that they're coordinating with someone in the US on logistics, cash, or personnel, dealing with them really is a defense issue, just not in the up-against-a-standing-army old-timey sense of it.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by The+Master+Control+P · 2006-10-05 19:39 · Score: 1

Oh yeah? I read it was 99.99% in another post. Now I'm all confused. ;-) Exactly what kind of evidence do you think is going to get you a FISA warrant??? Evidence that the person on the phone belongs to Al Qaeda? There's no law against belonging to Al Qaeda. Seriously, what sort of evidence are you suggesting that there should be before the court allows a military spy mission to proceed??? And what does that have to do with a warrant???
OK, you're closer than I was on the acceptance rate... 4 denied out of 19000 issued (assume 1000/year for '01-'06) equals 99.979% acceptance.

Onto more important matters, perhaps evidence that the person in question is a terrorist (Paragraph 6)? Under USC Title 50 Chapter 36-I 1805a, the requirement in question is "probable cause" which 1805-b clarifies to include "past activities of the target, as well as facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target."

It does nothing of the sort. It protects the security of people in the persons, their houses, their papers, and their effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and it requires probable cause for a judge to issue a warrant. I don't think it has ever been interpreted by any court in the history of the U.S. to require the affirmation of a judge for any search.
A judge doesn't need to affirm a search warrant before a search? That'd be news to the guys who make Law & Order. The 4th Amendment says that the government and it's agents are not allowed to unreasonably search anyone. A judge must issue a warrant based on probable cause for such a search. Therefore, a judge must issue a warrant with probable cause (indicating that the search is reasonable) before the government is allowed to search. If the government is searching without such a warrant, it is violating the Fourth Amendment.

If a person feels that their possessions have been searched or seized unreasonably, then they have recourse to the courts to bring suit against the Administration for their damages. At that point it becomes incumbent upon the Administration to provide evidence of the reasonability of the searches. It's an absurdity to suggest that they need to broadcast that evidence for every search they conduct, and I can't imagine why anyone would even suggest it, unless they were intentionally hoping to undermine the ability of the country to protect itself.
Under the so-called "patriot" act, the government can forbid you from telling anyone about it's secret searches, thereby denying judicial recourse. And if by chance you do manage to try and force the Administration to provide reasonable evidence, they will say "national security" and make the case disappear as they did in the AT&T data-sharing case.

And I'm not suggesting that the government be required to broadcast it's evidence for every warrant on CNN. Perhaps if there were a secret court created by something called "FISA" which could review such things in secret. But taking the executive (any executive)'s word for it that they aren't abusing such a thing is also an absurdity. (I am not a crook!)

So we agree. The FISA law is illegal and void insofar as it appropriates to the courts powers given in the Constitution to the President.
Eh... I'm a little dubious about FISA, but after reading it I fail to see where exactly it gives the power of the courts to the president. Could you point them out?

Well, I hope it wil
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Scudsucker · 2006-10-05 19:45 · Score: 1

Funny how you're leaving out the fact that the leading figures in the party that bitterly dislikes him also say we need this.

Who would that be, exactly. Go on, start rattling off "leading" Democrats who think we need warrantless searches. Reid has gone on record as saying that Specter's bill is going nowhere...too bad he didn't have the same backbone for the torture bill.

FISA doesn't help you at all when you're dealing with a shifting network of multiple, one-time-use trash phones, VoIP, etc.

Neither will the NSA program. And besides, you have a higher chance of killing yourself than dying from a terrorist attack, so those who want to sell our freedoms for a false sense of security can FOAD.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 00:30 · Score: 0

Especially when that's happening overseas, the traditional law enforcement channels are completely toothless, or just unworkably slow.
I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about and are just repeating what you think and what you've heard.

The most recent "liquid explosives on a plane" threat was halted through good old fashioned British Police work.

Anyways, I think you missed the ultimate point of the post, which was that the Law Enforcement approach does a better job of preparing you for the aftermath of stopping a terrorist attack.

Once you've caught the bastards... then what? It wasn't always the case that you could hold high profile suspects incommunicado for years at a time without a trial or even charges being brought against them. That kind of Gov't action defeats all the things that the Constitution stands for.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by ScentCone · 2006-10-06 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I suspect you don't really know what you're talking about and are just repeating what you think and what you've heard.

You suspect incorrectly.

The most recent "liquid explosives on a plane" threat was halted through good old fashioned British Police work.

Yes. That, and overseas eavesdropping and counter-terrorism intel from people in several other countries, backed up by more communcations monitoring. The arrests, involving UK nationals on their soil, absolutely were best handled in a law enforcement framework... but the people on the other end of the money and explosives training trail, overseas, do not have some nightstick-and-a-whistle Bobby on their tails. Not hardly.

which was that the Law Enforcement approach does a better job of preparing you for the aftermath of stopping a terrorist attack

Even if that were true (which probably depends on a lot of circumstances), that doesn't make it the only thing to do. The aftermath of the death of thousands of people still involves the deaths of thousands of people and a huge economic hit. Prepare for the aftermath, but stop it from happening in the first place, too. You can't stop everything, but the more sophisticated plots, or those that are aimed at, say, damaging a large port facility or releasing some bio-nastiness or radiological stain in a big urban center cannot be about after-the-fact prosecution. In any way that matters, that's always too late.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Legion303 · 2006-10-06 02:42 · Score: 1

"But when you're dealing with someone that's planning on driving a handful of truck bombs up to a refinery or shipping port, you have to act. Usually on very, very short notice."

Such as the 72-hour retroactive window FISA gives law enforcement to apply for a warrant after the tapping, you mean?

You retards are easy.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by will_die · 2006-10-06 04:30 · Score: 1

the government can forbid you from telling anyone about it's secret searches, thereby denying judicial recourse
You are allowed to talk to a lawyer, provided that it is not the lawyer that is being investigated, there is no disagreement on that. One of the proposed changes when the USPATRIOT act was being re-voted on was to include language mentioning that, the disagreement was that all the other laws which probit speaking on an investiaged person did not mention it.
All the US PATRIOT act does is add terrorism to a list of other crimeswhere it is against the law for you to call and offer to sell info to the person that they are being investiaged nor can are they allowed to spread rumors in the community that you are being investiaged by the police.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by ScentCone · 2006-10-06 05:05 · Score: 1

Such as the 72-hour retroactive window FISA gives law enforcement to apply for a warrant after the tapping, you mean?

No. As in, you find out from the laptop you got from the guy you caught at 3:00AM that there's something being planned for a ship coming in closer to sunrise. Most intel of that sort, and the trail it provides to the live use of things like disposable Trac phones, is stale later the same day you get it. Less so, of course, if you've got a nice rich database to immediately show the network of recent international calls one corner of which you've just uncovered. But that means pre-fetching and thoroughly indexing that data before you're suddenly worried about which speedboat in a harbor's facilities, fueled up with whose stolen credit card, tied to which student at a school in Munich with a frequently called "uncle" who lives in Baltimore, is the one with the suicide bombers waiting for the tanker. 72 hours is your clean-up time, not your prevention time.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Shadowlore · 2006-10-06 08:58 · Score: 1

Every time a case such as this, or any other criticism of the Bush administration's policies regarding terrorism comes up, we hear all but the exact same thing: We need this [power | program | law] to fight terrorism. [If you disagree, you must support the terrorists.] Why is it that we never get to hear exactly why [power | program | law] is necessary to stop terrorists? I guess they're assuming that if they beat the drum of "We need this!!!1" long and hard enough people will believe it.

This is limited to neither Bush, nor "national security". We see this in virtually everything the government does or wants to do. 'These subsidies will make our [lobby group] stronger", "this afterschool program will make kids stronger", "this gun registration bill will stop school shootings", "this bill will stop capaign finance corruption", "this bill will help the poor", "this tax increase will help the poor", "this bill helps minorities" and so on.

I'd wager that the people we elect to "know" these things don't have a clue how the proposals allegedly work. The government is essentially about increasing it's power. The only difference between the existing parties is the priority assigned to the various powers and the language used to get their bills passed. When some of the powers the Patriot Act granted were billed as supporting the common man against the big corporation, Democrats supported them and Republicans who opposed them were on the side of the big nasty corporations and against "the little guy". When those same powers were/are packaged as a matter of national security, the tables are reversed.

When the Republicans wanted tighter immigration controls the Democrats opposed them as being racially motivated. When the Democrats charge the current amdinistration with not doing enough to "secure our borders", the tables are reversed and fighting tighter immigration controls are tantamount to wanting open borders and allowing terrorists into the country.

These are all symptoms of the same problem. Said problem being that they don't think about the full ramifications and risks of their proposals -if at all- and act solely for personal gain nearly all of the time. This is true of both Republicans and Democrats. To a lesser extent it is true for all political parties.

yet when "terrorists" come up, certain people who have all rules and regulations disappear.
...terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, opposing political groups, militias...

--
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by plasmacutter · 2006-10-06 14:59 · Score: 1

Who cares? The whole point of most counter-terrorism efforts is to stop the events from happening in the first place.

Minority report anyone?

As with anything in this world, security has a diminishing marginal return.

You can't stop absolutely everything from happening, and the programs being put into place now are destroying the very liberties we hold dear for a gain in security which is intangible at best, and counterproductive at worst.

Further, it's completely illogical.

Certain factions are trying to characterize border protection as "vital to national security".. but apparently it's only so with the mexican border.
Canada hasn't implemented any of these gross oversteps in governmental power, but we don't need a fence or military presence there apparently even though there are a lot more tracts of unsecured border with our "insecure" northern neighbor.

These programs have already been abused by the government in attempts to find and harrass confidential sources and the journalists they supply information to, because apparently a free press is "betraying our country".. and by "our country" they mean the most extreme right fringe of the republican party.

Make no mistake. these programs are less about security and more about one party trying to gain absolute power by any dirty means necessary, weather it be fake astroturfing campaigns a-la "swiftboat" and "hands off the internet" to keep the public mesmerized or the completely disregard of wide swaths of the US constitution.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:Arguments for this are getting^Wstale. by Legion303 · 2006-10-06 20:44 · Score: 1

"No. As in, you find out from the laptop you got from the guy you caught at 3:00AM that there's something being planned for a ship coming in closer to sunrise. Most intel of that sort, and the trail it provides to the live use of things like disposable Trac phones, is stale later the same day you get it."

I'm not sure which part of "retroactive for 72 hours" you aren't getting.

"72 hours is your clean-up time, not your prevention time."

Oh, you do get it. What was your argument, then?

So you dont believe in the founding principles? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 14:44 · Score: 0

What about the founding principles .. that ALL humans have unalienable rights endowed by the creator (read Declaration of independence)?

So now we saying we don't believe that there are inherent universal rights? Other humans don't deserve the rights espoused in the bill of rights? Are we going to gloss over that the constitution says "persons" in many instances?

What's it say of someone's character if they think that people gain certain "privileges" and rights to live are based merely on inheritance. Seems to me this stands against the very ideals that brought about the US (read dec. of independence, common sense by thomas paine etc) ?

Btw, what do you mean enforce the consitution? Afaik, the consititution is something that RESTRICTS the government from acting at will on people. So the constitution is something enforced on oneself.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by E++99 · 2006-10-05 14:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Does it specifically mention any specific "people"? No, because it applies to all people.

You're right. However, note that it specifically applies itself to tangible property that can be messed with or taken. There was no less spying or eavesdropping when the amendment was written, but the amendment is carefully addressing a distinct issue. Now I relize that the supreme court has decided that this amendment means everything up to and including that babies are fair game for dismemberment until their head clears the birth canal... however, the Constitution requires the president to take an oath of loyalty to what the Constitution actually says.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by Elemenope · 2006-10-05 14:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

My turn to go, 'wait...what?'

If your assertion is true, then there is nothing wrong with US troops in Berlin searching the homes of German citizens. After all, the violation of rights occurs outside of American territory.

There IS nothing wrong, according to American Law with that scenario (assuming the order was given legally through the chain of command). The 4th Amendment to USCon does not protect German citizens in Berlin. What DOES protect the German citizens in Berlin is International Law (specifically the concept of National sovereignty), and also, incidentally, the German Military. I imagine that German law also looks down pretty poorly upon foreign armies executing searches on citizens in their country.

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)

This is not America... by Eggplant62 · 2006-10-05 14:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

America died several years ago. Welcome to the Corporate States of North America and the White Western World.

Re:This is not America... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 19:21 · Score: 0

you killed it

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-10-05 14:57 · Score: 1

Perhaps the founding fathers didn't feel the need to reiterate that the Bill of Rights was a guideline for them to interact with the world as well as their own citizens because they already held it was a self evident truth that all men are created equal.

In other words by Kohath · 2006-10-05 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

In other words, the appeals court ruled that the original court's decision was likely-enough to be overturned that it should not be enforced until the appeal could be heard.

It's so unconstitutional that the appeals court is going to rule that ... it's not unconstitutional at all.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by ScentCone · 2006-10-05 15:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

it is also impossible to expect immigrants to throw away their entire identity just for the privilege of living here

You're positing a false dichotemy, there. There's a lot of room in between "coming to America and leaving your entire identity and culture behind" and "coming to America and doing your best to make the local courts practice Sharia law" (as an example... a more mild example might be to change the centuries-long practice of presenting certain government documents and services in a single language and start adjusting the prevailing society around the immigrants, rather than asking the immigrants to adjust (not abandon) their ways around the prevailing society.

One wag mentioned this, in regards to France, these days: it's not that Moroccans want to move to France, it's that they want to move Morrocco to France.

Liberty and Freedom are not for everyone, in that view.

True, they aren't for everyone. They're for the people willing to pay the price of liberty and freedom, and those willing to take the responsibilities (like, say, taxes) that are part of that framework. For example, people who break the law, rather than taking their turn to immigrate, aren't exactly committing themselves to the responsibility side of the equation.

I see that sort of veiled racism all the time

You're confusing frustration over what people do (or don't) with what color they are.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

As If This Is A New Concern? by Smackintosh · 2006-10-05 15:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Honestly, I fully expect that the U.S. government has been doing this type of surveillance for as long as it has technically been possible. How is anyone shocked or surprised by this?

