Slashdot Mirror
IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order
fstyke writes "An article in the Washington Post (anonymous for obvious reasons) describes the trauma the president of a small US IT company faces after receiving a National Security Letter. This is sent by the FBI demanding information (140000+ have been sent between 2003/2005 according to the article). Makes for an interesting read of the side effects of receiving such a letter and its requirements for the recipient to remain silent about even the fact he/she has received it.'The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.'"
Having secret police and no accountability goes against the very grain of what the United States stands for, and what the Constitution says. Our forefathers explicitly ensured that we would have the rights necessary to overthrow our government if things got out of hand. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend contacting your representatives, writing to your local newspaper, and otherwise telling anyone who will hear that this is unacceptable. We cannot have the government secretly snooping around in our private information and lives. Let's kick up a stormcloud and make sure this gets changed!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the FBI denies its existance and you are not to speak about it, you can just silently throw it in the bin and forget about it, right? I mean they can't possibly sue you over something that doesn't even legally exist. Okay, maybe in a country like your they can.
When I was a kid (10 odd years), I remember the Soviet Union; massive check-points at borders, customs officers that gave you a cavity check at will, and a police state that didn't care much for the privacy or rights of it's citizens... Remember KGB (FSB now) and GRU ?? Anyone ??
That nightmare is now over, and I can freely go to and from Moscow, to visit my grandmother and friends. Or, I can have them board a plane and come to Amsterdam... with almost no delays at the border(s)...
But hey, those KGB and GRU bastards were hired by... the white house, and their methods are now common practice in the USA and it's 'allies'..
You yanks didn't win the cold war, you lost... but you kinda don't get it... but I'm sure your children will, and they will look at you for answers.
--- 'Pain heals, chicks dig scars... glory... lasts for ever!' -- "Footstep" Falco
IANAL, but without a court order signed by a judge, it's a strongly worded REQUEST.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Do you get put on secret trial in a secret court? Or secret penalties from the IRS? What he should do is look at the info himself, and decide if something is suspicious. If it looks like something illegal going on, help out the FBI, if not then make them get a judge involved, and protect the privacy of his customer in the meantime.
Your assuming that the election is not proved to have been rigged by an outside party and as the only real solution left after that would be leaving in the current president until a full and "timely" investigation could be accomplished. Sounds far fetched to you?
Recently I received CONTENT REMOVED from the --- regarding one of my CONTENT REMOVED. It was delivered personally by two CONTENT REMOVED in a black CONTENT REMOVED and they CONTENT REMOVED terrorist CONTENT REMOVED you're not for us CONTENT REMOVED us.
Under the terms of the CONTENT REMOVED Act it appears I cannot CONTENT REMOVED or CONTENT REMOVED or even badgers. They said they had installed special CONTENT REMOVED on my CONTENT REMOVED connection and would be watching out for transgressions - even something as innocuous as calling G.W. CONTENT REMOVED failure or librarians CONTENT REMOVED CONTENT REMOVED Harry Potter in Syria. Since contacting my la +++NO CARRIER+++
I for one welcome our baton-weilding, secretive, power-hungry overlords. Oh, wait. I thought we'd gotten rid of them when we got rid of the Gestapo/Stazi/NKVD?!?
Ho-hum. Back to the police state it is,then.
According to the PATRIOT Act, you're not.
Question everything
That's a good last stand. I'm wondering why we haven't seen signs sooner that "changing horses midstream" would be a bad idea and the administration testing the waters of forgoing the next election. I would think that would be the dealbreaker for America.
I'd hire an attorney and take the letter to him. Its questionable legal practice and a non-approved letter (no judge, no warrant, no due process), is only worth the paper and ink, nothing more.
They may see your non-cooperation and go through proper channels, but that's what the attorney is hired for. I'd reply that it'd be bad business practice to breach client information, but would happily cooperate with the courts if funneled through proper channels.
Name, rank, and serial number. All you gotta give.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
But, look, George Bush has never been too bright about understanding 'fereigners.' But he does know Americans. He asked this generation to sacrifice the things he knew we would not miss: our privacy and our morality. He let us keep the money. But he made a cynical bet that we wouldn't much care if we became a 'Big Brother' country that has now tortured a lot of random people...
In conclusion, after 9/11, President Bush told us Osama bin Laden could run but he couldn't hide. But, then he ran and hid. So, Bush went to Plan B: pissing on the Constitution and torturing random people...
They say evil happens when good men do nothing. Well, the Democrats prove it also happens when mediocre people do nothing."
Full text here.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Jeez I must be tired. 'We one' instead of 'We won' is bad even for me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
how many recipients of these letters followed orders and gave up the information. We would never even know about it. Kinda scary...
As perverse as it may sound, I would also wager that there are individuals out there who would reply to these letters instantly and with a sense of pride for serving their country. I am very interested if the letters convey this attitude about this request for information. If they do, in fact, inform the individual that this is a matter of national security & that they will be bringing justice to the enemies of the United States, then I hope they are eventually published so we can all have a good laugh and that they might serve as a reminder for victims of future schemes.
