Slashdot Mirror
Bill Bans NSA Eavesdropping
An anonymous reader writes "The US house of representatives today passed a bill outlawing illegal domestic wiretapping by the government. Now government agencies are only allowed to access your private communications under terms of FISA. 'As the Senate Report noted, FISA "was designed . . . to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it." The Bill ends plans by the Bush Administration that would give the NSA the freedom to pry into the lives of ordinary Americans. The ACLU noted that, despite many recent hearings about 'modernization' and 'technology neutrality,' the administration has not publicly provided Congress with a single example of how current FISA standards have either prevented the intelligence community from using new technologies, or proven unworkable for the agents tasked with following them.'"
Only in a Government do you need to outlaw something that is already illegal.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
What a world... where you have to specifically outlaw the illegal behavior of the government.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
This isn't fully baked yet. You need a Senate version, a conference, a final bill... wait for it... and a Presidential signature. Ooops.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
"passed a bill outlawing illegal domestic wiretapping by the government"
Good thing they outlawed illegal wiretapping, since outlawing legal wiretapping would have made it illegal, thus making the above sentence redundant. Wait. I think I hurt my brain.
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
Oh.. another veto... just because a bill passes doesn't make it a law
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
You know, in our constitution...
"Amendment 4
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."
...3, 2, 1.
Hax-fu?
Think Bush will get that Veto out again? He really doesn't seem to like things that get in the way of his goals.
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
How do you outlaw something that's already illegal? That means they made it legal.
FISA "was designed . . . to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it."
The Legislative branch doesn't have the authority to take Executive powers away whenever it wants to. The Executive branch either has a power under the Constitution or it doesn't. The Congress doesn't have the authority to take away Executive powers it didn't grant in the first place.
It's just the ILLEGAL wiretapping that they are outlawing. Those wiretaps in the past few years have all been legal. Bush says so.
I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
This is really about the separation of powers. The President insists that since he has wartime authorization, he has pretty wide authority to break the law. That is, the law is written, and he doesn't have to follow it because another law trumps it. That's what you get when you have a big, complex legal code.
This bill doesn't really change anything legally, but when it comes time for the third branch of government to have their say on the issue, Congress' intentions will be unambiguous: yes, they do mean that FISA is the ONLY way you can do domestic wiretapping.
It would be nice if laws could be simple and unambiguous, like a well-written piece of software. Instead, laws are written over a long time by a lot of different people, just like real software. Software crashes; laws get inconsistencies. You can point it out for laughs but when it's your phone they're tapping, or your right to life/liberty/property sitting in the ambiguity, it's not so funny.
Can someone more legally/politically savvy than myself explain why we need laws/bills passed to prevent the breaking of existing laws/bills?
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
It is called the "Constitution." Unfortunately the presidents of the last century and this century have treated the Constitution like a worthless piece of paper. They have performed wire-tapping or something similar. That is what people get when they ask for things they want that are unconstitutional.
The only way to fix this is to vote straight Libertarian as the Republicrats or Democans are so adamant at keeping control rather than adhering to the Constitution.
_________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
Please visit the Pal-Item Forums at forums.pal-item.com
Everyone else already pointed out why this is stupid: it's already illegal, and the President who has been breaking the law aready will have to sign it, and even if passed there is no indication this will carry any more force than FISA. It's a law just like FISA. If the President has been violating FISA openly why wouldn't he violate this law just as openly? Courts are only going to be moderately helpful. There's a large chance they will acquiesce to Bush's claims of national security - therefore any such cases cannot be tried. Plus, he had 6 years to install his own appointees that will probably agree with him, including two Supreme Court Justices. What we really need is an impeachment trial.
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law some day
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill.
Courtesy of http://www.jacksheldon.com/school.htm
"the administration has not publicly provided Congress with a single example of how current FISA standards have either prevented the intelligence community from using new technologies, or proven unworkable for the agents tasked with following them."
They haven't provided it privately, either, and the reason is simple.
The FISA court is well-known as being basically a warrent rubber-stamping court. Out of thousands of requests sent in the last few years, only a handfull have been rejected, and most of those were accepted with changes suggested by the court. Since the court will issues warrants post-facto, even temporal urgency isn't an obstacle to getting a FISA warrant. Basically in any situation where the request is properly made and has any merit whatsoever the FISA court grants the warrant, it can be done retroactively, and there's pretty much no reason to skip the process. So why would the administration bypass the court in order to conduct a search?