I only think that in today's age of technology, political correctness, and softness that it has actually been dragged out into the public for debate, whereas in the past it was simply done when it was deemed necessary, and no one questioned it.

Of course, the fear is that the power will be abused. In some cases it will. That is inevitable. However, I say the good outweighs the bad. But that's just me.

Re:As If This Is A New Concern? by Kohath · 2006-10-05 15:37 · Score: 1

How is anyone shocked or surprised by this?

Pretentiously. As in they're pretending to be shocked and surprised to trick paranoid folks into thinking Karl Rove is listening to their thoughts. He won't stop until he's rounded up you and all your friends and waterboraded you at camp X-ray for wearing that Che Guevara shirt when you were 17.

Already Unconstitutional... ?? by ltmdweaver · 2006-10-05 15:08 · Score: 0

"It appears that the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless surveillance program being conducted by the Bush Administration can continue until an appeals court can hear the case, according to an AP article. The 6th Circuit ruled that while the lower court had ruled the program was unconstitutional, they felt that the case's chances before the appeals court and the possible danger to national security warranted their decision to let it continue despite the likelihood that the appeal process will take months." Is it really unconstitutional? Controversial... yepp... potentially warrantless (or at least unwarranted - ;-) ) but is it really unconstitutional?? mdw ;-)

Political Garbage by Aceheaton · 2006-10-05 15:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

What warrants this obviously lefty post on Slashdot? Am I the only conservative on Slashdot that actually wants to WIN against the terrorists? You can talk all day long about how many civil rights you protected at all funerals you will be attending if we DON'T do the surveillance. I am so tired of a weak, shortsided view that left winged politicians use as their foundation for "peace" that I can hardly watch the news anymore. You that disagree deserve what will happen to you. The terrorists can only win if we let them, and right now that is exactly what we are doing. What a weak country the USA is becoming. I hope the trend can be reversed!!!

Re:Political Garbage by Guitarhero1000 · 2006-10-05 15:20 · Score: 1

Maybe your missing the point. It's not about SECUIRTY or PROTECTING AMERICA. Bottom line, if a terrorist wants to do another 911 they will. We cant stop them, only detour. The topic is about U.S. Citizens civil rights. If you dont agree with that, then you deserve what will happen to YOU. "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -Benjamin franklin. Uncontitutional, wrong, fashist. YES

--
How the hell did I get such bad karma? I blame the meds...
Re:Political Garbage by TheDreadSlashdotterD · 2006-10-05 15:25 · Score: 0

You really want to win against the terrorists?

Seriously, do you?

If yes, then live your life as you normally would if the towers hadn't fallen.

That's it. If you live your life, and everyone does the same, and you don't worry about "the evil terrorist next door" then we've beaten them. If we stop borrowing from other countries to finance stupid wars, then we've beaten them. If we live, day to day, and help one another when life turns upside-down, then we've beaten them. The only thing we are accomplishing right now is letting the terrorists win. People like you are afraid, so we've already lost.

For the record, I am not a liberal or conservative. I'm just a guy tired of this bullshit.

--
I have nothing to say.
Re:Political Garbage by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:25 · Score: 0

Since when is the Constitution "lefty"? Freedom a little too hippie for you?
Re:Political Garbage by Smackintosh · 2006-10-05 15:33 · Score: 1

If it weren't about security or protecting America why would the policy even be considered then? Seriously?

Of course the terrorists have wanted to do another 9/11. They have been making attempts since 9/11/2001 ended and 9/12/2001 dawned. I'm glad they haven't been successful for a five year period. And I'm also pretty sure some of the lack of success has been due to changes in policy and actions taken by our government. The purpose of the U.S. government isn't solely to screw its citizens over, regardless of what the paranoid may think.

We can't stop the terrorists, only detour? That's the most defeatist attitude I've ever heard. We might as well just give up now and accept the fact that terrorist acts are fine, reasonable, expected, and acceptable. Let's just not do anything. Let's detour.
Re:Political Garbage by Kohath · 2006-10-05 15:42 · Score: 1

What warrants this obviously lefty post on Slashdot?

You must be new here.
Re:Political Garbage by toddestan · 2006-10-05 15:48 · Score: 1

You can talk all day long about how many civil rights you protected at all funerals you will be attending if we DON'T do the surveillance.

What's wrong with going ahead and doing the surveillance, but getting a warrant for it too? It's not like we don't already have a procedure already set up for the specific purpose of rubberstamping warrants. The FISA court has approved 99.8% of all warrant requests - if they are going after a suspected terrorist they should have no problem getting a warrant under the current situation. I see absolutely no purpose in granting these powers to the government, the only thing the government is going to do with them is abuse them.
Re:Political Garbage by Guitarhero1000 · 2006-10-05 15:55 · Score: 1

Genius. We can stop them?. How? You can't. We will never be able to STOP them completely. Theres always going to be terrorists, and always will be. But violating the constitution is not an option. To the bush administration you are the terrorist. http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id= 16337 Open your eyes.

--
How the hell did I get such bad karma? I blame the meds...
Re:Political Garbage by GrumblyStuff · 2006-10-05 15:56 · Score: 1

Look, you stupid twit, terrorism is a tactic. It's not an ideal. It's not a people. It's not defeatable.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, they already won. Look at you, quaking in your piss soaked boots. OMG TERRORISTS ARE IN THE SHRUBS OUT FRONT! Oh, wait. That's the neightbor's cat. I HOPE IT'S NOT PLOTTING AGAINST AMERICA.

It's people like you who are freaking out over NOTHING. 3,000(ish) died on 9/11? How many other's died that same day from preventable accidents going to work, at work, and coming home? Heart attacks? Cancer? Various illnesses?

Quit fucking freaking out and thinking that being on camera and recorded 24/7 will keep you safe, that being tracked 24/7 everywhere you go and everyone you meet will keep you safe. That's power in the hands of people who may be worse than terrorists, who, if not now, could become that and there's no legal recourse to stop them. Think all you want about that line and what an "appeaser" that makes me but I'd sooner live my life free than at the mercy of those who proclaim to protect us.
Re:Political Garbage by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 16:27 · Score: 1

>funerals you will be attending if we DON'T do the surveillance

And here's what those funerals will be about:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/06s0 108.xls

It's crucial to notice that doing surveillance is *not* the issue. The question is whether the executive can bug people without cause and without any judge knowing about it. There has been no controversy about legitimate, national-security-related spying. If you have heard otherwise, it is because someone told you a cold-blooded lie in order to manipulate you. Remember John 8:32 and fight back.
Re:Political Garbage by NormalVisual · 2006-10-05 16:29 · Score: 2, Informative

What warrants this obviously lefty post on Slashdot

It's not a "lefty" post - I'm probably closer to a libertarian than anything else, and when it comes to my views on stuff like gun control I imagine that I'd make most right-wingers look like card-carrying members of the Brady bunch.

I just don't have the unconditional (and provably unwarranted) faith in government, be it either Democrat or GOP, that a lot of aforementioned right-wingers do, and I also look at the number of people that died in the 9/11 attacks, then compare that to those things that we continue to tolerate that kill a lot more people, like drunk driving.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Political Garbage by Smackintosh · 2006-10-05 16:31 · Score: 1

Look, you stupid twit, terrorism is a tactic. It's not an ideal. It's not a people. It's not defeatable.

Please, how about refraining from the childish insults? Stupid twit? Kids these days. We should be able to differ in opinion and not resort to silly unpleasantries. This is /. though, so I guess we'll find out.

If you actually read my post, I didn't say terrorism could be stopped, I said terrorists. That assumes a person or group of people being stopped from committing specific, heinous acts. You know, like the group of men who hijacked the planes and crashed them into the big buildings. I think had a bit more surveillance been done with a little better organization, that entire episode in this country's history could have been prevented. I don't think that's too hard a concept to grasp.

Apparently I'm freaking out though. I'm sorry, fucking freaking out. Over nothing. And I guess people dying of natural causes can be equated to the murder of thousands of innocent, healthy people and destruction of billions of dollars of property. In fact, it's strangely the same thing. I believe I'm starting to come around to your line of thinking. It makes so much sense.

Live your life 'at the mercy' of those who claim to protect you? That's some pretty cynical stuff right there. If you have that attitude, you might as well rid every city in the U.S. of the police forces as Lord knows they're doing more harm than good. I'm not going to live my life on their whimsy!
Re:Political Garbage by SinGunner · 2006-10-05 16:39 · Score: 1

I would argue with you, but you think "left winged" and "shortsided" are proper. Learn the simple and beautiful nature of your own language before you try to learn the complex, twisted and dark nature of your fellow men.
Re:Political Garbage by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 17:22 · Score: 0

> Am I the only conservative on Slashdot that actually wants to WIN against the terrorists? You can talk all day long about how many civil rights you protected at all funerals you will be attending if we DON'T do the surveillance.
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
- Osama bin Laden, October 21, 2001.
> The terrorists can only win if we let them, and right now that is exactly what we are doing. What a weak country the USA is becoming. I hope the trend can be reversed!!!
So do I. Unfortunately for me, I'm an American, and we lost the war to the likes of you.
Re:Political Garbage by michajoe · 2006-10-05 19:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I believe your post was indeed intended to be "Funny", let me just make one observation, just in case you were being serious:

Wake up, the terrorists have already won. What happened to your "freedom" and "liberties"?

Welcome to the United Police States of America!
Re:Political Garbage by rswail · 2006-10-05 21:04 · Score: 1

A true "conservative" believes in the rule of law and not in a vague "War" on a noun or tactic. Can you explain exactly how we "win" this so-called war?

It is not a war. What terrorists do is illegal. They conspire to carry out acts to commit murder, cause death and grevious bodily harm to others. There are plenty of laws, local, state, federal and international that cover these activities, along with the associated penalties and punishments.

In the UK, it was police actions that caught IRA bombers and courts where thew were prosecuted and sentenced.

In the 90s, it was police action that caught the Trade Center bombers and courts where they were prosecuted and sentenced.

In the Oklahoma bombings, it was police action that caught McVeigh and his cohorts and courts where they were prosecuted and sentenced.

In Indonesia, it was police action that caught the Bali bombers and courts that sentenced them to death.

What the terrorists want is to cause fear and panic. They want to cause us to throw out our hardwon and defended rights and freedoms.

You are right, the terrorists can only win if we let them, and right now, under this administration, with its ill-defined and badly executed strategies and tactics, that is exactly what we are doing.
Re:Political Garbage by Aceheaton · 2006-10-06 03:01 · Score: 1

Illegal?? That is the most asinine comment I have ever heard. We are at WAR. There isn't a criminal element at all. This comment is EXACTLY what is wrong, and why we won't win. Sure, lets send the police over and they will resolve the problem. Unbelievable!
Re:Political Garbage by mutterc · 2006-10-06 03:32 · Score: 1

Am I the only conservative on Slashdot

Maybe.

Seriously, I say let them go ahead and wiretap, with judicial oversight. Right now anyone can be declared a "terrorist", disappeared and killed with no oversight or accountability.

To take a cynical political example, how long before someone organizing a boycott of a major campaign contributor is declared an "economic terrorist", whisked off into military custody and disappeared? The way things are going, there's no legal framework whatsoever to prevent this. The President declared that person an "enemy combatant", and there can be no debate. (A leak to the media might help, if people get outraged enough, but people seem to be getting outrage fatigue these days).

At least if there's judicial oversight, some judge could stand up and say "no, these powers are being used inappropriately", then block the action, when such abuses occur.
Re:Political Garbage by funwithBSD · 2006-10-06 04:04 · Score: 1

Some important differences here:

Criminals seek to break laws for their own gain. The guy who killed little girls this week is a criminal.

Terrorism is when they have the aim of not only their own gain but the replacement of the current governments with their own. In the case of Muslim terrorist, a world wide Caliphate.

Other terrorists, such as the Unibomber, wanted to remove ALL forms of government, but he is still a terrorist.
McVey was another domestic terrorist, he wanted to overthrow the Administration at the time, not for personal gain.

Yes, they are sometimes proscuted under criminal law, because their acts are crimes against society.

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Re:Political Garbage by JhohannaVH · 2006-10-06 05:03 · Score: 1

No, you are not, and I think it's tragic and sad that they modded your post Funny.

I tell ya, I am so sick of the shit the liveral leftist pinko commie bastards are pulling right now that I want to scream my head off, and believe me, I *have* been. No matter that this has PROVEN to stop terror attacks and capture terrorists, they still wonk on about it with their lies and deceptions and half-truths, all so full of hatred it would make Voldemort embarassed. And to top it off with a sex scandal because those of us who are smart enough to know the truth KNOW better, and can see right through it (not that the Foley scandal ISN'T disgusting, but it's being handled with grace and class that repeat-sex-offending Democrats have NEVER had and reelected them 5,6,7 times. And sadly enough, because that's the only way to get at the Christian RightWing Fundies... they'll get the results they want. Truth, dignity, and respect be damned. Let alone common decency.

I'm terrified for the future of our country, especially if the fucking whiny baby-boomers take over our governments. They don't know anything BUT whining, quitting, and self-serving. They have never cared about the next generation, or the future - else we wouldn't *BE* going through this today.

I do have to say I have not been happy with *everything* George W. Bush has done, and I disagree with him heavily on immigration and globalization, and even some homeland security matters. But I support him for the sole reason that he is fighting the War on Terror, and winning, though it may seem differently because of the liberal media bias. Again...this is not new, and cost us Vietnam. If that is one lesson that our leadership *ever* learnt about that shithole, I would think it's to IGNORE THE MEDIA! There's a REASON that no terror attacks have killed American Citizens on US Soil, and if other countries thought a little bit more about what we have done, perhaps there would not have been a Madrid, a Bali, a London, or even a Mumbai. But no, thousands have continued to die in lieu of STANDING UP.

You've got this conservative in your corner... A true red, Goldwater Conservative too, not one of these tainted Fundie, backstabbing, Authoritarian Neo-cons, either. Our party and our movement has been hijacked, much as Islam has by their own fundamentalists, and I am clueless as yet as to how to take it back. And it is for that reason alone that I refuse to drop my Republican Party registration, as I have been wont to do often in the past few months... but I know, in my heart of hearts, that we can bring it back to the middle, and to reality and to sense. We just have to figure out how....