My work here is dung.
My National Security Letter Gag Order
Friday, March 23, 2007; Page A17
It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.
The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.
Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.
Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.
Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.
I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.
The inspector general's report makes clear that NSL gag orders have had even more pernicious effects. Without the gag orders issued on recipients of the letters, it is doubtful that the FBI would have been able to abuse the NSL power the way that it did. Some recipients would have spoken out about perceived abuses, and the FBI's actions would have been subject to some degree of public scrutiny. To be sure, not all recipients would have spoken out; the inspector general's report suggests that large telecom companies have been all too willing to share sensitive data with the agency -- in at least one case, a telecom company gave the FBI even more information than it asked for. But some recipients would have called attention to abuses, and some abuse would have been deterred.
If one is under a gag order, does one have to lie? From the article, "When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie."
I would hope you can use the neutral "I cannot comment." The order does not say "lie about us" but "you can not discuss it." Yes, evasive answers can confirm suspicions in people (why else would they not answer?), but that should still be legit.
Similarly, meeting with an attorney on a case you can't discuss, just say "I'm meeting with an attorney, can't discuss, sorry."
Anyone else run into being forced to lie?
A.
Make multiple copies of the NSL, along with your story, set it all up so that in 30 days, if you do nothing, they get mailed out to all the media outlets, faxed out of the country to overseas media (BBC, et. al.) and then you go and hold a public announcement in front of the Capitol and say "Nope, not gonna do it." Utterly refuse to obey a law that is "evil."
The biggest weapon against overbearing government is transparency. If a government cannot withstand scrutiny, they are doing something very wrong. The PATRIOT act is the biggest piece of shit written, and Congress (most of whom never read it) just rolled over. Were they a computer, I'd FDISK them and start over.
When do they broadcast the 2 minutes of hate again? I must have missed it this morning.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
If I'd received one of those letters, I wouldn't want the hard copy just sitting around. So I'd scan it, and then shred the original. Then I'd store the electronic copy on a secure place on my hard drive. But it sure would be a tragedy if a couple days later some "hacker" mysteriously broke into my computer and got a copy of the letter and then put it on a P2P network for all to see. Gosh, FBI, that's too bad. I feel just terrible it got leaked, but I did everything I could to protect it. Too bad I'm just a normal citizen and not qualified to store classified information in my home, so I guess it's not really my fault. Sorry guys.
...1/20/2009 - That's all I have to say.
Why is that all you have to say? You're hoping that the executive branch is then run by the opposing party? But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act, and supported renewing it because they saw the need to do so. Have you heard a single person (a plausibly electable C-in-C) that has actually said that despite the fact that congress voted on and passed (more than once) the legal framework for a change in how counter-terrorism intel is gathered/processed/shared that they would ignore that legislation? They (your presumptive opposing-party-president-elect) doesn't have any power or authority to change the legislation. That's for your congress to do. And the opposing party is already in control of congress. And guess what: all they can do is talk about non-binding resolutions that stamp their feet in disapproval over the conduct of the conflict in Iraq, and get in a lather over how a handful of US attorneys (ALL of whom work entirely at the whim of every president and are political appointees, and ALL of whom the previous administration fired without so much as a minor hissy fit out of congress) were dismissed.
If you don't like the PATRIOT act, talk to you congress creatures. They're the ones that passed it, they're the ones that renewed it, and they're the ones that could kill it off any time they want. So: specifically ask John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama if they would ask congress to kill it off (since that's all they can do), and see what they say. Your date in 2009 won't change the fact that important changes the PATRIOT act brought forth are still going to be necessary. People can't bitch about the poor intelligence sharing/processing lapses leading up to 9/11, and also bitch about the piece of legislation that fixes the problem. I think there are some aspects of the act that should be changed - but only if another provision is put in place: we need a LOT more judges. Ones with the security clearances and training required to be a part of real-time counter-terrorism investigations/activities. These problems are not like normal criminal investigations, to say the least. If we all want judges to weigh in on when an IT shop should be, in the middle of security issue, asked to cough up some sort of information - well, we need a hell of a lot more judges who are able to constructively weigh in on that issue on a moment's notice, and with the IT-savvy skills to grasp the issues at stake. And those judges will all need infrastructure, staff, communications and all of the other high costs that go with making them available to the intel people that are trying to get the actual work done. There's a little more to it than Teh Evil Bush Wants To Document My Pr0n Habits So I'll Go To Gitmo.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
According to wikipedia:
Section 505 ruled unconstitutional
On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505--which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight--as a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech, so it was turned down.
So, why can't this guy talk about it yet? the law has been struck down.
Excuse me?!? Did you completely fail to notice that it was a conservative administration that did this shit? I'm a liberal, and I want my fucking rights back, motherfucker!
www.wavefront-av.com
That's the thing: No, we didn't.
The government has been encroaching on our personal liberties one piece at a time for a century.