Because the searches had so little merit that even FISA would not grant warrants.
So no, Bush's administration is not going to give an example of a situation where FISA got in the way of conducting legitimate security operations because no such case exists, it could only give examples of illegitimate ones and it isn't going to do that either.
This is a great start, though I hesitate to support the inherent thinking behind it -- which is, the President has the power to do whatever the fuck he wants until Congress specifically steps in and removes one of these infinitely many powers. But that's okay, we have to do something to at least make it explicit that when the President breaks the law, that means it was illegal, not that the Pres can put the pieces back together however he chooses. And I hope they continue to pass laws constraining government power, increasing oversight, and that they do this right up to the point where one of them gets in office and realizes they are subject to those same laws.
The enemies of Democracy are
How do you outlaw something that's already illegal?
By declaring war on it, dummy.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
It's already criminal for government to access those outside of the provisions of FISA, that's, actually, the entire point of FISA. That it was already outlawed should be obvious from the fact that it is "illegal wiretapping". The description presented here and in TFA, if perhaps not the law itself, is clearly redundant.
The link to the actual amendment in TFA seems to be broken, and while I can find references to the amendment (H.AMDT.182 to H.R.2082) I can't find the text of either the amendment or the amended bill (the amendment passed after the latest text I can find, the May 7 version of the bill.)
So I'm not sure what this new bill does in this regard if anything, whether it is just a clarification, or whether it creates some new enforcement mechanism that provides a remedy when the executive isn't interested in prosecuting themselves for the crime of violating FISA.
I hope the Democrats realize this is not only blocking President Bush, it will also block future President Hillary or Barack too. But then again they probably won't want to spy on international phone calls, after all Dems don't believe in "A Global War on Terror". Just like most Republicans don't believe in "Man-Made-Global Warming" They can just use the FBI to spy on domestic calls that the RIAA say you might be transferring music over, or may have the capability to tranfers music over.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
I don't not think so. But who can't tell what's not going on anymore.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
another veto... or is that a line signature?
Either way, it's not going to have an effect on the current President.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Isn't it obvious that what the administration really wants is to use the carnivore system on domestic calls, or at a minimum between domestic and foreign locations. Obviously you can't get a warrant for that as there is no intended target. I personally think such a system should be allowed but only allowed to be used to hunt terrorists and that none of the information gathered can ever be used in a court of law against them.
The US government is "at war", so they have special dispensation to break laws whenever they think "national security" is as risk.
The fact that the USA is always at war and that pretty much anything seems to count as "national security" means that on an average day they've already broken several laws before breakfast.
This bill is Congress trying to put a stop to the farce. The only fly in the ointment is that no law is final until the president signs it, and he's the one abusing the law. Is he really going to sign away his own powers? Based on his track record ("Patriot act", etc.) I doubt it.
No sig today...
Mod Parent Redundant.
Badass Resumes
What a country.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Nonono, declaring war makes it legal. Don't remember the saying "all's fair in love and war"?
In the US, the love has been stripped as we've seen with the former prez. Only in war everything's fair now. I bet Clinton would have had less troubles when he shot Monica instead. And declared her a child-porn possessing terrorist.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No. It is about a power that was never made available to the federal government in the first place. Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, period. That includes FISA. FISA represents exactly the same kind of reasoning as the ridiculous topsy-turvey interpretation of the commerce clause. The premise is that wiretapping itself does no harm, completely ignoring the breach of your security. Here is the fourth amendment:
You'll note the order there - it isn't an accident: first they get the warrant, then then they can search, seize and generally violate you security. This is the basis for telecommunications law that outlaws wiretapping in the first place.
FISA is based upon the very peculiar notion that they can first tap, and then ask for a warrant, and if a warrant is not issued, then they just "forget" about the tap and - somehow - everything is just peachy. But clearly, it isn't. Your security and privacy was violated, without a warrant. This of course is entirely aside from the fact that FISA is a rubber-stamp organization; just look at the statistics for warrants granted as opposed to warrants refused. Consider further the fact that I am not allowed to put a tap on your phone line. For any reason. I'm not even allowed to listen to a cell phone conversation you broadcast on an analog mode cell connection or an RF-based portable home phone. This is because it is an invasion of your privacy; and because your security is threatened. It isn't because I didn't get a warrant (I can't, as I am a citizen, not a member of law enforcement) and it isn't because I could get a warrant later, if it seemed like I needed to - I still can't. No, it is simply because your security is guaranteed by the constitution, and it is very clear that such an action would be in violation. But this is exactly what the government does with FISA. They don't bother to get a warrant, they just listen whenever they decide they want to. Clearly, FISA is unconstitutional.