--
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
Re:Political Garbage by JhohannaVH · 2006-10-06 05:08 · Score: 1

And what YOU are missing is that each and every one of those police actions were *AFTER* people DIED. How preventative is that?????? I'm sorry, but I'd rather live than die because some cop can't spit out his fucking donut in time to save my life. Our safety (as well as our LIBERTY) is each individual's responsibility, NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. The sooner people learn this, the sooner we might just get ahead of these fuckers.

--
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
Re:Political Garbage by JhohannaVH · 2006-10-06 05:11 · Score: 1

F. U. D. and lies... F. U. D. AND LIES!!!!!!!!

Source of the article are ANARCHISTS that would seek to end all government. Get a clue, know your backgrounds and research your facts before posting this tripe.

--
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
Re:Political Garbage by Chelloveck · 2006-10-06 06:57 · Score: 1

Am I the only conservative on Slashdot that actually wants to WIN against the terrorists?

No, but you may be the only one here naive enough to think it's possible.
We can't win against the terrorists. Why? Because "terrorists" aren't a specific body of people. No matter how many you catch and lock up, more always show up. Terrorism isn't a nation which can surrender to you, and the fighting will be over. Terrorists can be anyone, from al-Qaeda to the IRA to Palestinians to Timothy McVeigh to the Unibomber. No matter what you do, there will always be someone willing to blow up a building to make a political statement.
Should we roll over? No, of course not. But it's not worthwhile to trash the Geneva Convention and the Constitution to wipe out terrorists, because it simply can't be done. Even in a complete police state there will be someone who can get his hands on some fertilizer and fuel, or some anthrax spores, or even a bloody 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke and some Mentos and cause mayhem. Hell, they don't even have to do anything, just make the suggestion that they could. The mayhem ensues as we fall all over ourselves to remove our shoes in the airports, throw out our toothpaste, and submit to searches whenever we go into a sports stadium. That's not winning. We'll "win" when we can get back to our lives without compromising the principles on which this country and international law are based.
I feel sick every time I hear someone say, "Well, things are different now after 9/11." The only reason they're different is because we let them be. And that's not the fault of any terrorist, that's the fault of ourselves and our duly elected leaders.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Re:Political Garbage by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 07:14 · Score: 0

You like him because he's winning the war on terror. ...

Not much of a thinker are you?

You seem to think you know something about 'war', this one in particular. That is, you know who's winning it. So maybe you can tell me.

How many soldiers does terror have?
How many weapons?
Where are their troops?
What is their command structure, their ranks?
What nations do they call home, who's taxes fund them?

You cannot answer those questions. Why? Because terrorism has no army. This is NOT A WAR AGAINST MEN.

this is a war against ideas, against concepts.

Have you ever stopped to think what it must take to convince a person to fly across an ocean, come to another country, for the express purpose of ending their own life there and hurt others? Only two kinds of people can do that; the sociopathicaly insane (rare as hell) and the hardcore brainwashed with nothing else to live for.

George isn't winning a war, he's fueling one. This careless and worthless and unwarranted war in iraq has spread the idea of terrorism throughout the middle east, raising sympathy for al-qaeda and it's like among sunni and shi'ite muslims alike.

It's deprived some of the religious of their homes, jobs, children and loved one. ie: it's created people with nothing else to live for. It's created more terrorists. And don't take this post to think i'm arguing with you, that would imply I hold enough stock in your words to grant them a veneer of plausibility. I'm attempting to enlighten you, even though it's too late to undo what's been done.

You want to win the war on terror? End misery worldwide. All of it. And implement a eugenics program to catch the sociopaths. Sound ugly? Unfeasible? That's because it is. There will always be hurt people, there will always be crazy people. There always has been, and as long as government has not become criticaly broken, their impact is negligible.

only 3000 some odd people died in 9/11.

You want to put an end to our current crop of miscreants? Really? Heres how:

Resource Deprivation:

First off, legalize heroin, morphine, opium and all opium derivatives. Make them low-cost or free, available to be used in government facilities where the user will be watched and left in comfort.

Second off, cut down on our oil usage.

Third off, take the entire navy and coast guard and drop them in the persian gulf for anti-smuggler support; make a sea-born customs 'office' that screens for contraband cargo.

This will cripple them financially and pretty quickly bankrupt the parties currently offering financial backing to the terrorist parties that concern us most.

Motivation Deprivation:

These are mostly simple human beings, like us, willing to follow, scared to lead. Begin a program to take out their leaders. Get a ethnicaly sensitive commitee to gauge popular opinion and politics surrounding each one. Assasinate the ones you can without making martyrs, and counter the others by going to their home countries with un-uniformed military members of the same skin color/ethnic background as the natives there. Have each wear a simple insignia identifying them as americans, and have each be model citizens working to raise the quality of living in that area and support the local religion as loudly as possible.

Hate sells well, but doesn't resell well. Keep these people happy, keep them comfy, and they will be unwilling to throw their lives away to hurt an enemy they've never met or seen.

You want to win a war on terror, you fight an idea by proving it wrong. You show the masses in the middle east that we aren't demons, that we aren't interested in squashing their way of life. You don't kill their families, justify it by your foreign values that mean nothing to them, and walk away after pinning a yellow ribbon on their shirts for their losses.

If you want to understand bush, understand america, understand the world today... all you have to do is r

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by Elemenope · 2006-10-05 15:15 · Score: 1

Except for the ones with dark skin, right? They were 3/5ths as equal, IIRC. Except for the natives. They get dick. Otherwise, sure. All men, created equal, just like you said.

Let us please remember that, for all its florid prose, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a propaganda tool to drum up support against an unpopular king an ocean away. Please don't forget that a shooting war of rebellion had already started with England nearly a year before at Concord and Lexington, and a guerilla 'terrorist' war in Rhode Island a year-and-a-half before that.

The Constitution, on the other hand, is the law of the land, and it completely gives this game away.

--
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by Alwin+Henseler · 2006-10-05 15:16 · Score: 5, Funny

If your constitution is out of date (..)

Actually, the current version is outdated but that isn't a problem since no-one uses it anyway.

Only In America... by flight_master · 2006-10-05 15:20 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Does the government know what you eat, when you sleep, what you read, work on, and even what pr0n you look at... But no, seriously - For a country as firmly rooted in "free speech", "freedom of expression" and "freedom of thought" - this really is pathetic.
Just get rid of the Republicans already!

Sincerely, A Concerned Canadian

--
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.

Finally, omniscience arrives by misanthrope101 · 2006-10-05 15:31 · Score: 1

Hey, God! We've been waiting for you! Where have you been all this time? We've all been late to work once in a while, but when you do a half-assed job in the first place, then jet for 2000 years, people find it hard to give you the benefit of the doubt. I can only cover for you for so long.

Why is there evil in the world, and what's up with that duck-billed platypus? Was that just a joke, or were you pulling our leg on that one?

Or... well, now that I think about it, I feel a bit sheepish. Is it possible you aren't really God, not really omniscient, and really just sort of an arrogant simpleton? Are you just one of those guys who pretends to know more than they do, out of a grossly inflated sense of their own perspicacity? Man, to think I've been living a lie for the last 45 seconds of my life. I feel so disillusioned! You used me!

Kinda biased post by javac · 2006-10-05 15:32 · Score: 2, Informative

It seems that the law may ne be as clear as the person who posted this lead us to believe. Here is someone who can make legal arguments much more effectively than I (powerline)

I believe the argument here is that cangress cannot make a law that limits constitutional authority granted to the executive branch, this would require amending the constitution. As I put it, they make a much better argument than I. However, I was just hopeing to put this in perspective

Re:Kinda biased post by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 17:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

That is the line the administration's lawyers have been taking.

The Constitution spells out the President's powers down to such minutiae as "he shall receive ambassadors". Unlike the Bill of Rights, it's an exhaustive list. The Founders knew how to write and they knew how to implement a kingship. If they'd wanted the President to be able to spy on Americans without any check and balance from the judiciary, they would have said so.

"Commander in Chief" is a title Hamilton took pains to distinguish from the British King's powers. It was deliberate and careful design that left Congress with exclusive power to declare war, to raise armies, and to regulate the armed services. That last is in Article I Section 8, "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces". This is why administration attorney John Yoo was dead wrong when he said that Congress can't outlaw torture. This is why Congress can regulate the NSA.
Re:Kinda biased post by mikelieman · 2006-10-05 23:01 · Score: 1

"congress cannot make a law that limits constitutional authority granted to the executive branch, this would require amending the constitution."

That is true.

However, the Executives authority IS LIMITED TO those things SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.

In other words, Bush might be the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and Organized Federal Militias, but he ain't the Commander in Chief of any CIVILIANS.

And, since he's not PERMITTED in the Constitution to conduct Domestic Surveillance, it's wrong.

--
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Re:Kinda biased post by javac · 2006-10-06 01:36 · Score: 1

The constitution gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and somehow that is justification for making medical marijuana illigal. There is also a body of case law that these decisions depend on and that case law is important. I do agree that people do extend and embrace the constitution.
Re:Kinda biased post by mikelieman · 2006-10-06 02:41 · Score: 1

So you're saying it's NOT in there.

--
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org

FISC doesn't handle lawsuits, frivolous or not by misanthrope101 · 2006-10-05 15:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

You do know, of course, that the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, frivilous or not, was not seen in the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)? You must know that slip-n-sue lawsuits, though irritating and probably jacking up the price of our apple sauce, are not competing for time in judge's chambers with efforts to get warrants to catch terrorists?

Are you kidding? Where do you people come from? I mean, I've made some bone-headed statements in my life, but I do generally try to research something before I spew it forth.

Being wrong is one thing--everyone makes mistakes--but to say that frivolous lawsuits are hampering the war on terror, causing the Executive Branch to jettison the need for warrants altogether, is so far in left (by that I mean right) field that I must infer that you really are a space alien.

Re:FISC doesn't handle lawsuits, frivolous or not by TubeSteak · 2006-10-05 17:05 · Score: 1

I think you missed his point*:
Any lawsuit limiting national security powers is a frivolous law suit...

I do agree with the conclusion, assuming he's referring to FISA: "The correct solution is to fix the system to handle more volume (or reduce the volume) -- not simply bypass the system of checks and balances because it's inconvenient."

Though I would argue that Bush & Co have done exactly what was suggested: reduce the volume... except they had to bypass FISA to do it.

*Unless his point was something else entirely, but I can't imagine what.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

One more... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:42 · Score: 0

5) Blame "activist judges" for killing it in step 4, even though you and your father and his boss appointed most of them.

you are on Slashdot, but you aren't a conservative by misanthrope101 · 2006-10-05 15:47 · Score: 1

Am I the only conservative on Slashdot that actually wants to WIN against the terrorists?

Am I the only conservative on Slashdot who actually believes in limited government and the rule of law? Warrants are nothing more than oversight, a part of the checks and balances system to guard against abuse of power. No one left, right, or center, has opined that the President should not authorize surveillance. The issue is not whether or not the government taps phone calls, but whether or not they need a warrant before doing so. Without the intermediate step of getting a warrant, there is no oversight, and nothing to prevent wholesale targeted surveillance of political opponents, pesky protest groups, etc.

By what stretch of the imagination do you call yourself a conservative? Does that just mean "gay marriage is bad?" It used to mean fiscal responsibility, small government, etc. How can you call yourself by that time-honored name and still advocate removing such a significant check on government power? Conservatives understand that government is inimical to freedom. What are you, and why do you think that's what you are?

Statements of opinion are ALWAYS fact by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 15:54 · Score: 0

He did. He used the word "I" and not just a catagorical reference. This is a statement of personal experience. Saying that every statement has been this way is quite different than saying that every one he has seen is this way.

If you must disagree, call him a liar and say that you know what he has seen and remembers seeing. Of course, that would make you seem pretty silly wouldn't it?

I hate to contribute to this sort of discussion, just couldn't stand it. Okay, so I'll post anonymously. I'll get 0 mod or even moderated down. It makes me feel better to know that people likely won't see this comment unless they want to. It just lets me sleep better to know that somebody said something about the inaccuracy even if it never gets widely read.

Ron Paul by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 15:57 · Score: 1

Vote every one of them out of there, except Ron Paul.

If I lived in Paul's district in Texas I'd definitely vote for him. I already have once, when he ran for president in 1992.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

abortions by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 16:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Now I relize that the supreme court has decided that this amendment means everything up to and including that babies are fair game for dismemberment until their head clears the birth canal...

Wrong! The USSC in Roe v Wade specifically setup the trimester idea. During the first trimester the state can't block abortions. I don't recall what the rules are for the second trimester but the state can block abortions in the third trimester.

To test whether some one is really pro choice or wants to dictate is by asking them to support abortions in the third trimester if the woman's lfe is in danger. If they won't allow an abortion even if the person's life is at risk then they don't really support life.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

translation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

"national security" -> "coverups for high crimes and misdemeanors"

It's well past time people recognized the US is now an occupied government, taken over in a series of "stealth" coups, some violent, like the 9-11 reichstagg fire event, some non violent like the blackbox voting hijacks. This alleged government-more properly called a "dictatorship" by anyone who has any shred of decency left and can look at all the available evidence, is run like a huge mafia-like organization. That's it in a simple nutshell, it's a violent armed gang. Now I know this sucks, this really sucks, even contemplating it sucks, but it needs to be done. Ostrich head in the sand action is not working to get anything fixed back to just partially corrupt and rotten like the good old days. That was normal and tolerable - but today? The assaults on freedoms, the rape of the economy, the further divisions into the "above the law-connected rich elite" with government ties vs everyone else is simply unacceptable. It's a fraud, a lie and a clear and present danger.

For the remaining innocent and honest people in government, comes a time you have to fish or cut bait-you are either with the fascists or you aren't. For people outside of government-do what you can, try to get the hacked voting fixed and then vote every single incumbent OUT before it is too late for even that to maybe work. They are corrupt and bribed off and blackmailed off. The only change we have seen with the combined crew in there now is for the worse, and anyone can see that. They will not, and can not, and may not do any better than that.