You may want to blame the government of the past 30 years, but here's a quote from former attorney general and later Supreme Court justice, Robert H Jackson in 1940--61 years before USA PATRIOT Act.:
-Robert H. Jackson
Realize this was back in 1940, when the federal body of law was half what it is today.
I would argue that focusing on the last few decades of law is the exact reason why we can't get serious reform. Once the American people wrap their heads around how much and how long they've been screwed over the years, it'll really put the problem into the correct context.
Both parties have given incredible powers to the government over the years, and "the lesser of two evils" mentality is to blame. Once you realize how terribly they both have systematically and deviously plotted and executed their plans to control you, you'll realize that neither of the two can be trusted.
Of course, this all sounds like alarmist melodramatic BS... until you see this.
We were robbed because we were afraid of what our fellow citizens were doing. By bowing to the the pressures of the 'crisis of the day,' we allowed the government to seize control. The alien and sedition acts made it a crime to criticize the federalist government. The FBI was doing (illegal) drive-by shootings on the homes of suspected KKK members. Alleged Communists were "convicted" without proper trial by the hundreds (sometimes 50 at a time). Alleged child molesters have been tracked down and their property searched and seized without proper warrants. Now, with the advent of the terrorist into our country, the executive branch doesn't even need to explain itself when it knocks down your door.
Latewire
. . . but when many many people disobey a bad law as a matter of course, it causes the law itself to be questioned, and perhaps overturned.
Yes. Like speeding laws. Or laws concerning the use of marijuana. Bad laws get overturned all the time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The first rule of National Security Letters is you will not talk about...ah you get the point.
Is this really a power that we have given the FBI? I thought only the KGB could terrorize citizens like this.
specifically the one of the customers who's information is requested? It couldn't hurt to hire a consultant on the legality of this letter.
And some people may feel strongly of the invasion of rights it implys. Maybe even enough to provide the service at a discount rate...
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
This is exactly the technique district attorneys use when summoning you before a grand jury in a sensitive investigation.
No judge. No accountability. Gag order. I was under one for 9 months in 1992.
It's a 'feature' of the system, and if they can't do it this way, the US Attorney will do it for them.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This would be my response.
In this country, the law exists only as it interpreted by the Judiciary. Every session congress enacts law after law that conflict with one another, and with existing laws. Until precedent is set in court, the people of this country are left to make their best guess as to which seemingly conflicting laws will prevail. It is my firm belief that the specific powers granted to you by PATRIOT act, by which you are making this request, are unconstitutional. Therefore, as a law abiding citizen, it is my duty to uphold the law and deny your request until such time as you provide a warrant.
The PATRIOT act is the biggest piece of shit written, and Congress (most of whom never read it) just rolled over.
During the dabate over the PATRIOT Act, Ron Paul proved that it was physically impossible to have read the text of the bill before the vote.
Given that GWB is the master of the signing statement a.k.a "I won't veto it, I'll just ignore it", and based on the current admin's stance that "the C-in-C can do anything in time of war", what would stop the new C-in-C from issuing an executive order abolishing the Patriot Act?
A signing statement is nothing more than an opinion stated at the time the bill is signed. Clinton issued them, Carter issued them, etc. A president making a signing statement is simply going on record about the context in which they're signing the bill, and actually saving everyone a lot of time and trouble when said law (or the way in which it's used or ignored) winds up in court. Would you rather that a president decide, personally, that he thinks a law is BS and makes a decision about if/how he'll apply it at a policy level within his areas of authority, but doesn't say so out loud? At least this way (when a signing statement does accompany the occasional new law) you know exactly where the administration stands on its use or lack thereof. Rather than wait a year to find out, in practice, what the administration thinks, you can get right back to congress, or right to court, and deal with it more head-on. I think presidents are doing us all a favor when they characterize their administration's take on a new law and how they'll approach its use or enforcement (or let it rot). I'm not talking about any particular president, or any particular law - just the whole evolving habit. I think this is more in the "better the devil you know... " category.
As for the new C-in-C abolishing the act? It doesn't work that way. He can only offer up new legislation that counters it or modifies it, and congress has to run with it, or modify that, or let it rot. Executive orders apply to things that are within the executive branch's area of responsibility/authority. If they stray from that, that's what the legislative and judicial branches are for. If the legislators (from both parties) who put forth and passed the PATRIOT act and its slightly modified later version don't want the executive branch to use it, or want it to be used differently, all they have to do is change it. All YOU have to do is convince enough people to elect congressional representatives that SAY they want to change it. Of course, you won't actually find more than a tiny minority of congress-people who say they think that the CIA and NSA and FBI shouldn't be able to share intel in the middle of a terror investigation, or that being able to establish the pattern of a bad guy's flurry of phone calls to the local Hamas franchise office while using half a dozen disposable TRAC phones bought for cash at a bordertown 7-11 is a bad thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Well, you know, that by now, you are on the "not allowed in" list. The NSA has passed all your info on to the Communication General Board (CGB) that we maintain in secret as part of the PATRIOT ACT. And if they do not have it, then I will have to report you or risk being transported up to one of our luxurious camps in either northern Alaska, Cuba, or Iraq.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What is this Liberal America of which you speak and how do I get there?