Lastly, all arguments that the constitution is irrelevant here somehow because of "need" are false. If there is a real need, the constitution contains the tools required so that it may be modified such that those needs may be met. No, this is simply an end-run around the intent of the document without having to be inconvenienced by its restrictions. Remember, the constitution is the constituting authority for the federal (and state, with regard to amendments 1-10, as per the 14th) government, and any action that is forbidden on the one hand, or not an enumerated power in the case of the feds, is both unconstitutional and lacking any legitimate authority. Don't confuse power with authority.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The FISA itself already makes NSA wiretapping illegal in ways Bush personally ordered for years, as he's admitted. Last year a federal judge found that the NSA had violated the law (and the Constitution), and thereby that Bush had violated the law, in Bush's admitted offenses. The FISA makes it illegal for Bush to ignore the FISA court when wiretapping, and Bush has insisted he will continue to do just that.
Although Bush did lie about stopping his crimes when this issue first blew up in the news, last week he said he'd continue.
FISA was created after Congress (and America) learned about some of the extent to which Nixon had abused his power to spy on Americans without cause or Constitutional process. It has been amended over a dozen times since, to keep pace with changing technology and suspects. But Bush will ignore it all, because he's used to the Republican Congress Nixon lacked to perpetuate his tyrannies.
Bush is a committed criminal. Congress must impeach him immediately. While we still can.
--
make install -not war
"It would be nice if laws could be simple and unambiguous, like a well-written piece of software."
Which do you suppose we will see first?
And would the expression "GO TO JAIL" be replaced by:
IF {Guilty}
WHILE (sentence)
jail
ENDWHILE
ELSE
home
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Is it ? Is this something like this ? i mean, senate and congress turns democrat and this bill, contrary to what kind of bills have been passing since 2000, appears ?
Read radical news here
Brilliant!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I can't wait until the military funding dries up, and we can hang the commanders who send the soldiers afield without proper support.
It's a pissing contest now, but it doesn't affect me since I don't fucking call anyone or even email anyone except for work. In-person communication FTW!
Blar.
I was gonna say. If that happened Microsoft might have to take all this monopoly bullshit seriously :)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Every branch
--
The fundamental foolishness of government is that, short of bloody revolution, it lacks some aspects of a degenerative feedback loop to stabilize it.
Separating the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the government is certainly a step in the right direction. Some might argue that the balance of federal, state, and local separation has been screwed since the Civil War. (Certainly slavery was false, and a societal crack running back to the Constitution; not trying to say the Civil War was unjustified, merely that the shift from 'these United States' to 'the United States' is subtle and important)
Internally to the three branches of government though, the question is this: do their size/complexity reflect the requirements of society, or as Civ IV so brilliantly put it, is: an accurate appraisal?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
This bill, even if it became law, is quite redundant. Using FISA is already the only legal way to do domestic eavesdropping. This bill is a statement. It essentially says "we, the congress really do mean for what you're doing to be illegal. No, we will not cover your ass by legalizing it, retroactively or otherwise."
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html quoting a congressional report:
Any chance we are going to get this state of emergancy gone? Democrats will not do it, Republicans will not do it. The those in power in the government will do whatever they can to maintain power. One does not work for years to get to the reigns of power to set them down.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Because the searches had so little merit that even FISA would not grant warrants.
The problem is that having FISA issue warrants for the kind of surveillance the Bush administration wants IS NOT POSSIBLE.
FISA is set up to approve warrants for searches against specific people. Agent wants to listen to your calls, they do so, then get a warrant to do so.
Neverminding the bassaskwardness of this, this procedure does not work when the search method isn't Agent listens to Targets phone call, but is instead NSA uses computers to monitor HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of phone calls.
How is FISA going to approve tens of thousands of warrants?
Separate from FISA itself, is computerized monitoring of millions of phone calls as intrusive as a human agent listening to a particular person's phone calls? I think we'd all say no. So should we be willing to accept a lower burden on the governement for this sort of automated search?