The fix is in, look at last weeks 100% senate vote for the stripping of the remaining rights, quickly overshadowed and knocked off the news headlines by the relatively trivial congressional pervert "news". Ever notice all the critical votes have some distractions always appear? Something for the coup plotters to use to remind the "elected representatives" who really runs tings? that's what the pervert outing was. Remember the Patriot act original vote and the *conveniently timed* alleged "terrorist" anthrax attacks? Same thing. And this doesn't make people suspicious? please..

This... so called legalization of the pure military dictatorship package they passed is obscene and is part of their coverups for the high crimes and misdemeanors, and a clear indicator of what they have planned that hasn't happened yet.

ANYONE can now be called a "terrorist", by any appointed pseudo-military appointed political tribunal goon and be "disappeared" into the system. If you are aware of your friend or associate getting "disappeared",and dare to tell anyone about it, YOU can be arrested for "terrorism", said label being the magic words they use to dispose of enemies-and believe me, it is just getting started, just like you see in any other tinpot dictatorship which demands complete loyalty to the "leaders" ..or else..

The full senate thought that was a good idea. They voted for it, ALL of them, as did the bulk of the house. They have also clearly warned any judges to "not interfere", which is a clear threat to them to sit down and shutup-"or else". That was a direct threat from the fascist AG to the judges, go look it up, it happened.

Go find any decent legal analysis of the package, google around, they are out there now, you'll see what I have said is just the tame stuff, it is very, very bad. And it is being pushed through this catch-all of "national security".

Funny, but I don't see washington, madison, jefferson, monroe, hale, hancock or franklin agreeing with them, do you? Seems like that was the original idea they thought up, to GET AWAY FROM such a style of government.

Re:Already Unconstitutional... ?? by NormalVisual · 2006-10-05 16:19 · Score: 1

Is it really unconstitutional?

Yes it is, and in the linked article it clearly explains that the lower court judge took 43 pages to explain why she ruled it was.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

not full citizenship by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 16:21 · Score: 1

Except for the ones with dark skin, right? They were 3/5ths as equal, IIRC. Except for the natives. They get dick. Otherwise, sure. All men, created equal, just like you said.

In his first drafts of the Declaration Of Independence Thomas Jefferson included all people not just white men. Though he owned slaves TJ was against slavery and in his early drafts he specifically mentioned slaves as having rights and being freed. He also included the rights of women. But because many others had to approve the DOI these parts were stricken from the final DOI.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by TubeSteak · 2006-10-05 16:22 · Score: 2, Informative

1. Before the invention of the telephone, there were these things called "letters" which people used to convey information back and forth. The FF saw fit to protect these "letters" aka "papers" against unreasonable searches and seizures. Shame on Congress & the Supreme Court for extending that concept.

2a. "however, the Constitution requires the president to take an oath of loyalty to what the Constitution actually says" The Constitution says nothing about a "unitary executive", despite the fact that Bush mentions it in one of his signing statements.

2b. Basing your argument on "what the Constitution actually says" suggests that for every failure of imagination that the founding fathers had, the President gets to make up his own mind.

3. You forgot to mention the part about how the President "shall take care that the laws [passed by the Congress and the Senate] be faithfully executed"

Are you claiming that his oath is to the Constitution means he gets to disregard the Laws of the country & the Supreme Court's interpretation of those laws... cause, in other situations they call that a Dictatorship.

Or is this one of those "It's not Fascism when we do it" kind of things?

This isn't flamebait or a troll, I think I bring up serious, if rather pointed issues.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is quick by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-05 16:32 · Score: 1

It has only one purpose and even issues warrants outside of business hours.

Gack, even the cop on the side of the road who wants to search someone's car can wake up a judge and get a warrant on the spot. And that's going through the regular court system.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by DavidTC · 2006-10-05 16:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Screw California. When did Puerto Rica stop being part of the US? They're citizens!

And, yeah, anyone who thinks immigrants will come in and take out identidy is either a racist or a moron. How many cultures have we chewed up and spit out, again?

Sure, they'll come here, and won't speak English.
Their kids will grow up to be honor students and speak near-perfect English and whatever other language.
Their kids won't speak the other languages, speak English with a local accent, roll their eyes when their grandparents talk about 'the old country', get married to someone their parents disapprove of, and generally be Americans.
Their kids will speak of their 'heritage' and have no clue what they're talking about, imagining a sort of parody of that country gained from old movies.

In 100 years the country might be slightly browner. It might have a few more Spanish words, and it might have a few more Mexican food places.

It will still be America. It will probably have changed in unrecognizable ways, yes, but that will have nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise.

For a country that constantly influences the entire damn world's culture via movies and television, it seems rather egotistical to worry about a single culture, especially one that already 'invaded' the entire Southwest like 100 fucking years ago. It's like worrying about Italian influence, or English influence! Hey, that ship already sailed, dumbasses. We've sucked in so much of their culture we have real Mexican restaurants and fake Mexican restaurants, and 'Mexican' dishes in normal restaurants, just like Italian food.

I wonder how much of this is anti-Catholic.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

illegal imigrants paying taxes by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 16:42 · Score: 2, Informative

True, they aren't for everyone. They're for the people willing to pay the price of liberty and freedom, and those willing to take the responsibilities (like, say, taxes) that are part of that framework. For example, people who break the law, rather than taking their turn to immigrate, aren't exactly committing themselves to the responsibility side of the equation.

You've heard of those 12 million illegal immigrants I bet but I also bet you haven't heard that 8 million of them also pay income and social security taxes. Fact is is that those illegal immigrants help prop up social security because they pay into SS but they won't receive any SS when they "retire" if they do in the US. And yes illegal imigrants pay income tax, in 1996 I believe the IRS specifially setup SSNs illegal immigrants can get so they can get a real job and not just work under the table.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:illegal imigrants paying taxes by geminidomino · 2006-10-05 17:00 · Score: 1

Fact is is that those illegal immigrants help prop up social security because they pay into SS but they won't receive any SS when they "retire" if they do in the US.

Cry me a river. Odds are, I won't either. I've been paying into it since I was 14, and I was born here.
Re:illegal imigrants paying taxes by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 17:34 · Score: 1

Cry me a river. Odds are, I won't either. I've been paying into it since I was 14, and I was born here.

You started a year younger than me, I started paying income taxes at 15. But then again, where I lived you had to be 15 to be put on a company's payroll that you or your parents didn't own. And not only was I born in the US but my dad was in the Air Force when I was born, he retired from the Air Force, and I went into the Army myself. I also have a nephew who's a Marine, and I learned a few days ago he's in Iraq. My sister told me she gets pissed whenever they annouce those who've died there because she's afraid she'll learn he died when she hears it on the news. It's classified as to where he's stationed.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Looking for news site by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 16:42 · Score: 0

Does anyone know of any news sites similar to Slashdot that don't editorialize their stories to this degree? Thanks.

Re:you are on Slashdot, but you aren't a conservat by Watts+Martin · 2006-10-05 16:44 · Score: 1

You've hit the big thing I think the supporters of these moves keep either missing or simply dismissing. Most of the arguments for it eventually strip down to "while you're at war you have to trust the government with expanded powers to fight the enemy." But those checks and balances in our system exist largely so you don't have to just "trust the government." When you couple that with a "war" that has no victory condition--after all, you can't definitively defeat a tactic--you're talking about a very troubling expansion of power indeed. It astounds me how many theoretically conservative folks will shed fire and brimstone about the evils of big government when it comes to welfare programs, but wholeheartedly support laws that have clear potential to degrade constitutional rights. While I'm not a conservative, I don't think one has to be a bleeding heart liberal to think that preserving habeus corpus is a touch more important to our fundamental freedoms than repealing the estate tax.

I don't have any reason to doubt that those who are saying that the wiretap powers are just being used to track "known terrorists" are largely correct. But, they could be used to track people giving "material support" to known terrrorists, using the language of the recent enemy combatant bill--and those people could in turn be declared enemy combatants, and held indefinitely without trial. And just what is "material support"? Giving money to an organization that's deemed to have terrorist ties? Being a reporter in Iraq who seems to talk too much to the insurgents? Being a reporter here in America who publishes leaked information about a controversial wiretapping program?

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by TubeSteak · 2006-10-05 16:56 · Score: 1

rather than asking the immigrants to adjust (not abandon) their ways around the prevailing society.

The word you were looking for wasn't "adjust," it was "assimilate".

Most conservatives have no problems with immigrations... as long as the immigrants are willing to assimilate into what most people would consider a WASP culture.

Everybody, including the French, feels that way about immigrants coming into their lands. The United States just doesn't seem as open about it.

Don't worry though, in the 1900's, Americans felt the same way about Jews, Poles, Russians, Irish, etc and Americans (for the most part) got over it.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

guilt by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 17:02 · Score: 1

If Joe Al Qaeda (sorry, Muhammad Al Qaeda) is on the phone

So the US went to the Nepolitan system of justice, where a person has to prove they are innocent instead of the government having to prove the person is guilty?

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

Re:guilt by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-10-05 17:16 · Score: 1

Nepolitan system of justice

Is that where you're black if you're guilty, white if you're innocent, and strawberry if it's a hung jury?
Re:guilt by falconwolf · 2006-10-05 17:59 · Score: 1

Nepolitan system of justice

Is that where you're black if you're guilty, white if you're innocent, and strawberry if it's a hung jury?

No, that's where you have to prove you are innocent. Maybe I spelled it wrong, I just googled it but didn't come up with any references.
Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?
Re:guilt by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-10-05 18:05 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neapolitan_ice_cream

FISA designed to counter a different threat by ChePibe · 2006-10-05 17:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comments regarding FISA are perfectly reasonable in this context - the provisions of that bill are important to the present debate - but one must not lose sight of the fact that FISA was designed to counter an entirely different threat.

I've had the opportunity to study under a man that helped write the act, and while I haven't had a chance to discuss the recent developments with him, his view of FISA was that it was designed to serve a counter-intelligence role, but fails to be as useful against other threats.

Counter-Intelligence operations are fundamentally different from counter-terrorist operations. CI operations are much easier to predict, with relatively well understood actors, motives, and a much lower imminent risk to life and property. CI threats are relatively easy to pick out, relatively easy to understand. Of course, the most important word in this post is "relatively"...

Counter-terrorist operations are almost the polar opposite. Targets of foreign intelligence agencies are clear - they're after classified data and those that manage or handle it. The actors are clear - "diplomats", non-official cover officers, and Americans (in this case) with classified data. Targets of terrorists are not, as the focus of many of these groups is simply to kill as many people as possible by whatever means they can use. They don't care about classified data, they don't play games with diplomatic immunity. The actors could be foreign college students or home-grown California boys who decide to support the cause for reasons of their own, as we've seen recently.

Beyond simply acquiring data, FISA also allows for the prosecution of those who hand classified data to those who are not authorized to receive it by allowing evidence to enter into court without entering into the public record. FISA is an excellent tool for what it does. It's much more precise, limited, and focused on its threat.

Counter-terrorist operations require a wider approach - something of a "drag net" - for them to be successful. Pre-9/11 U.S. counter-terrorism was based largely on luck - case in point being the capture of the WTC '93 bombers, whose cell was unraveled because a member thereof just couldn't leave behind the deposit on his truck. More recent attacks should provide ample evidence that we can't fall back simply on luck any longer - we must be more active in preventing attacks rather than mopping up after them.

I think there is room for debate on this matter, and I do not believe that Benjamin Franklin quotes nor tradition should hold us from implementing laws we need to protect ourselves. Of course, this should occur within reasonable limits, in accordance with majority will and proportionate to the threat - which is growing and innovative itself - and without completely losing national character.

A quote I read recently sums up my position:

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means." (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810, quoted from Terrorism Freedom and Security: Winning Without War, Heymann, MIT Press, 2003, pg. xi)

Of course, this view must be tempered - we must be careful about those means we do and do not sacrifice - but we also should not sacrifice our nation on the altar of law. There is a time for dogmatic adherence a time to take a more pragmatic view rooted in self-preservation. We should slip from the first to the last cautiously, infrequently, and with friction and great reservation. Yet sometimes, we must slip to survive and pursue our own self-preservation.

I thank you for your comment and for what it brings to this discussion.

Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by QuickFox · 2006-10-05 20:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law

Terrorists do not threaten your country in any way that could make you lose your country. Nor do they threaten your freedom.

Terrorists can only threaten the freedom of a very limited number of citizens, by taking them hostage and/or by killing them. That is the only thing terrorists can do. Their power is very limited.

Any other taking of freedom would be done by lawmakers, courts, officers of the law, intelligence agents, and so on, aided by media frenzy and scaremongers. They can threaten your freedom. Terrorists cannot.

--
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by bitmonki · 2006-10-05 21:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems to be your argument assumes that such surveillance will be useful, and won't be abused, in return for which the precedent is set for secret, universal, unlimited warrantless surveillance of electronic communications.
Such powers would never be abused to say, oh, listen in on political opponents, now would they?
How long until such powers are used to catch middle class tax "cheats", who are "shirking" (part of) their share of paying for the war that polls for months (years?) have shown at least half the country is against, and that is vastly enriching the company still paying the Vice President a yearly stipend?
Doesn't casting so wide a net then present the problem of sorting out the desirable "fish"? Hasn't that precise problem already been cited has the reason the 9/11 guys weren't stopped, i.e., we had evidence against a few, but it was fragmented amongst agencies, and thus ignored? Given the number of cell phones in use at any given moment is it even practical in the foreseeable future?
While FISA may have been meant for CI, it doesn't mean that same tool can't be used -- the issue is the government having the grounds for wiretapping vs. listening to anybody anytime/all the time to just hear what they can hear and hope for something to pop up.
Let's consider the also the source and context a bit, shall we?
In recent weeks, the US government has been debating what degree of torture is "acceptable", despite the fact that the military and CIA, et. al. are on record as saying that torture is ineffective, counter-productive and produces unreliable information. Never mind that it is just wrong.
Too, we have the Military Detainee Act, an act that essentially eliminates habeas corpus in the US, on the whim of a single individual, at present a failed businessman, recovering alcoholic who has publicly laughed at and mimicked a woman who was pleading for her life after he had signed her death warrant and refused her appeal for clemency. He has already ordered the execution of many people -- he bragged as much in a State of the Union address. But we don't know whom, or on what evidence, now do we? Consider the fact that the military has admitted that a waaaaay too large percentage (majority?) of people at Gitmo are innocent, yet they continue to hold them.
These are the people, tactics and results the Founding Fathers repeatedly warned us about.
Let us not submit to such chicanery.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by ChePibe · 2006-10-06 00:58 · Score: 1

I must respectfully disagree.