I haven't researched our presidential candidates much but one of the comments on this board made me look up what the individual candidiates think about the Patriot Act. Personally, I think it's some of the worst legislation ever passed and I get angry just thinking about it. While according to the Wikipedia, this quote is incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, I think it applies all to well to this discussion. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." I KNOW that Mr Franklin would have issues with the Patriot Act as it stands now.
r _statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_patriot_ act/index.html
You really need to check out what Barack Obama said about it. The interesting thing about politicians, and I can't help but think cynically, is that they all sound like sensible people until they actually get the job. Once they're in office they usually do a complete 180 and are more concerned about their golf handicap than they are the real issues. I don't know who to vote for yet, but Senator Obama sounds like a good man. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051215-senate_floo
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
Thank FSM there's still a little bit of Article I hanging on. If it weren't for a free press that's willing to cause a bit of trouble, we'd never have even heard about this.
No jokes, please
Did you intentionally quote the election ad from Wag The Dog?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Sorry, meant to go farther. An "executive order" is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to act. A "signing statement", according to GWB's apparent belief, is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the law at hand. The only difference is that one applies across the board, while the other applies to one bill
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
The "dealbreaker" part was from Lewis Black's standup on Heaven's Gate.
The future of our democracy depends on people like you to speak out. Thank you for taking the risk you have by contacting the press on this and please keep pursuing whatever legal avenues you have available to you.
Can you show me where the Clinton administration pressured US attorneys to selective prosecute cases that served Democratic political ends? Or how when the US attorneys failed to comply they were fired? That would be news - which is why it is news now and wasn't then.
Why bother? The Clinton administration pre-emptively fired ALL of them, and put in their own political (and thus polically beholden) appointees. The current administration came right out and said that the vast majority of them were doing fine and that it would be disruptive to fire them. Further: can you show where there was any indication of the administration pressuring any of these attorneys at all? So far we've heard one anecdote of a legislator calling one up and bitching about something. Anything else would be news, indeed, but it isn't because: it isn't.
Which gets back to your ridiculous framing. I'd love for you to talk about all the terrorist activity the PATRIOT Act has enabled the U.S. government to prosecute.
The entire point of counter terrorism isn't prosecution (though that can be a nice sidebar), it's prevention. You don't want another Madrid, or London, or Manhatten with lots of nice prosecutable evidence trails, you want to stop it from happening in the first place. It's like any other war, at least in that regard: the idea isn't to punish the people who attack and harm you, it's to stop it, deter it, and eventually not have to worry so much about it.
Where is the accountability after the fact - information on what provisions were used, how it was effective, etc.
Ask anyone who works as an undercover cop busting organized crime operations, or anyone who pounces on the international finance and logistics types who empower the Khalid Sheik Mohammed-types. You don't get on the news and explain the details of the operation until years later. Otherwise, the rest of the people operating the same way get to adapt around the techniques. To say, "we just caught KSM, in part because we had some excellent people monitoring and tracking down his communcations" is pretty much the extent of what you can (and should hear). I'm intensely curious about the logistics of that sort of thing, but I don't want the details on a Discovery Channel show because I don't want his apprentices to see it either. But this is exactly why the congressional and senate oversight committees get briefed on this sort of stuff, and is exactly why the members of those committes from both parties routinely say they don't want to gut the PATRIOT act - because they know how important it is. The dems are now in charge of those committees. You seem to be suggesting that their current orientation is towards abolishing the act or its practical applications in this area. It's awfully quiet out there on that front, don't you think? There's a reason for that.
I think when you look at the facts you will find that the Patriot Act is being used in ways it was never intended on cases that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and that is a gross misuse of state power. All we have now is people - like yourself - stating it is very important.
So, why aren't people like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama out there campaigning, right now, talking about pressing the need to change the act, or pointing out specific cases where the abuse you're talking about is obvious? It's not just "people - like myself" that consider it important. It's the political opponents of the current administration, and the party currently controlling both houses of congress, that are NOT willing to tear it down. For obvious reasons.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Subvert the Data. Give 'em TONS of useless garbage, that is a wate of time, and both difficult and time-consuming to use.
Obfuscate, delay and malinger.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Orwell warned us about those.......
Remember John Travolta, in Pulp Fiction explaining that in people in Holland (where I live) 'drowned french-fries in mayonaise' and that 'a cop' had no right to search you in Holland ??
Well, that in the past now. Now they can pretty much do whatever they feel like. It's not that the law says; hey policeman, do as you please, but since the US of A wanted allies... we complied, and ANYONE can now be arrested in holland, for whatever reason they can think of. And it called 'come for a visit and answer some questions' by the lawyers of the state.