The 4th amendment was written in a time when 'search' meant agents of the government came into your home or business and actually PHYSICALLY SEARCHED it. Automated search of electronic communication could not possibly have been considered then, and is thus something we need to consider now.
paintball
The 4th amendment only mentions people and things. The 4th amendment does not mention conversations or phone calls.
The NSA using a computer to monitor hundreds of thousands of phone calls involves neither a search of a place nor a seizure of a person or thing.
Mass computerized monitoring of electronic communication is not something the framers of the constitution likely considered in 1787. Clearly the burden on a person of the NSA computer monitoring a phone conversation is not the same as agents of the government entering your home and searching it and perhaps taking with them your things or records.
Now, I'm not saying the government SHOULD be able to listen to all our phone calls, but we shouldn't pretend that entering your home and searching it is the same as a human agent listening to your phone conversations is the same as a computer listening for phone calls about dirty bombs.
Where along that continuum, if anywhere, 4th amendment protections stop is an issue for the courts.
paintball
Sure it does, when Bush is channelling Darth Vader: "I have clarified the policy. Pray I do not clarify it any further."
Quod rex vult, lex fit seems to be the operating principle, here.
I've stopped donating money to the troops
Um, so you've stopped paying your taxes, then? Because that's where the actual money for the war comes from. You know, for things like diesel fuel, equipment, ammunition, salaries, etc.
Any money that you might have donated voluntarily would have just been for things to make the soldiers' lives slightly more pleasant and/or easier.
The government doesn't need your donations or consent in order to prosecute a war. Stop paying, and eventually they'll just come to your house with guns and take your stuff.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The House of Representatives passing this bill does NOT mean that government agencies are only allowed to access your private communications under terms of FISA. Before that happens, the bill has to pass the Senate and not get vetoed by the President. That is not going to happen any time before January 20, 2009.
Warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional, period.
And where does the Constitution say that?
It doesn't. Why doesn't it? Because in 1789, there was no such thing as electronic communication.
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that the protections of the fourth amendment applied to electronic searches as well as physical searches. But you must keep in mind than in 1967, electronic searches pretty much meant having people listen to other people's phone calls.
It's now 2007. Electronic searches mean a lot more than just people listening to other people's phone calls. Whether a computer monitoring all phone calls constitutes an illegal search or not is not a given. It is not unreasonable that the courts could say that computerized monitoring of phone calls is not due the same 4th amendment protections as human monitoring. Or they could say that it is. But neither has happened yet.
In the meantime, a law which says you can't use computer systems to monitor masses of phone calls isn't a bad thing - it makes it illegal now, definitively, without waiting for court interpretation of the scope of 1789's 4th amendment in 2007.
paintball
I support them by respecting the fact that they do their job, even though I don't agree with their orders. Just because I stopped giving extra funds (above my taxes) to them, doesn't mean I don't appreciate their willingness to follow orders as a good soldiers should. I would never insult a soldier for his actions in Iraq if he were under orders.
I guess there are differing levels of support...our retard-in-chief seems to see things in a binary fashion tho.
Blar.
I can't not pay taxes, but after hearing soldier after soldier on TV and online supporting Bush's 'plan'...I decided to stop giving extra.
*shrug* Just trying to show that people who were against the war but supported the troops (like myself) are growing weary of this joke of a 'war'...and our support for the brave people who fight and die is waning because of their incompetant commanders.
I guess when I hear the President say people like me don't support the troops...I can only think "You think we don't support them now? Wait a year or two and see what the mood of the nation is."
Blar.
What people who say that "This is redundant" are missing is that, for the past three or so years, when Bush has been asked about illegal activities, he states that the Iraq War Resolution gave him, in his role as "the commander guy", the power to undertake whatever means necessary to "defend the country". This law is making it explicitly clear that Congress no longer wants him to assume this particular power and, if the President tries to use this excuse again for this purpose, it is very likely that the Congress would have serious grounds for impeachment. This, of course, assumes that the bill becomes law, something that is very uncertain, given that Bush is likely to veto the legislation and that there are probably not Congressional votes to override his veto. On the other hand, it also lets the Democrats say that they are clearly not in favor of this activity and firmly ties the opposition to (implicit) support this action. All-in-all, it's a good thing, either way.