Is it likely that a terrorist group will destroy the entire U.S. in a massive nuclear attack, for instance? Obviously not.

But this is not the only level of threat that should concern the U.S. As a U.S. citizen, I expect my life, property, and the lives and property of my fellow citizens to be protected against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I accept that this does not necessarily include criminal acts, but demand that I be protected from terrorists - a group whose precise definition varies widely, I realize - and state actors.

Your argument seems to claim that a group which has no hope of utterly destroying the U.S. should not be treated as a threat to life or freedom. Such thinking is at best ill-advised.

Terrorists can only threaten the freedom of a very limited number of citizens, by taking them hostage and/or by killing them. That is the only thing terrorists can do. Their power is very limited.

The 9/11 group achieved a 150:1 kill ratio with $500,000. I hardly think that qualifies as "very limited".

While 3,000 may be a very limited number of citizens compared to the total U.S. population, it remains a massive number that is difficult to minimize the importance of.

If terrorists can "only" achieve 150:1 kill ratios and kill thousands on a single day with a small cell, I think this is ample reason for concern.

Of course, this doesn't even include the terror groups seeking to acquire various flavors of WMD. While a small nuclear device in New York, for example, may only succeed in killing off a "limited number" of citizens that could well be below 1% of the total U.S. population, that is still a massive amount of death and devastation that we should expend every effort to prevent.

Any other taking of freedom would be done by lawmakers, courts, officers of the law, intelligence agents, and so on, aided by media frenzy and scaremongers. They can threaten your freedom. Terrorists cannot.

Please tell that to the thousands who no longer have the freedom to live. The dead hate to be "scaremongered".
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by ChePibe · 2006-10-06 01:24 · Score: 1

These are the people, tactics and results the Founding Fathers repeatedly warned us about.

An interesting comment in response to a Thomas Jefferson quote.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by lynx_user_abroad · 2006-10-06 01:46 · Score: 1

Any other taking of freedom would be done by lawmakers, courts, officers of the law, intelligence agents, and so on, aided by media frenzy and scaremongers. They can threaten your freedom. Terrorists cannot.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but in times like these, clarity is essential.
Substitute liberty for freedom and I'm with you 100%.
Any other taking of liberty would be done by lawmakers, courts, officers of the law, intelligence agents, and so on, aided by media frenzy and scaremongers. They can threaten your liberty. Terrorists cannot.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 02:16 · Score: 0

Let's get to the point:

Terrorists threaten us with physical force, but they don't posess a special "legal right" to employ physical force against us. They are merely criminals.

Government threatens us with physical force, and they DO posess a special "legal right" to employ physical force against us. They are NOT merely criminals.

Common sense tells me that while terrorism is certainly a threat, government is clearly the biggest threat that could ever exist to peace and human rights. What could possibly be a bigger threat than an organization holding a special "right" to employ coercion as its business model?
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by demigod · 2006-10-06 03:18 · Score: 1

The actors could be foreign college students or home-grown California boys who decide to support the cause for reasons of their own, as we've seen recently.

So you support spying on all Americans?

Is that because you fear the current measures being implimented will spawn a wave of terror whose source is home grown?

--
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by plasmacutter · 2006-10-06 14:38 · Score: 1

But this is not the only level of threat that should concern the U.S. As a U.S. citizen, I expect my life, property, and the lives and property of my fellow citizens to be protected against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Many more people are killed every year in the US in fatal car crashes due to simple speeding than are killed by terrorism.. on the order of 10 times more.. 50 times more if you leave outliers like 9/11 out of the computations.

Maybe we should start shipping speeders of to gitmo?

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by ChePibe · 2006-10-07 05:48 · Score: 1

Ah, plasmacutter. How eager I am to read your babblings again...

Many more people are killed every year in the US in fatal car crashes due to simple speeding than are killed by terrorism.. on the order of 10 times more.. 50 times more if you leave outliers like 9/11 out of the computations.

Maybe we should start shipping speeders of to gitmo?

Because car accidents are the equivalent of planned mass murder. Clearly, they're comparable and we should only focus on the ends rather than the means in all situations.

I can just see this now... calling up a 911 operator to report a murder only to have the police tell the caller, "sorry, roughly twice as many people die in car accidents (according to CDC statistics), who cares about a murder? We obviously need to put more effort into traffic enforcement. Just bury your dead and get over it, OK?"

Of course, this also puts aside the slight problem of distribution. According to the NHTSA (don't worry - they're not run by the wealthy elite, just the poor, downtrodden ranks of middle America, so you can trust them) 37,862 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2001, which would cause an average distribution of 103 a day. A 30x spike on one day is certainly notable, and in addition to the deaths of almost 3,000 people, the attacks caused (according to these statistics) $105 billion dollars of economic damage in one month to New York City alone, in addition to billions of dollars in insurance, clean up, and other costs.

Oh, but it's all ok. Because accidents are equivalent to planned murder for ideological reasons. No need to get too concerned about them.

Really, plasmacutter. Are you just this stupid? This argument is so tired, so ridiculous, and so idiotic it's simply beyond words. That said, it's precisely what I expect from you.

Good to know I've got a slashdot stalker, though! I was kind of getting bored without one. Keep 'em coming - I've got pink eye and I'm in a self-imposed quarantine. I need some good comedy to keep my spirits up. I
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by plasmacutter · 2006-10-07 13:26 · Score: 1

I can just see this now... calling up a 911 operator to report a murder only to have the police tell the caller, "sorry, roughly twice as many people die in car accidents (according to CDC statistics), who cares about a murder? We obviously need to put more effort into traffic enforcement. Just bury your dead and get over it, OK?"

This is an "after the fact" call, and all crimes regardless of severity are investigated and when possible the perpetrators are brought to justice. This is also NOT the argument you were making in your earlier post.

Your earlier post said it was perfectly "ok" to shred the bill of rights and the constitutional provisions against overstep of government power if it prevented crimes before they happened.

I'll say this again: "Minority report anyone?"

They don't do this with speeding, they don't even do it with murder, but I guess it's ok whenever they shriek "national security" at the top of their ultrafascist lungs.

Really, plasmacutter. Are you just this stupid?
people who are arrogant enough to wander around calling other people stupid to their face are usually the ones who need to expand their wisdom, I advise you to do so.

This argument is so tired, so ridiculous, and so idiotic it's simply beyond words.

look back at that argument you made which I pointed out for the second time now, I believe this statement specifically applies to that argument.

--
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Re:FISA designed to counter a different threat by ChePibe · 2006-10-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Ah, plasmacutter.

After spending a week reading things of substance, I view you as the dessert - an article without substance, but a little sweet... ahh...

This is an "after the fact" call, and all crimes regardless of severity are investigated and when possible the perpetrators are brought to justice. This is also NOT the argument you were making in your earlier post.

Your earlier post said it was perfectly "ok" to shred the bill of rights and the constitutional provisions against overstep of government power if it prevented crimes before they happened.

I'll say this again: "Minority report anyone?"

As usual, this is just too rich, my boy.

Perhaps you were unaware that plotting murder is, in itself, a crime? Would you suggest that the police shouldn't attempt to stop those plotting a murder? Or do you prefer Steven Spielberg to set your political ideas?

They don't do this with speeding, they don't even do it with murder, but I guess it's ok whenever they shriek "national security" at the top of their ultrafascist lungs.

They don't arrest people for planning murder? Are you sure about that?

In Canada, it's punishable by life in prison. In the U.S., laws vary from state to state, but generally the penalty is quite severe.

Are these laws "shredding the bill of rights"? Are they punishing people for thought? Do people have the right to plot murder? At what point should we take action to prevent an act of murder, as the knife is pulled, as the finger moves to the trigger, as the plane approaches a building?

A "wait and see" approach is absurd, stupid, and unsurprisingly what you advocate. People don't have the right to plot murder, no more than they have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre (unless, of course, there is a fire).

people who are arrogant enough to wander around calling other people stupid to their face are usually the ones who need to expand their wisdom, I advise you to do so.

Ah, this is my favorite part. Coming right after the "ultrafascist" bit.

Why don't you "expand [your] wisdom" by not arguing that every thing that doesn't reinforce your truly idiotic view of the world is part of a vast, extreme right wing conspiracy and that, perhaps, things might go a little beyond the class warfare you so earnestly love.

I call you stupid because you ignore the facts and the world around you. I call you stupid because you compare a Steven Spielberg flick to actual crime. I call you stupid because you believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is an extreme right organization. I call you stupid for a variety of reasons, and you richly deserve the title.

Now keep on slash stalking away, my good boy. You'll give me entertainment for weeks to come.

Re:All Hail The LIb's and the Antique Media by geminidomino · 2006-10-05 17:19 · Score: 1

And a side note to one of the posters above re the disgraced Rep.: a) The IM's are now shown to be a prank by the Pages to the Senator, b) The person in question was 18 at the time; therefore it is NOT pedofelia, c) I thought the Lib's were all for gay rights.. why are you jumping all over this man?

Go blow your boss, or you're fired.

Get it now, smacktard?

Simply Discussing This.. by SQLz · 2006-10-05 17:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Simply asking why we are not obtaining warrants offers comfort and solace to the terrorists.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:49 · Score: 1

The Constitution says nothing about a "unitary executive"

False. It's right there at the beginning of Article II. "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That simply means all the power of the Executive is vested in the President. Which is all "unitary executive" means.

You forgot to mention the part about how the President "shall take care that the laws [passed by the Congress and the Senate] be faithfully executed"

That is only for laws that are constitutional.

Are you claiming that his oath is to the Constitution means he gets to disregard the Laws of the country

If they are unconstitutional, yes. Absolutely. Hell, it's his obligation to do so, if he feels it is necessary.

& the Supreme Court's interpretation of those laws

Only if the Court's interpretation is blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional. For example, if the Court said the President could serve only one term in office. Then hell yes, he should ignore that.

But the Court has not weighed in on this matter. That's the problem. And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.

But in our system, until the Court does weigh in on the matter (which can only happen through this process we are seeing now), it is the responsibility of the President to interpret the Constitution for himself. It is a violation of the separation of powers for the Congress to try to force its interpretation of the Constitution on the President, through any means other than appealing to the Court (including impeachment: you do not resolve an interpretation dispute through any means other than the Court).

cause, in other situations they call that a Dictatorship.

And what do they call logical fallacies in other situations?

satellites by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 17:49 · Score: 0

A call from NY to LA bounced of a satellite technically leaves the country. So your saying it would be legal to tap those calls? How do you know what route your call makes? How does the government?

Re:satellites by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-10-05 17:53 · Score: 1

The call has an endpoint in a foreign country with that endpoint attached to a foreign national.

Why are you trying to nitpick?

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:52 · Score: 1

Perhaps the founding fathers didn't feel the need to reiterate that the Bill of Rights was a guideline for them to interact with the world as well as their own citizens because they already held it was a self evident truth that all men are created equal.

That makes no sense. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people of the United States from the government of the United States.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by pudge · 2006-10-05 17:53 · Score: 1

Let us please remember that, for all its florid prose, the Declaration of Independence was primarily a propaganda tool to drum up support against an unpopular king an ocean away.

In part. But so what? You think they didn't mean what they wrote?

Abraham Lincoln argued very persuasively TJ did mean it. Of course, not persuasively enough to beat Stephen Douglas, but still.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by ScentCone · 2006-10-05 18:00 · Score: 1

Don't worry though, in the 1900's, Americans felt the same way about Jews, Poles, Russians, Irish, etc and Americans (for the most part) got over it.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's, we weren't a giant entitlement-system economy. Immigrants came to the U.S. specifically to work their asses off in an environment where that could be very rewarding, or at least for more rewarding than the environment in the Old World. But we didn't have a lot of Poles, or Russians (to use your examples) pushing to have US schools start teaching in Russian or Polish. Or using well-paid activists to lobby for producing government documents in Hebrew or Italian.

This isn't 1900. The landscape isn't still wide open with empty, up-for-grabs farmland or mining opportunities. But, unlike then, climbing over border illegally and giving birth gets your new kid immediate and free health care and education in the U.S. (oh, citizenship, as if that was it was really all about). Comparing the huge movement of people from Central America to the emmigration from Ireland is not really reasonable - in terms of scale or circumstance.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Point taken by MarkusQ · 2006-10-05 18:31 · Score: 1

In techie speak, the US constitution is default-deny, followed by a list of exceptions.

I believe we are basically in agreement, and will admit that your formulation is more accurate. I probably should have said "define limits" instead of "set limits," because the "set limits" phrasing does sound like default-allow. My intent and focus was the fact that the constitution is concerned with the limits to permissible governmental actions, rather than the actions of citizens or non-citizens.

--MarkusQ

have faith--they're out there by misanthrope101 · 2006-10-05 18:59 · Score: 2, Funny

Does anyone know of any news sites similar to Slashdot that don't editorialize their stories to this degree?

Foxnews.com may be what you're looking for. They're both fair and balanced, and they don't spin their stories at all. They're about as close to objectivity as I've seen this side of the Drudge Report.

Re:have faith--they're out there by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 19:44 · Score: 0

The articles on Foxnews.com are almost always not any different than the articles on cnn.com and msnbc.com. You can thank Associated Press and Reuters for supplying the articles and for the condition of news in the US.

Freedom isn't free by misanthrope101 · 2006-10-05 19:15 · Score: 1

And giving up the illusion of absolute safety is one of the prices. Giving up the panacea of an omnipotent government that can do anything at the drop of the hat, without the encumbrance of due process and the limits of checks and balances, is one of the prices. Totalitarian states are generally much more efficient, because they don't have to jump through hoops--they just kill you. Easy peasy.

Societies that value freedom have to give up these things, because these things are antithetical to freedom. Let me be more clear--these things kill freedom. They don't protect it, facilitate it, guard it, or preserve it. Societies that embrace these things are in the process giving up their freedom.