In moscow I know I can be asked for my passport any minute by any policeman, and they can fine me there and then... still, I'd rather pay 50 euros and eat dinner at home, than spend some days at the police station in Amsterdam to 'answer some questions' in the name of national security.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and it sucks to be halted my some form of authority, but after Spain...
BTW: Moscow is not russia, it is IN russia, but russia is more than Moscow, so scenes from moscow dont represent russia as a whole
--- 'Pain heals, chicks dig scars... glory... lasts for ever!' -- "Footstep" Falco
Every "gag order" is a state-backed command to lie. The "gagged" person is compelled into deceit.
What makes this really stupid, is the fact that the order implicitely assumes that they can trust the victim to comply, even though the only way the victim can comply is to be untrustworthy.
We're seeing some good political maneuvering here. With this appearing in the Washington Post, and support from ACLU lawyers, it's quite possible that the plan is to get this guy called to testify before a congressional committee. If he testifies under oath before Congress on this, that overrides the FBI's "gag order".
Here's what you have left: hand guns, religion, and they can't make you quarter a British soldier.
... the first two of those. Time and time again they have whittled away especially at gun rights. More recently, over the past couple decades, Christianity is their newest target.
...and the 3rd Amendment wasn't to protect us against having to quarter foreign soldiers in our homes, it was to prevent us from having to quarter US military in our homes and private property. Imagine how much money our military would save if they could legally say, "Hey there Mr Citizen... Ya know that spare unused bedroom in your house? Well, effective today, you're gonna have a have a couple new houseguests staying with you for a while."
Every major US city and state that imposes (unconstitutional) restrictions against private gun ownership has done so under predominately Democrat-controlled government who spearheaded the bans and restrictions as part of their party platform. The recent court decision declaring handgun ownership bans in Washington DC unconstitutional is an anomaly... they will "correct" that soon enough.
Every major attack against Christianity in the US is led by liberal or Democratic-run organizations and every big court decision that attacks Christianity (while ignoring or even protecting other religions) has been handed down by a Democrat judge.
(and on a wierd note, I have a good friend who is a retired wealthy businessman and has a very big house... and over the past few years he and his wife have graciously offered their spare rooms to pilot trainees at our nearby Air Force Base to live in free of rent while they complete their training classes and get shipped out. The new base commander has suddenly put a stop to that, citing that the retired man is effectively getting his 3rd amendment rights violated by giving away free housing to active duty military personnel and he can no longer do it for free, but can charge them a "fair rent" for room & board.)
The "limited state of emergency" of which you speak, to whatever extent it exists, has no legal nor practical bearing on this matter.
Anything that depends on simply trusting the government is -- if I may be excused for using a heavily-abused term -- un-American. Our system of government is built on openness, oversight, and active citizen participation. That's especially true when someone tries to sells us on an intentionally vague and open-ended "state of emergency".
Fair enough. Sorry about going off the deep end, then. Looks like yet another case of two nations separated by a common language :-)
www.wavefront-av.com
Liberal, conservative, what does it matter? These are our elected representatives doing this.
What side of the isle they park their chairs doesn't really matter. About the only thing that differs between the parties is what they _accuse_ the other party of doing even though they do the same things.
And there's our unelected overlords, the appointed bureaucrats that have no responsibility to even acknowledge the will of the public.
The government has been encroaching on our personal liberties one piece at a time for a century.
Ever since 1861, really. That's when they first elected a guy who represented specific, well-defined commercial powers and was willing to start wars and gag the press to fund them.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
OK, So I'll get modded "Troll" and "Flamebait". But isn't it time you Americans fought back for your democracy, before you lose it all in the name of the "War against Terror"?
"This company/web site has never been served a national security letter and has never disclosed any information under a national security letter"
While I am sure that they could find a judge to compel you to keep such an announcement up even after you have received such a letter, such a statement can have a powerful viral effect. Also, find those privacy links at the bottom of the page and ask them if they have been served letters. If they say no ask them to place such a public statement on their web site.
As long as nobody is talking to those hit by these letter, the victims are just going to hunker down, keep quite and hope it all blows over. Once we start seeing who and what is hiding in the shadows the real problem may become clear. Turning on a little light can chase the cockroaches away.
So how about it SlashDot? Have you ever been served?
As long as one follows the guidelines of the corporation (which are presumed to be legal), a person in a corporation has no personal liability. So don't expect corporate folks to act like anybody cares about personal responsibility.
A corporation is not a place for "people to stand up for what they believe in". Their duty is to the stockholders!
I'll tell you what's politically expedient. Voting them out of office.
But, that entails being involved in the political process. Which, many of you are not. The ones who are not politically involved certainly didn't click "read more."
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
There are people who help citizens with governmental problems: they are call congressmen (and women).
They are YOUR representatives. If you ever receive a federal letter that makes strange demands of you, like this one, your first phone call should be to the office of you congressman. I can attest that congressmen do get involved on behalf of the citizens they represent in matters of federal government.
It makes a whole hell of a lot of difference when responding to one of those demand letters when it comes back to them on congressional letterhead.