That is all.
Raising an eyebrow on the 'domestic' part?
There are lots of stories buzzing about how american 'security' agents are using the law to do industrial espionage. Such as copying laptop-HD's at airports.
( ie The people as opposed to the Supreme Court!)
BACKGROUND
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 83 -The friends and adversaries of the plan of the [constitutional] convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury; or if there is any difference between them it consists in this: the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government. For my own part, the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to examine to what extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a representative republic, or how much more merit it may be entitled to, as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary monarch, than as a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty.
Thomas Jefferson's views were much stronger! -
" I consider trial by jury the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of it's constitution. " If you think that Jefferson overlooked the right to elect our representatives, you should consider a second quote of Jefferson, from a letter written in 1789, while serving. as ambassador to France: " Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say that it is better to leave them out of the Legislative. "
One Example: A Glorious Tradition of Free Speech
In 1735, jury nullification decided the celebrated seditious libel trial of John Peter Zenger. His newspaper had openly criticized the royal governor of New York. The current law made it a crime to publish any statement (true or false) criticizing public officials, laws, or the government in general. The jury was only to decide if the material in question had been published; the judge was to decide if the material was in violation of the statute.
Later "Judicial Refinements."
A U.S. Supreme Court decision, (Sparf and Hansen v. U.S.) in 1895, declared (in legal principle) that those jurors were criminals! The acceptance (in principle) of the immunity of a seated jury limited the full impact of the decision. This subject is explored more fully in the book, -
More recently - California has allowed judges to enter jury rooms, under certain special situations, to evaluate if the jury is reasoning properly! These actions have been examined (2001) by the California Supreme Court, and found acceptable based on the 1895 Supreme Court decision.JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine,
pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press, Author: Clay S. Conrad.
Jack
References for the political jury.
1. The best! But can you find it?
JURY NULLIFICATION: The Evolution of a Doctrine
A Cato Institute Book, pub 1998, by Carolina Academic Press,
Author: Clay S. Conrad
2.
WE THE JURY: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy
by Jeffery Abramson, professor of politics and legal studies
at Brandeis University, published 2000, Basic Books
wake me when it's a law.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You don't know that.
And the reason you don't know that is that the court providing oversight that would ensure such was specifically avoided.
All you have is their claims about the specifics of the wiretaps.
I for one welcome our NSA overlords, and would like to remind them that as a high-karma slashdot poster I can be useful in rounding up others to toil in their guantanamo interragation camps
</slashdot>
the administration has not publicly provided Congress with a single example of how current FISA standards have either prevented the intelligence community from using new technologies, or proven unworkable for the agents tasked with following them.
Either they're playing dumb or they're so far removed from what's going on that they shouldn't even be talking about this.
The reports are that the system in question builds graphs (computer science meaning) of call patterns from pen traces (routing information, in IT terms) for phone calls. They know who certain terror cell agents are, and they watch them (probably with a FISA warrant, but that's another story), but they don't know who everybody is. The point of building these graphs is hidden node discovery. By studying the connectedness of the graph, they can find people who are [possibly,probably] part of the terrorist organization, and then go after the content of their phone calls with traditional warrants. My guess is E911 data (coincidental naming, don't you think) is also used for narrowing down candidates.
The problem is there's no clear definition as to whether this pen trace data is subject to wiretap regulations, especially if it's never viewed by a human being.
The Administration has taken the 'ask for forgiveness' approach, because if they asked for permission and it was approved they couldn't use the system at all as its approval through the legislature would have leaked its existence. Instead the New York Times did the leaking, and I imagine any real terror organization operating in the US has switched to disposable pre-paid cell phones since then (which they probably rotate very frequently). It may still be useful for other crimefighting where the enemy isn't as savvy.
Now, all that doesn't address whether it's a proper thing to do. The administration credits the system with stopping an airplane attack against the Library Tower in LA in 2003 (IIRC). What I don't hear is anybody who's complaining about the system saying they're willing to lose the Library Tower or other skyscrapers or cities in exchange for remaining a Free people. They want their Freedom and their Safety, and they don't want any compromises or trade-offs for either. That's Literature, not Engineering.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"The FISA court cannot impead the President's constitutional powers to conduct war."
That's not at all clear.