If you embrace surveillance without warrant, imprisonment without trial, and confessions under torture, you are an enemy of freedom and decency. Ipso facto, if you say you are advocating these things to protect freedom and decency, then you are lying. You are an enemy to my country, my constitution, and my way of life. If the push for totalitarianism against the principle of freedom ever causes civil war, may God have mercy on your soul.

If you aren't sticking up for surveillance without warrant, imprisonment without trial, and confessions under torture, then the above doesn't apply to you. Have a nice day.

Unsupervised Wiretapping by jeti · 2006-10-05 20:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Have a look at what unsupervised wiretapping has lead to in Italy.

Re:Unsupervised Wiretapping by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 21:25 · Score: 0

Did you even read the article?

You've all missed the point by EQ · 2006-10-05 20:32 · Score: 2, Informative

The decision in question was so laughable and poorly reasoned that it *will* be thrown out on appeal. The judge was a partisan hack whose legal analysis would have failed were it submitted as a practice brief by a first year law school student. So a stay is the proper course for the court of appeals, givne the large probability that the Government will sustain its case and overturn the original judge's poor work.

There are far many more issues open thhan were addressed int he case - and they are being argued all over the place here, while you completely miss the point.

All of you on both sides seem to have missed the court's decision itself was flawed and poorly reasoned (read the lawblogs commentaries form whenit was first released - it was panned, left and right). The original judgement was not properly based in the law at all. BOTH sides commented on this when the decision was handed down. the only people taking it at face value were the Bash Bush At Any Cost crowd. Those who actually practice law were cringing at the poor quality of the judgement and expecting this very action by the appeals court - an action that will tie down any and all further attempts to limit the warrantless intercepts until this case is resolved.

It will be eventually overturned - and THAT is why the appeals court has stayed that decision pending the appeals process. Not becasue the program in question was right or wrong, but that the decision by the judge was horrendously poor.

There are plenty of good legal arguments to curtail the warrantless intercepts. And they will eventually make it to court and have a fair hearing. Its a shame this crappy original decision is going to dealy so many of them as it is demolished and overturned in the appeals system.

Again, there are many good arguments and legal reasons that favor curtailment of the warrantless intercept program.

Unfortunately, the original decision was bereft of *all* of those good reasons, and it deserves to be tossed out as a matter of correcting bad jurisprudence.

--
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by SgtChaireBourne · 2006-10-05 21:56 · Score: 1

This isn't 1900. The landscape isn't still wide open with empty, up-for-grabs farmland or mining opportunities.

It wasn't back then either. It had to be wrested from the First Nations, often with the help of the military.

It would often happen either of two ways. One way, squatters would settle across treaty boundaries, then get rousted / slaughtered for the violation. The press would neglect to mention the treaty violation and the military would go in for retribution. Another way, young officers needing combat experience would kickstart the process by raiding and then waiting for the counter raid.

Nowadays, it's politicians and wannabe turbocapitalists spouting off about illegal labor being the "grease on the gears of the economy" that are actively encouraging today's problems. Also, most EU countries have outdated immigration policies (often upheld by those wannabes) designed during times when there actually were immigrants and the numbers where so small that they actually could assimilate. These days you get very few immigrants and mostly transmigrants. The latter have no intention of adopting new language, culture, values, mores, and so on. They're basically starting a new colony on foreign soil.

But we didn't have a lot of Poles, or Russians (to use your examples) pushing to have US schools start teaching in Russian or Polish.

That's an example. Previously, people moved and became part of a new culture. Now, most seem to be squatters or, to say it more nicely, transmigrants.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Let's be careful here. by hey! · 2006-10-05 22:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

That is the current state of the law. The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.

An important distinction needs to be drawn though. Because the president has the power to conduct surveillance as part of his article 2 powers doesn't mean he has an unlimited license to do any surveillance he wishes. Nor does it preclude some form of oversight by the other branches, provided that oversight doesn't amount to an unconstitutional restriction on his Article 2 powers. For practical purposes he can't be free from oversight, because he has no authority to spend money on his own.

To say that any attempt to creates laws regulating the President's exercise of his Article 2 powers is unconsitutional would be a very sweeping assertion. For one thing, it encroaches on a Congressional constitutional power granted in Article 1, Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." The Congress also has the power to regulate the military forces, literally the land and naval forces, but clearly this doesn't preclude the regulation of the air force, which didn't exist back then. Nor, if we are arguing they are being used in the conduct of war, should it preclude the regulation of intelligence services.

So, the Congress can create laws which govern how the President uses his contitutional powers, since the exeuctive branch is part of "the government of the United States, or in any department ... thereof". Provided of course those laws are "necessary and proper". Of what is necessary, only the Congress should be considered a competent judge. With respect to propriety, I would argue that a law would be improper if and only if it would would amount to the legislative branch appropriating an Article 2 power for itself. Requiring accountability to the other branches does not stop the President from doing anything which is within his lawful power.

The style of relationship that is supposed to exist between the executive and legislative branches was developed between George Washington and the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War. Early on Washington was vexed by congressional arm chair generals who wanted to direct the war by dispatch. John Adams was an admirable man in almost every respect but his character was marred by his firm belief he was smarter than everyone else around him. Apparently Adams was among the worst offenders. Washington developed an approach to this problem that proved highly effective, not only at securing for himself ample independence for his conduct of the war, but enthusiastic legislative and public support. He worked like hell to keep Congress "in the loop" (to use a modern metaphor). In return he could count on Congress to reach a little deeper when he needed its support. This consultation with his civilian superiors and his field commanders did not come easily to Washington, but it earned him the tremendous stature he enjoyed after the Revolution.

The commonly used phrase "secret wiretapping program" is semantically loaded, because it forces a "take it or leave it" on you. Every wiretapping program has to have an element of secrecy; to say you are against "secret" wiretapping programs sounds like you are against wiretapping programs in general. We end up rhetorically wrassled into a position where it looks like we're against the goals of the program if we thing the program is bad.

A phrase that would more correctly capture our concerns is this: "unaccountable wiretapping program."

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Let's be careful here. by hcob$ · 2006-10-06 00:32 · Score: 0

A phrase that would more correctly capture our concerns is this: "unaccountable wiretapping program."
How about this name: "wiretapping program on over-seas calls for foreign intelligence". Yeah, I think that is the accurate description.

--
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Re:Let's be careful here. by hey! · 2006-10-06 02:56 · Score: 1

How about this name: "wiretapping program on over-seas calls for foreign intelligence". Yeah, I think that is the accurate description.

Agreed, acccurate, but not precise.

That is to say, it is not incorrect, it is just missing an important detail.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Italian wiretapping by 3.5+stripes · 2006-10-05 22:17 · Score: 1

It's lead to more of the same, people in power using said power to their advantage, the people who get in trouble are the "usual sacrificial lambs" and the real forces behind the wiretapping, will as always, get off scot free.

More or less, it's business as usual.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!

To sum it up: by shenanigans · 2006-10-05 22:32 · Score: 1

This piece just about sums up the situation for me. Quote:

People online from central America sometime laugh at us, I notice. They laugh and joke because we haven't realized yet that things have changed. They know what we have become. It's a common story where they come from. They never thought it would happen here, but now that it has, they think it's kind of cute that we don't realize what has happened to us.

Wrong. by crhylove · 2006-10-05 22:40 · Score: 1

The bill of rights (yes, I know, they are pretty much irrelevant today, and it's saddening/maddening) actually contains a section about something relating to "right to privacy". Now if it's ANY kind of call, and one of the parties is in the US, I don't really see how anybody can alter that concept. Privacy means no eaves dropping on ANY of my calls, doesn't it? As a matter of fact, if some of our own populace is resorting to terrorism, which seems to be their idea based on our current rampant privacy infringements, you can probably trace the root cause of that back to the government ignoring our bill of rights.

If they keep ignoring the bill of rights, I'll be a "terrorist" too. So would Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Washington, Hancock, and any of the other founding fathers.

In fact, if Bush is really waging a war on terrorism, which is a stupid concept to begin with, he will almost certainly fail as any party with half a spine is going to want to terrorize somebody when they no longer have any personal rights or freedoms.

These guys should ALL be in jail. End of story. Any judge or court that ignores the constitution should be put in jail right along with them. If that doesn't happen, which so far it hasn't, you can kiss any of the ideals that this country was supposedly built on goodbye, and our child molesting government will be no better than the Nazi party, Stalin's "communist" party, or any other tyrannical force that has gone about the planet creating atrocities that their descendants can STILL be ashamed of.

I for one will greet any political official (from the president down to a local police officer) the same way I'd have greeted any one of them. Gun barrel first. That part is also in the constitution, it's called "right to bear arms".

If that makes me a terrorist, than I'm proud to be one. Fuck these guys ignoring the last 300 years of human progress so their stupid Halliburtons and Enrons can make an extra bazillion dollars off of dead Iraqi babies.

We should all be COMPLETELY ashamed and disgusted at the state of our nation. If you're not, you're either ill-informed, ignorant, or have no basic concept of human morality.

Abu-Graib is about the same as what goes on in some of our prisons right here at home (Anal rape, beatings, sleep deprivation, other forms of torture). This country is about as involved with Liberty as Mark Foley was involved with women. Highest incarceration rate of any nation in HISTORY, and plenty of inmates receive regular forms of torture.

We are on a very sure path to either decimation by other nations, or a very ugly and bloody revolution. Make no mistake about it.

I know which side I'll be on, and it will be the one ADHERING to the Geneva convention, among other things.

rhY

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.

Re:Wrong. by EastCoastSurfer · 2006-10-06 01:29 · Score: 1

The bill of rights (yes, I know, they are pretty much irrelevant today, and it's saddening/maddening) actually contains a section about something relating to "right to privacy".

Actually it doesn't. Article IV is probably what you're refering to, but it doesn't actually mention privacy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re:Wrong. by crhylove · 2006-10-06 03:25 · Score: 1

No right to Privacy? This country was not founded in as cool a way as I'd thought. My bad.

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Re:Wrong. by EastCoastSurfer · 2006-10-06 04:28 · Score: 1

Well the cool thing about this country is that there are parts of the constitution that were explicitly left vague so that it could adapt to changing times. Security could be interpreted by the courts to mean privacy now, and then be interpreted differently later. These changing meanings cause lots of heated debate (just view the comments of this story), but I think in the end the debate makes the eventual outcome much more robust.

On a side note, outside of the constitution there are plenty of privacy laws you can cite instead if you want to :)

The irony.. by Khyber · 2006-10-05 22:56 · Score: 1

Of pointing us to an "expert" on a website that begins with "opinion"

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by TheGratefulNet · 2006-10-06 00:10 · Score: 1

as I learned in ISO9000 training, a paper copy is an uncontrolled copy.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Not yet it isn't... by PadRacerExtreme · 2006-10-06 00:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

the unconstitutional and controversial warrantless

controversial: obviously

unconstitutional: Not until the courts rule it. If it is the appeal process it is NOT unconstitutional!!!

--
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by TubeSteak · 2006-10-06 00:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

And what do they call logical fallacies in other situations?

They call them pudge (3605)

Things you've said that are wrong:
(A) That is only for laws that are constitutional.
(B) If they are unconstitutional, yes. Absolutely. Hell, it's his obligation to do so, if he feels it is necessary.
(C) Only if the Court's interpretation is blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional. [irrelevant example here]. Then hell yes, he should ignore that.

The funny part, is that you follow up that *stunning* display of ignorance about the roles of both the President & the Courts with this gem: And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.

Excuse me? No question? The above statement and your point (C) directly contradict one another.

Just to be clear, I was referring to "unitary executive" as described by John Yoo, not the literal interpretation of the words "unitary" and "executive". I feel compelled to say this, since you begin by stating the literal meaning, then supporting the John Yoo version (which, if not fallacious, is intellectually dishonest).

Either way, you seriously need a remedial class in civics. Perhaps you've absorbed too many talking points to recall exactly how the balance between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches work.

Seriously, this Republican controlled Congress may have given up on their job and refused to do anything about a Republican President usurping their powers, but that doesn't mean the United States system of Government was supposed to work that way.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Response From Congressman by s31523 · 2006-10-06 00:47 · Score: 1

Upon hearing about the House passing the bill for wiretapping, I wrote to my Congressman, who voted "yea" and told him I thought it was a disgrace to, as Mr Ben Franklin put it "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety". Here is the response (unedited and I am sure canned):

Dear Mr. --- ,
Thank you for contacting me about domestic terrorism surveillance. I appreciate knowing your views.
The House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. I voted in favor of the bill, which passed 232-191. This bill authorizes the domestic terrorism surveillance program that President Bush instituted through executive action following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It also makes several changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. The bill was written to make Americans safer from terrorist threats, improve our intelligence gathering abilities, and also protect privacy.

Under normal circumstances, a warrant is required from the FISA court when there is probable cause that a person in the U.S. is an agent of a foreign power. The bill explicitly authorizes domestic electronic surveillance without a warrant in three situations: in the event of an armed attack by a conventional military force, a terrorist attack, or if a terrorist attack is imminent. The warrantless surveillance is permissible for up to 60 days if there is a reasonable belief that the person is communicating with a terrorist organization that is believed to be responsible for an attack. The bill requires the President to notify congressional leaders, intelligence committee leaders, and the FISA court within 5 days after the authorization. The President must state why he believes there is an imminent threat, he must identify the persons or groups responsible, and he must explain why he needs special authority to monitor individuals because of the threat. If these conditions are met, the 60-day time limit can be extended for an additional 60-day period.

I supported the bill because it modernizes existing law, which is outdated in terms of technology and the threats that we face from our enemies. FISA is a useful tool for conducting routine surveillance, but there are times when circumstances dictate immediate action and when taking the time to get a warrant is not practicable. We are not talking about monitoring the everyday conversations of ordinary Americans; we are talking about conducting surveillance to gather information on potential terrorist threats. If a terrorist attack is imminent or has just occurred, we will need to know as much about the threat and the people involved as we can. It is important to note that the bill dramatically improves congressional oversight, and it requires the Attorney General to adopt procedures in each surveillance case that minimize the acquisition and retention of non-intelligence information.