Although this isn't a perfect solution, one thing that potential NSL recipients can do is maintain a warrant canary.
Basically, they commit to updating a cryptographically signed statement that they have not received a secret warrant along with a current news item.
I'm not sure if warrant canaries have ever been tested, and if one failed (the service provider was forced to update it) you would never know.
I would make 3 copies. Give one to my state's attorney general, and one to each of my senators.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
This law sets a valuable example for tyrants.
When creating laws with horrific effects, always make sure that one of the provisions of the law makes it illegal for anyone with first-hand experience regarding how horrible the law is to testify, discuss, or even acknowledge any involvement or problems with said law.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
You should check out Ron Paul. He's a libertarian running as a Republican and the only candidate that's signed the Freedom Pledge. I hope he goes all the way.
Bummer, is all I can say.
It is very problable that he deliberately telling partial truths in order to support an untenable position.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The whole war metaphor is fundamentally flawed. Prosecution is essential in law enforcement activity.
That's the entire problem, here. Neither is a good metaphor. We're not dealing with a specific nation-state (though there certainly ARE specific nation-states that overtly support international terrorism... Iran, for example). A person sitting in a house in Syria, using money and expertise from Iran, talking to a student in Germany who's IM-ing with someone in Detroit who chats with people in Boston using disposable phones while planning something big is NOT a traditional law enforcement problem, either. You can't even start using the tools of law enforcement until you've got good evidence of a conspiracy under way, and the only way that happens is via intelligence gathering and processing. And when that involves intel that can only (or largely) be gathered through the sort of tools that the DoD deploys and operates overseas, you're in uncharted waters as it relates to preventing something from happening. That's exactly the sort of thing that had to change, post-9/11. That was only a few years ago. It takes time for a completely new threat, and a completely altered technological landscape, to find its way into useful policy, law, and administrative structures. In the meantime, you have to actually DO something.
terrorism is about evidence, facts and the rule of law
And the problem is that a boat full of LNG and some dirty radioactive-ness being blown up on its way into a US harbor or other facility as it approaches from international waters isn't, and can't be the before-hand problem of law enforcement. That's not their mission or area of expertise, though they'd certainly have something to contribute if there's a domestic element to the panning, etc. It's just not a situation we've really covered before, not even taking into account German saboteurs during WWII - they were still agents of a nation, and there wasn't really a lot of concern about them blowing up tankers full of chlorine outside police stations, and like that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It is very problable that he deliberately telling partial truths in order to support an untenable position.
No, it is very certain that all US attorneys are political appointees. Their hiring and firing, however abruptly or delayed, is completely within the administration's rights at any time. You don't like the way that one of your political appointees runs their office, sets their priorities, or spins something? Great! They're yours to fire, at will. In the case of the 8 in question, it's as simple as they weren't wanted any more. It doesn't matter if they were appointed by the same guy originally. Plenty of at-will employees in all sorts of settings get let go after the same manager that hired them has had a while to get to know them or decide if what they do fits within the strategy and priorities their boss has in mind. I'm at a complete loss as to why this seems mysterious to people, or what part of "at will" is so confusing, here. Of course, it's NOT a mystery: this is a manufactured "scandal" that the administration was clumsy enough to act defensive about, which just turned into something it wasn't.
It's actually a tremendous breath of fresh air to know that there is such a thing as a federal employee that can under- or mis-perform a job and actually be let go. That's the difference between political appointees and career beaurocrats, congressional cafeteria workers, etc.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Expect this person, as well as any other NSL recipient that they could possibly claim might be this guy, to disappear.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
We *all* have a moral obligation to stand up and support people who may be put at risk by others violating these laws. That way if a husband or a wife has the choice, they can know that there is help and support available.
In the end, I also think there is a moral obligation to inspire others with deeds well done, to the best of our ability. This means standing up for what is right, whether (in this instance) it is defying these letters or helping those who need assistance because someone else defied one.
I think this point (as you have brought up) is interesting. I think it is worth considering. And I think it broadens the scope of the responsibilities of all of us who have not yet received such a letter.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
"Now I want you to go into that bag and find my rights."
"Which rights are those?
"There the ones that say, 'Bad Mother Fucker.'"
This is true, but you can usually figure out what they're really thinking if you dig deep enough in the muck of their past. Or just listen very carefully to what's not said.
"The day before his speech [at the Democratic National Convention], Obama told reporters, 'On Iraq, on paper... there's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.'" (Eric Ruder, 6 Aug 04) His position is that we didn't invade with enough troops. And he still thinks that we can "win" in Iraq. (This belief suggests a head stuck so far into the sand that the world looks upside down.)
In September of 2004, he suggested targeted air strikes on Iran. He's for giving tax cuts to corporations instead of individuals, and for charter schools instead of meaningful improvements to public schools. (And, in case anyone wants to start trumpeting the value of competition in education, please take a look at the high quality education that a truly decent public school can give.)