Thanks again for contacting me. With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Vernon J. Ehlers
Member of Congress

It's All our Fault by hcob$ · 2006-10-06 00:57 · Score: 1

Of course, it's all our fault.

It's all our fault...

Our doctors who give time to under-developed nations...

It's all our fault...

Our soldiers who free entire nations and stop genocidal wars (bosnia, iraq, and hopefully darfur.

It's all our fault...

Those people in the WTC deserved to die that day because they were making a living to support their family

It's all our fault...

We support our (and other countries') downtrodden with social programs that drain the wallets of our middle class

It's all our fault...

It's time for you arrogant people who think America is a bad country to wake up. Learn about what our country does. If you honestly think America is a flawed nation. Get into politics and do something about it, choose better representatives, or shut the hell up and get the fuck out. I'm sure Venezula would welcome you with open arms.

--
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance

Re:It's All our Fault by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 01:14 · Score: 0

Chanting military schlock. You've got your eyes closed, head buried up your ass. You (you personally) are not a person with a vote, you're a tool to be used and discarded. I hope that you remember this right before you die.

Speaking of Venezuela, I think you'd actually be very happy there. You don't know it, because you're too busy masturbating with a flag and singing altruisms, but you should move and try it out
Re:It's All our Fault by hcob$ · 2006-10-06 01:30 · Score: 1

Thank you for making my point for me... in such an elegant manner.

--
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance

wrong. by JANYAtty. · 2006-10-06 01:01 · Score: 1

under FISA the government has three days after the fact to actually get the warrant. so start the tape recorders, while we get someone started on the paperwork.

--
I dont do meaning of life questions.

GWB by smoker2 · 2006-10-06 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

When GWB said "You are either with us, or you are against us" just after 9/11, he didn't mean "us" as in the United States. He meant "us" as in his group of cronies.

Given the amount of anti-Bush feeling on this site, I would guess that anybody who expresses such sentiments is open to accusations of siding with terrorism. And your govt. is giving him the tools he needs to back it up.

BTW, if the US became a fascist dictatorship, and there was a popular uprising against it, you do realise that you would all be terrorists ?

Then what you gonna do ?

I guess you can't wrest control of the country from the dictator without breaking the law, so are you just going to give up ?

The law is supposed to be by the will of the people, not against the people.

Government sponsored FUD is also terrorism, just at a more insidious level.

93 Bombing Unravelled was LUCK!? by canter · 2006-10-06 01:12 · Score: 1

Hardly,

You seem as ill-informed as most Americans.

FACT. The FBI KNEW about the bombing beforehand, and had a mole in place. They were planning to switch the explosive with a harmless powder and just *oops* messed up. They ONLY way we know this is because Emad became suspicious of his FBI handlers and started taping phone conversations. Otherwise this would have gone into the memory hole with everything else our government doesn't want us to know.

Look up "Emad Salem" on the intraweb tubes to learn what really happened. Problem. Reaction. Solution.

Ex Post Facto by TheLetterPsy · 2006-10-06 01:17 · Score: 1

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006

Also violates Article I, Section 9, ex post facto clause, quite blatantly, in fact. Oh well . . .

Re:Ex Post Facto by stinerman · 2006-10-06 22:04 · Score: 1

The courts have regularly upheld that decriminalizing an action retroactively is not an ex post facto law.
Re:Ex Post Facto by TheLetterPsy · 2006-10-06 23:58 · Score: 1

Thanks for the information but is that relevant? In this case, it is ex post facto punishment, not decriminalization, so ex post facto ought apply.
Re:Ex Post Facto by stinerman · 2006-10-07 00:27 · Score: 1

I read the bill and didn't see anything that was retroactively criminalizing anything, so I assumed that you were talking about the bailouts that are given to the people who engaged in torture before the bill was passed. Please cite a specific section number and paragraph, and I'll see if I agree with you :-)
Re:Ex Post Facto by TheLetterPsy · 2006-10-07 01:12 · Score: 1

948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.(A) The term unlawful enemy combatant means
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Isn't that ex post facto punishment?
Re:Ex Post Facto by stinerman · 2006-10-07 13:36 · Score: 1

No because this does not criminalize a behavior that was not criminal before hand. The bill states that the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant" is either (i) or someone who was already determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be an unlawful combatant. What this does is retroactively validate any decisions made by the military tribunals set up by Bush without authorization by Congress. Basically, Congress put this definition in the law because they didn't want all of the people who were already found to be unlawful combatants under the unauthorized tribunals to have to go through the process again. So Congress is just retroactively authorizing the unlawful tribunals.

While I think this sort of legislation is bullshit, it isn't a violation of the ban on ex post facto laws ... at least not by any traditional reading of the clause.
Re:Ex Post Facto by TheLetterPsy · 2006-10-07 17:20 · Score: 1

I think it makes sense to me now. But I'm also drunk. After reading your blog, I think we are on the same page. Duh, we're both on Slashdot so I bet we're of the same ilk anyhow. Anyways, thanks for the clarification.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by Politburo · 2006-10-06 01:33 · Score: 1

The U.S. has always been able to search and seize foreign mail

There has always been inspection of inbound mail. However, outbound mail was not searched until recently (Trade Act of 2002), and I believe that is being challenged in court.

Let's see by Midnight+Thunder · 2006-10-06 01:35 · Score: 1

Let's see:

- Inprisoning people for years without due process
- DMCA
- Warantless wire-tapping

Looks like its a good start. Now what other rights are people going to allow to be taken away from them? USA the land of the free: get it while its still available.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

Way to go mods. by Quiet_Desperation · 2006-10-06 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Race baiting is now modded insightful. :( I'm sorry, but that's fricken embarassing.

Imagine if "national security" excuse used in 1775 by Sloppy · 2006-10-06 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's amusing how caselaw inserts weird things into our laws. In this case, it's being argued that

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

has an implicit "unless the violators say 'national security' is involved."

Go back in your mind to 1789 when the words were written. People had their former unhappiness with King George's rule on their mind, and didn't like how officials would just barge in and do whatever the hell they wanted without any court oversight. The framers didn't want people like Sam Adams or Thomas Paine to be unfairly harassed without due process. Do you think they really intended for it to be ok for the British to spy on colonists without a court order, as long as the magic words "national security" were used as a justification later? Everything the revolutionaries did was counter to British "national security" since it threatened to get the colonies to break away -- and protecting those actions is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to do.

The words are clear (there is not a list of arbitrary exceptions enumerated, such as "national security" or "if foreigners are involved somehow, even if indirectly") and the intent is pretty obvious too. And yet, caselaw has amended the 4th amendment, all without that pesky and inconvenient constitutional amendment process.

"But.. but.. the constitution says the Executive has the authority to--" The 4th amendment overrides that. That's why it's called an amendment. Amendments change constitutional law, see? That's why I'm not allowed to own slaves, why Congress is allowed to collect income tax, etc. If you want to legalize what the White House is doing, you need another amendment that makes exceptions to the 4th. Perhaps you can make a good argument for why it's a bad idea for the 4th Amendment to be as broad as it is -- maybe national security exceptions are really a good idea -- but there is an established process for changing the law. Follow it.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Warranted & Just Surveillance To Continue! Yay by ekimminau · 2006-10-06 02:19 · Score: 1

I for one am glad we continue to be protected. Who knows, maybe they will find even more people trying to kill us! Wouldn't that be great, too!

--
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by pudge · 2006-10-06 03:06 · Score: 1

Things you've said that are wrong:

None of those things are wrong.

The funny part, is that you follow up that *stunning* display of ignorance about the roles of both the President & the Courts with this gem: And yes, the President should, and will, abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. There's no question about that.

That's also not wrong.

Excuse me? No question? The above statement and your point (C) directly contradict one another.

Well, no, they don't. What's stunning is that you would think they do. The "above statement" is in the context of this particular situation, and "(C)" was related to a hypothetical crazy decision the Court might come up with, which isn't the case with this particular situation: either way the Court goes, it would not be, in the words I used, "blatantly and unquestionably unconstitutional."

Just to be clear, I was referring to "unitary executive" as described by John Yoo, not the literal interpretation of the words "unitary" and "executive".

False. You were referring to it as it is used by the President, which is the same way it is used by Justice Alito, who said the theory means that the President has "not just some executive power, but the executive power -- the whole thing."

you begin by stating the literal meaning

True.

then supporting the John Yoo version

False.

Perhaps you think what I said about the President having the authority to interpret the Constitution on his own, until the Court steps in, as part of the "unitary executive theory." You're wrong. It's a separate notion. And it's unquestionably true anyway.

Either way, you seriously need a remedial class in civics.

Straw man, and ad hominem. Two for one!

Perhaps you've absorbed too many talking points to recall exactly how the balance between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches work.

Nope. I understand it quite well; you're the one in error.

Seriously, this Republican controlled Congress may have given up on their job and refused to do anything about a Republican President usurping their powers

Congress has no power to enforce its interpretation of the Constitution on the President.

Show me where in the Constitution you think the Congress has this power. Congress can haul the President to the Supreme Court; Congress can impeach the President if he doesn't abide by the will of the Court; Congress can participate in the changing of the Constitution. Congress cannot interpret the Constitution for the President. Such a notion is complete nonsense.

You said the things I said were wrong, but you haven't actually backed any of it up. I wonder why that is ... ?

Oh, please. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 03:22 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Firstly, do you have the same security clearance of the Senate Intelligence Comittee members or of the President? If not, you won't see the evidence for which you're looking for another 50 or so years.

Oh, please. We heard this same crap when the war drums were beating for Iraq. Sure, the evidence looks shaky at best, but you don't have the super duper convincing intelligence that the decision-makers do! Which turned out to be nothing, of course. You'll pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical when someone claims that if only I knew this information which I conveniently can't know for the next fifty years, everything would make sense to me.

Congress was informed and they deemed it OK. Only after it was revealed in an illegal leak of classified information and contorted by the Media did it become a probelm.

Congress deemed this okay? Since when? Congress was never asked for their okay. They were notified. What were they supposed to do about it, write secret notes to themselves expressing their disapproval?

What, precisely, did the media "contort"? If anything, they've been more than kind enough. Did you know that there's an executive order prohibiting the use of security classification in order to hide lawbreaking? You wouldn't know it, listening to the news.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

We had that. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 03:24 · Score: 1

We did have oversight; it was secret, but at least it was a separate branch of the government. It was the FISA court, but the current administration decided it would be far too much hassle to file all that paperwork, so they pretty much just started ignoring that court and the laws saying that all wiretaps of this nature had to go through them.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:All Hail The LIb's and the Antique Media by LynnwoodRooster · 2006-10-06 03:32 · Score: 1

Go blow your boss, or you're fired Damn... Good thing we don't have Presidents who did that with their interns! Oh, wait a minute...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Are you even paying attention? by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 03:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

The whole point is that the wiretaps are being done to conversations that at least one citizen is a part of. While it's nice to know that you're happy to run right over the rights of people who have the misfortune to live elsewhere, it's not really relevant to the question at hand.

Not to mention that they're being done with absolutely no oversight, no checks or balances. Without at least something like the FISA court, there's no way to know who's being wiretapped.

Which law is Bush upholding? The FISA statute which states that no foreign intelligence gathering can be done without their say-so? The Fourth Amendment? The constitution itself, which states that he's not above the law, and can't just start issuing kingly decrees when he disagrees with said law? Executive Order 13292, which prohibits the use of security classification to hide illegal acts? If he was so certain that the program was legal, why did he lie about it before the story came out, claiming that all wiretapping was done with a warrant?

And what "agenda" does the lower court have in this case?

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Not so much. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 03:44 · Score: 1

It takes a lot of balls for an armchair quarterback with no knowledge of the law to accuse our President and National Security leaders of committing treason.

I know he swore to obey and uphold the constitution. I know he ignores laws he finds inconvenient, and makes up new ones on his own. That's not a President, that's a King. Whether or not he dresses it up in a lot of pretty talk about the "unitary executive", it's still a gross violation of his oath of office.

And "National Security leaders"? Is this some shorthand way of telling us that if we question our leaders, we imperil our national security? Do you really believe that, given that these leaders have by the estimation of their own agencies, made us less secure?

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Wow. Just wow. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 03:51 · Score: 1

Okay, so... disappearing people and torturing them isn't fascism. Vast unaccountable power accreted to a single individual isn't fascism. But calling you an idiot is fascism.

Wow. You are an idiot.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

I know this is a troll, but... by Tony · 2006-10-06 03:59 · Score: 1

And a side note to one of the posters above re the disgraced Rep.: a) The IM's are now shown to be a prank by the Pages to the Senator, b) The person in question was 18 at the time; therefore it is NOT pedofelia, c) I thought the Lib's were all for gay rights.. why are you jumping all over this man?

I know this is a troll, but I thought I'd clear up some facts, rather than the baseless fictitious statements you present.

No, they messages weren't shown to be a prank. They, and other emails sent to other pages who were as young as 15 at the time they were sent, are authentic.

As far as gay rights go: yes, we're for gay rights. What we're against is hypocrisy and creepy old men in positions of power.

We're also against government-level partisan coverups. Other republicans know about Foley's trespasses, and refused to bring him to task. Instead, they simply did their best to keep other people from finding out. This is rather like the Catholic Church in that respect: don't admit the problem, just try to keep other people from finding out.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Who ever said this country doesn't do good things? by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 03:59 · Score: 1

You're attacking a straw man. Do you really think there's some sort of exchange rate at work here? That if we send a certain amount of aid to starving orphans, it gives us the moral right to disappear and torture a certain number of citizens?

Also, you're conflating the citizens with their government. I can criticize my government without calling into question the worth of the people who live here. One must make a distinction between a nation's people and the people who, for the moment, are running it. If you're still unclear on this concept, I have a whole generation of Japanese, or Italians, or Russians here who would be more than happy to explain it to you.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

I don't think so. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 04:06 · Score: 1

the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Because it's *difficult*?! by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 04:11 · Score: 1

And you have some reasonable basis to conclude that FISA warrants are difficult to get? What about the way-less-than-one-percent rejection rate was unclear to you? Do you think that someone at the NSA has carpal tunnel, and can't be bothered to actually write out all those warrants, as the law requires?