Perhaps most dangerously, his centrism, like the first Clinton's, and appeals to bipartisanship ignore the reality: that we need partisanship, STRONG partisanship to turn around the disaster that this country has been since we started expanding our borders and our "influence." (Oh right, that means since the beginning...) And the Democrats are in no position to be independent of the political and economic forces that control both parties and push them in the same direction. We need a real alternative.
Similar to the site zero accidents since... then, when u get one of those letters just stop updating. youmight lose clients but you will have premptively avoided being screwed morally. after all if u are forced to update falsely...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
IANAL but in my experience, strictly speaking, the judge can't force him to lie. The courts aren't as I understand it in the business of perpetuating a falsehood. Rather the courts can, as instructed by congress order him to keep such matters secret. Whether he does this by lying or by so isolating himself from all of his friends, family, and coworkers that noone asks is up to him. I suppose if someone were to feel that their soul would burn in hell for all eternity if they were to lie they might opt for the latter route, perhaps growing increasingly hostile to all others around them as a way of dissuading questions.
Practically speaking wither choice seems terrible to me but then the people who wrote, passed, and abused this law clearly wanted it that way to make the bad guys suffer.
The catch is, as the War on Drugs (TM) has shown "we" are always the bad guys.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that it's distracting attention away from the real problems with abuse of authority--like the topic of this whole discussion. I don't know how this turned into such a shitstorm while the whole NSL issue is just at a quiet simmer on the back burner.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I'm beginning to suspect that Obama was actually hired by a covert conservative think tank. A vote for Obama is a vote thrown away. You might as well vote for Nader for crissake. Do you really think the country that elected George W Bush twice in a row is going to elect anything other than another white guy? Electing Obama would break a trend that goes back to the very beginning of the American Presidency and I don't see that kind of liberality anywhere on the landscape of today's American voting public. Seriously, it is inconceivable that Obama would do anything but split the liberal vote and hand the election over to those arch-conservatives that have had such a terrifyingly clear and steadfast vision for America's future. Same goes for Hillary. I used to think I would vote for any woman who ran just for the simple fact that it would be good for a change, but that bitch is crazy. If you want a radical new direction for the country you're better off electing another white guy with radical ideas than a candidate of a radically new racial/gender demographic altogether that will only scare off those moderates whose prejudices would far outweigh their own possible growing lack of confidence with the current party. Then again if you could actually mobilize the minority vote and guarantee that it actually counted in all precincts then maybe you'd have something. I'd like to see a real iconoclast get into office, though Obama seems like another slick asshole, professional politician at best and a long shot in the average American's opinion in the first place anyway.
First you state that there is a big stink about the eight fired 8 attorneys, which compares to no uproar when Clinton fired all the attorneys at the beginning of the term.
This is deliberately misleading, since the mid-term firings for possibly political reasons are different from wholesale replacement at the beginning of an administration -- which Bush also did.
Then you attempted to defend your initial statement by pulling a quote from the beginning of the Bush administration -- which is also misleading, since the actual context was that he was leaving them in for a short time before replacing all of them. You conveniently made it seem as though the administration left them in place, which they did not.
Maybe you didn't know these facts when you made your posts, but it sure seems like you were deliberately misleading for effect.
Not so. Wrongful termination suits are still made (and sometimes won) in at-will employment states; why would it be different for political employees?
It doesn't matter if they were appointed by the same guy originally.You're right. But the reason they were fired does matter. Firing a US attorney for political reasons (such as to evade an investigation into the Plame leak, or to punish someone for *not* announcing an investigation into one's political opponent before an election, or to punish someone for investigating a political ally) is clearly an ethical violation (and, actually, a legal violation).
Funny how you miss the above-average performance reviews most of these appointees received.
I see. According to your thinking, manipulating federal employees (potentially for political purposes, which is the reason this is a scandal) in order to manipulate an election is A-OK. Funny thing is, it's illegal to do so, as those attorneys are employees of the federal government, not employees of GWB, or employees of the Republican Party. One cannot use federal resources such as those attorneys for election purposes.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Can you explain how Obama would "split" the liberal vote, if the competition was between the Republican nominee and Obama?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Large numbers.
Federal agency can prey on one poor objector, two, maybe 5. But if say 10000 people with illegal warrants of info from FBI/CIA/NSA get together on 1 day in a court of law or somewhere else where they can make a public statement and demand protection from government abuse/retribution, then something will be done. The US is not an orwellian nightmare just yet - scandals are scandals, and our govmint still fears them.
The question of course is how to arrange for such a meeting with fearful participants making the arrangements, and the possibility of FBI interfering. Can someone think of a techie solution? It's mathematically impossible methinks, even if our ISPs were not on the bad side.
"Maybe in the 18th century, but today I'd like to see any of that stand up to US Armed Forces tanks, snipers, bombs, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons."
Who do you think makes up the US Armed Forces? Citizens. I love when your response is given, because it displays a profound ignorance of reality. If you believe the US Armed Forces would, as a whole, wage all out war against their families, friends and neighbors, then you are beyond reasoning with.
You haven't thought about it, you're just regurgitating anti-gun propaganda.
I think you're missing the possibility that firings were done in retribution for failed attempts to influence the midterm elections and/or Congressional interference in ongoing legislation. This would be a clear violation of law, and is the reason for the brouhahah.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Conservative relative to what? Haven't you noticed that the Republican party isn't very conservative anymore? It's only conservative when you compare it to France.
Thank you for saying this. I thought I was going to have to. :)
In Nature, stupidity is a capital offense. In human society, too many get off with less than a warning.
I think you're missing the possibility that firings were done in retribution for failed attempts to influence the midterm elections and/or Congressional interference in ongoing legislation. This would be a clear violation of law, and is the reason for the brouhahah.
Well, it's also possible that they were fired because all U.S. attorneys are actually space aliens, and the recent release of UFO-related info by the French government was going to cause some problems. Of course, there isn't so much as a scrap of evidence for either of those scenarios, and if there was, it would be a criminal matter, not a matter for politicized polemic in congress. They could (and should) say all they want if there actually were more than just wishful thinking re: electioneering... but there isn't, of course. No more than the wishful thinking that that it was Dick Cheney that personall outed Plame to Novak turned out to be rather the opposite (Armitage, of course - no Bush fan at all - did it).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This democracy that we used to believe we had here does not exist.
remember April 19, 1775 and Nov 4, 2008
Retain an attorney, go right down to the nearest Federal courthouse and set up an appointment with a Federal judge. Let him decide how to deal with it. If he tells you to comply, that's it.
No way the FBI can stop you from doing that, regardless of how "secret" the letter is. And if they ARE abusing the Patriot Act, the judge may - not necessarily will - determine that. Or he will refer it up to the "secret" court that deals with these issues.
You might get off the hook, you might not. But it's the only way I see to deal with what are basically "secret police" tactics which are closing in on Gestapo methods.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The whole situation puts the administration in an amusingly awkward position politically, though. They have to say no to this because it probably would turn up a pile of embarrassing stuff, even though they're probably well within their rights to refuse until evidence of actual malfeasance shows up. Meanwhile, they're stuck taking the position that they'll testify if they're allowed to lie and later deny what they said. That part of it is just hilarious. It seems like the best position to take would be, "You don't have any evidence that we did anything wrong, and until you do, this is an internal matter." Don't even bother with the, "We'll help you as long as we're allowed to mislead you and deny it later" olive branch.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
It's right above the great lakes stoopid.
Congress has the responsibility to investigate.
I'll agree that the Deomcrats are making hay from this, but it is within reason.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Seen any of the info about improper inquiries into Congresspeople inquirinig about ongoing investigations?
The ONLY thing I've heard so far (and considering the hay the dems are trying to make, I think it's very telling that they haven't floated anything else) is that a legislator (very much NOT a member of the administration) called one of the attorneys in a huff and hung up when he didn't hear what he wanted to hear. No implication of any change in the nature, urgency, or progress of ANY activity that said attorney was or would have been doing. That's it. That's the oiliest thing they can come up with. We COULD, I suppose, compare that to the US attorney that Jimmy Carter fires at the request of a congress member that was being investigated by that US attorney!. The dems did not complain about that any more than they did when they when one of their members actually had sex with an underage page AND had his DC residence mixed up in prostitution (said rep continued on with his career, unmolested by the dem-controlled congressional ethics committee, to say nothing of the District police). Mark Foley's an idiot, but at least he instantly resigned over what amounts to his trail of witless IMs. Are you sensing a pattern of double standards here? There is nothing, nada, zip but politics here - at its absolutely most callow.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes, Mr. Orwell, We have finally arrived.
It has come down to...
We, The People,
Them, The Government.
The Republican nominee would be a white guy. The point of my post is that the white guy would win. It's like boxing inverted. So the liberal vote would be split between Obama and people who would vote for Obama if he were white, but instead vote for the white Republican because liberal doesn't always mean tolerant.
The bottom line is that making U.S. Attorneys so that they are pursuing a political agenda fundamentally undermines the rule of law. It's one thing to appoint U.S. Attorneys to follow general adminstration policies. It is quite another to hire and fire them based on their handling of particular cases, especially when those cases are being used for political ends - such as smearing political opponents - rather than whether or not there is enough evidence to convinct someone.
This is a simple concept. Your attempts to pretend that the Republican party does not have discipline and work together irrespective of whether they are legislators or on the executive branch is sheer fantasy. The fact is that it was coordinated from the White House; and it is a rather extraordinary example of micro-management. Then you go ahead further and try to Jimmy Carter and any other issue you can think of to distract from the issue at hand. It's sad.
I would publicly announce the contents of the order. I would not care about the consequences as things like this need to be made public knowledge or we risk further corruption.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Oh, come on--I know it's a great joke, but in seriousness, I personally went to a public high school that prepared students well enough for Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, Yale, etc. And while I wouldn't measue total value by this, it has to say something...