Never mind that all of this was beside the point. If the President wanted to wiretap in a way he was prohibited by law from doing, he should have gone to Congress and gotten a law passed. If Congress wouldn't pass the law, then tough fuckin' noogies for the President. Instead, he just ignored the law and pretended that he had the kingly power to do whatever he wanted. Can you honestly not see that "but I waaaaaanted to!" isn't a justification for making up your own laws? And that "brown men will come to kill you in the night if you don't make me King" isn't a cogent argument? Do you really think that we should be living in a monarchy?!

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:Because it's *difficult*?! by Kohath · 2006-10-06 07:14 · Score: 1

What about the way-less-than-one-percent rejection rate was unclear to you?

The part where that necessarily means these warrants are easy to get. It seems to indicate that there are clear rules that outline when you get a warrant and when you don't. So applications aren't submitted that won't ultimately succeed. What would be the point of that?

"Clear rules" doesn't mean "every wiretap is allowable under the rules" or even "every wiretap needed to prevent terrorism is allowable under the rules".

But nevermind. I'm sure Karl Rove is out to listen to your private thoughts.

The price of freedom by wmtrexler · 2006-10-06 04:27 · Score: 1

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson

Personally I have no problem with the Surveillance Program. Privacy is an illusion anyway.

--

Hey what can I say i'm weird

Re:The price of freedom by flight_master · 2006-10-06 10:40 · Score: 1

Nice Quote. I agree!

I'll defer with you on Privacy being an illusion. Can you keep yourself private from the government? No.
Can you keep your financial affairs private from your neighbours? Yes.
What I don't like is the fact that the US Administration is just trampling all over people's rights - I mean, surveilance is a good thing - but something has to keep things balanced. If not, what's to say that President Bush doesn't come out and say "The FBI will now invade every home in teh US to see if anyone living in America has Al-Qaeda memorabilia" (Ok, I know, goofy example, but hey, it makes sense here :D)

Also, why was the parent modded flaimbait? If someone criticizes the US Government, that person is automatically creating a flame-war? Sheesh.

--
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
Re:The price of freedom by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 13:56 · Score: 0

Eternal vigilance... ...by the people you fool. Vigilance by the people, over the government. Not the other way around.

No comment... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 04:32 · Score: 0

I was going to say something about this, but I changed my mind.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-10-06 04:44 · Score: 1

I was saying that since it was already covered in the DoI as "self-evident", they didn't need to mention that the BoR applied to all people (to the best they could), not just people of the united states

This submitter is a liberal ! by /dev/trash · 2006-10-06 04:45 · Score: 1

it's not unconstitutional.

The Supreme COurt will decide that.

unconstitutional and controversial by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 04:53 · Score: 0

Reality check here!!!!

The program is clearly controversial but it it is not unconstitantutional untill the Supreme Court says it is. The fact the appeals court is hearing this case now means the trial court's opinion is mostly moot. It will be the apeals court that gets cited in the future... unless the Supreme court chooses to hear the next apeal. Then it will be the Supreme Court's opinion that matters.

The only way the district court's opinion has any meaning is if the apeals court and the Supreme Court chose not to review the case. This isn't going to happen since the apeals court has already intervened.

Remember, all of the lower courts held the Boy Scouts were violating the "constitutional rights" of gay men by not allowing them to be scoutmasters. Once the Supreme Copurt had spoken, the Boy Scouts had the constitutional right to exclude gay scoutmasters and the lower courts opinions had become meaningless.

At this point no one can say the program is unconstitutional or not only the nine Supreme Court justices have that authority and they havn't heard this case yet.

DMCA was CLINTON. by ClioCJS · 2006-10-06 05:10 · Score: 1

Now, I hate repugnantcans more than democraps, but both are enemies of the state. DMCA was under Clinton's watch. Just wanted to point that out.

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com

Re:DMCA was CLINTON. by Midnight+Thunder · 2006-10-06 06:09 · Score: 1

Now, I hate repugnantcans more than democraps, but both are enemies of the state. DMCA was under Clinton's watch. Just wanted to point that out.

Not going to argue the point, but will say that the USA suffers a few issues which compound the problem:
- lack of parties to choose from, so we end up with the issues
- people not thinking about their freedoms
- people not giving a damn
- too expensive to start a new party
- people not willing to take a risk and maybe see what the alternatives have to offer.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by Saige · 2006-10-06 05:24 · Score: 1

Not quite true. I hear the white house has special toilet paper with the text from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights printed on it.

--
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."

We can moan here as long as we want... by darkfire5252 · 2006-10-06 05:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

We can complain here about liberty infractions as long as we want, no one is listening to us. We can complain to others who feel the same way that we do, but all that does is make both of us feel better that there are others who agree. However, all that conversation does is make us feel better, we then go about our usual lives for a few weeks content in the knowledge that because we are not alone then this sort of thing can't possibly go on forever.

WE ARE WRONG.

The American public are the people that need to care. Before they can even start to realize why they should care, they need to realize there is something here to care about. They need to be informed. WE NEED TO TELL THEM. The media won't. This stuff doesnt sell advertizing, pedophiles in the government do. This stuff doesn't sell ads, school shootings do. This stuff doesn't sell ads, because it's being swept under the carpet. I formed a group on facebook, called "America. Land of the Free." facebook is a poor media to start a movement, but it's something. It's the contribution that I can make right now, and if it seems like it's helping, I'll make another. As should you.

Here's a piece I wrote about this for my school (UT-Knoxville) paper. It got published, people read it, and there was no outcry. We need to change that.

Last week, the senate and the house of representatives both passed a bill (S 3930 and HR 6166, respectively) called the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This bill is described by our government as "A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes." Statistically, you probably haven't heard of it. If you have heard of it, then you may know how it feels to be a member of the informed minority. The bill itself is deplorable, but the shift in American opinion that it represents is horrifying. I'll explain what the bill is in a second, but first let me tell you what it represents. It sends the message loud and clear: "We, as a people, do not care about our rights." It's saddening how we have ceded victory to the terrorists through the very act of fighting them. America, once the land of the Free, is now the land of the complacent majority. Ask yourself: Is it more important that you get decent grades this semester, or that our country remains a free nation? Now ask yourself which one you have worked harder for. Which one occupies most of your time? Now look at the news and ask yourself what is more important: a former congressman's possible affair with a young assistant, fourteen people being kidnapped in Iraq, or the American government, under the guise of keeping us safe from terrorism, trying to take away our basic rights. Because that's what this bill does. This bill, which is only a signature away from becoming law, states that if the United States government determines that you are an enemy combatant and not a citizen, then you have no right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus! Do you know what that is? It is your right to question whether you have been lawfully arrested or just abducted by a person with a gun. It is your right to insist that an impartial person be present and agree that the government is justified in taking away your liberty. Right now, you may be thinking that this is not such a big deal because, as the law states, you are only affected by this if you are an enemy combatant (terrorist) and not a citizen. Habeas corpus is your right to argue against the charges brought against you. It is a basic human right, either everyone has it, or no one does. If you are arrested and told that you're a terrorist and not a citizen, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. The American government, at that point, has decided that you don't have the right to question it. You don't have the ability to just show passport or birth certificate. In order to challenge their decision, you'd need a writ of habeas corpus.

I could go on and on about how this right has been around since 1305, but the public doesn't care. I could explain that Germany went

Re:We can moan here as long as we want... by morleron · 2006-10-06 10:39 · Score: 1

I absolutely agree with your comments, particularly about the need to somehow get the majority of the American people to be concerned about the loss of their liberties. The problem, as always with this sort of educational project, is: how does one accomplish it? Spending time writing comments for Slashdot is one way. There are a lot of misguided souls on this site, a minority thankfully, who think that the loss of civil liberty is nothing to get concerned about because President Bush "is a good man" or he's "just keeping us safe" and they need to be disabused of those notions. The first of these responses points out how effective our government is at propaganda, while the second betrays a fundamental mistake in thinking about the true nature of freedom. Both responses can be traced to the government's educational system, which fails to teach students how to think, besides not teaching them how to read, write, and do math. The recent actions of the new dictator in the White House are the result of decades of dereliction of their duties as citizens by the majority of Americans.

How does one get the idea that freedom is fundamental to being an American across to Americans whose biggest concern seems to be who gets kicked off the island next? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that the Bush administration is taking advantage of trends that have been developing in our society for decades to take the final steps needed to convert this nation into a fascist police-state. They've taken advantage of the fact that most Americans believe that "rights" are something the government gives them - such as the "right to drive a car" or the "right to an unemployment check" or the "right to decent housing". They fail to understand that the inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence are natural Rights, inherent in simply being a human as opposed to being a cow. I dare say that the vast majority of Americans could not define the difference between those who believe in Positivist rights and those who understand that Natural rights are the ones that count.

How do we change this? Figuring that out, as you rightly note, needs to be the focus of our efforts now that the government has effectively abolished the Constitution and the civil judiciary to replace them with the arbitrary rule of men instead of the dispassionate rule of law. Marching in the streets might be a start, but unless massive popular support is gained quickly, the fascist in the White House will merely declare that such actions provide aid and comfort to the enemy and that anyone who takes part in them will automatically be named as an unlawful enemy combatant. How many people are going to be willing to continue public dissent once a few of them disappear never to be heard from again, unless it's in a government announcement that the military tribunals handling the cases have decided that death was an appropriate penalty and that, "in the interests of justice", the sentences have already been carried out? The problem, once a police-state gets established, as the complacent fools in this country have allowed to happen, the government is able to rapidly infect the majority of the people with the fear of "doing something the government wouldn't like" and thereby get them to muzzle themselves, thus making the government's job of repressing dissent easier. In order to further increase the police powers of the State the next step will be the repeal of the posse comitatus laws which currently prohibit the use of the military in civilian police roles. Though I suspect that most people have forgotten, it wasn't a year ago that President Bush asked that this very thing be done to make it easier for the government to "secure our border with Mexico". I figure six months, tops, before that little impediment to government power is removed.

If we are going to stop this government it must be done soon, before the police-state mindset takes real root in most of our fellow citizens. After the Republicans steal the upcoming e

--
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P

John Adams by Khammurabi · 2006-10-06 06:36 · Score: 1

John Adams was an admirable man in almost every respect but his character was marred by his firm belief he was smarter than everyone else around him.

So he was a Slashdot regular?

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by pudge · 2006-10-06 07:29 · Score: 2, Informative

I was saying that since it was already covered in the DoI as "self-evident", they didn't need to mention that the BoR applied to all people (to the best they could), not just people of the united states

Except, that's not true. The Bill of Rights DOES only apply to the people of the United States. (Note, I am not saying "citizens" of the United States.) This is absolutely clear, and true. The DoI is not law. It's a statement of principles. And it says that BECAUSE of the principle that all men are created equal and have rights, THEREFORE they should select their own government, and the Constitution defines part of that government. But if you are not a part of that (again, not necessarily a citizen, but in the United States), then none of the Constitution applies to you, unless it explicitly says so.

Re:Already Unconstitutional... ?? by ltmdweaver · 2006-10-06 13:27 · Score: 0

Hmmm... I guess I read the post differently than you.

I thought it was an appellate court that rendered the decision. I guess I thought the court which really had the final authority on issues of constitutionality for issues like the powers of the executive branch was the Supremes - you know Diana Ross ;-) I suppose it better if every JP, appellate court, federal state and local in the land could challenge the constitutionality of any level of government. I guess you're right.

I apologize I must've misread... thanks for correcting me. I never was very good in civics.

mdw (esq.) ;-)

Re:Already Unconstitutional... ?? by NormalVisual · 2006-10-06 14:54 · Score: 1

Being a lawyer, perhaps you could answer this (not being snippy, genuinely curious):

If it's not proper to refer to an activity that has been determined to be unconstitutional by a lower court (you gotta start somewhere, right?) as "unconstitutional" simply on the basis that it's still under appeal, then why is it proper, for instance, to refer to someone that has been convicted of murder as "a murderer" when they still have *years* of appeals remaining? Does the ruling of a lower court not matter at all when choosing terminology?

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

We're handwaving secret rules into existence now? by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-06 16:16 · Score: 1

It seems to indicate that there are clear rules that outline when you get a warrant and when you don't. So applications aren't submitted that won't ultimately succeed. What would be the point of that?

"Clear rules" doesn't mean "every wiretap is allowable under the rules" or even "every wiretap needed to prevent terrorism is allowable under the rules".

This actually seems almost plausible, but I didn't think this was the case because there are no such rules actually listed in the FISA law itself. If such laws existed, I guess they were secret. But why would they need to be?

But nevermind. I'm sure Karl Rove is out to listen to your private thoughts.

Huh; for a moment there, I thought you were actually debating in good faith. Silly me.

Look, if there were overly-restrictive secret rules that we didn't know about, there were legal ways to change that. Whether or not FISA provided the capabilities that the executive branch thought it needed is irrelevant. (Though I haven't seen anything convincing on that front, either.) The President felt that he could ignore the law and make up his own rules. The President thinks that he's a King.

Are you kosher with that? Does your snark about how I think Karl Rove is tapping my phone somehow keep you from caring that "but it's important!" is considered a perfectly fine reason to break the law?

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Re:All Hail The LIb's and the Antique Media by geminidomino · 2006-10-06 17:53 · Score: 1

So it's bad when a President does it, but not when a congressman does it? Or is it the whole Donkey-Elephant thing again?

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by stinerman · 2006-10-06 22:53 · Score: 1

What our friend is trying to say is that the founders didn't think to explicitly write that the "BoR" was to be read as a foreign policy document since they believed that such values were "self-evident". I don't think he's correct, but it is a reasonable thing to say.

Re:U.S. citizen foreign national by pudge · 2006-10-07 03:04 · Score: 2, Informative

It isn't a foreign policy document. But it WAS written to be exclusively for the people of the United States, and consciously so. They wouldn't have even dreamed of trying to make it apply to anyone else.

Only on Slashdot. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-10-19 04:38 · Score: 1

Only on Slashdot is the revocation of habeas corpus morally equivalent to taking away your DVD cloning software. Yes, they're both bad. But if I had to choose between the two, I don't think I'd lose much sleep over it.

--
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca

Slashdot Mirror

Warrantless Surveillance To Continue For Now

402 comments