Conducting war, unlike what the bushies would like you think, does not abrogate any law. That is, if it's illegal in peacetime, it's illegal in a state of war, unless congress passes a law otherwise, and it passes muster by the supreme court.
The correct thing to do for Bush is to challenge the authority in the courts, but of course, he might lose.
Personally, I think ignoring laws under the guise of "executive in time of war" is grounds for impeachment. And I'll bet I'm not the only person who feels that way.
Sorry, had to share my first reaction to the name of this one.
I would be a little more nuanced than that.
I have had friends who served in Iraq, and one who committed suicide a year after she returned.
There are certainly cases where people involved should be prosecuted and where it is right to insult people for what they took part in. If I knew someone who was involved in Abu Ghraib, or any of the other instances where it looks like war crimes occurred, you can bet I would let them have it and call them all sorts of unpleasent names. Heck I would even accuse them of trashing America's reputation to the world and not living up to any of the ideas of our great republic. I would say that such people are unworthy to call themselves Americans in any way other than whatever their case for citizenship was (probably an accident of birth).
This being said, I think it is wrong to paint everyone who serves with the same brush. THere are many who I believe would turn down illegal orders, and people who would refuse to be part of such war crimes. We need to recognize that war is a supreme test of character and some are not going to pass that test. My friend was among those who I believe would have passed that test. She served out of a sense of duty in a war which she opposed for reasons that were born out later (and not the usual ones either). While I suspect that the war crimes problems are more institutionalized that we can easily prove, soldiers have a duty to respect the laws of war and many take that duty very seriously. Such are true heroes among us and whether or not we agree with this war, those individuals deserve our respect.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
No, ordinary people don't. But I wouldn't be suprised if one day we find that a shocking large number of $OPPOSITION_PARTY members do. And thanks to the Bush administration and it's cronies in Congress, they disappear, are denied their constitutional rights, never told why, and held incommunicado.
Remember, you have nothing to fear from the Chinese Communist Party, unless you are associated with those dissidents.
Remember, you have nothing to fear from Comrade Stalin, unless you are associated with those American Pigs.
Remember, you have nothing to fear from Der Fuhrer, unless you are associated with unionists, communists, or Jews.
Remember, you have nothing to dear from Joseph McCarthy's investigation, unless you are associated with Leftists.
Remember, you have nothing to fear from $AUTHORITARIAN_FASCIST, unless you are associated with $SCAPEGOAT_TO_SCARE_YOU_AND_KEEP_YOU_OBEDIANT.
So pardon me as I apply previously learned experience to the current situation and conclude that wholeheatedly embracing a massive concentration of power in the hands of one branch of government because you've bought the Bush administration's claims that there are terrorists lurking in every shadow and that (oddly enough) anyone who opposes him wants to help the terrorists is not only not reasonable, but downright stupid.
If reason and history aren't enough then I guess you'll figure it out when a douchebag socialist replaces the current douchebag proto-fascist in the Oval Office and starts using the new powers Bush claimed against Republicans. But the problem is that by then it'll be rather too late to prevent the catastrophe, so you'll understand if I believe it's important that you realize how authoritarians work to destroy freedom sooner rather than later.
So there's a bill to make illegal wiretaps ... illegal? Does anyone else see the problem here?
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Bill who?
Yeah, big disappointment, this. I thought BGates had found a way to make computers safe from eavesdroppers :-(
If the bill is vetoed, then can the president claim he really does have this power? What if the bill is repealed?
Creating a bill like this implies that the current practices are legal, and that this law changes that. In the minds of the players, the law actually weakens exactly what they are trying to protect.
Too bad none of them are generals. Or attorney generals. Man, I wish I could mod you up
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
What kind of miscreant are you? I definitely DO NOT support the foreign invaders of ANY country, which includes the American invaders of Iraq. Thousands died in vain in the war I was drafted into (Vietnam) as they are dying for nothing more than the loot from Iraq and the American Treasury to go to Halliburton and other Bush cronies.
Well, that's certainly a reasonable point of view. Unfortunately, it's not one that the Supreme Court has adopted.
In particular, the Court has authorized warrantless wiretaps of international communications and of communications with agents of foreign powers in this country. FISA was an attempt by Congress to limit the effects of this ruling.
You keep talking about how the NSA has been doing this for years and how the NSA should get in trouble for doing illegal wiretaps. But arent you at all recognizing the OSS.
The Office of Strategic Services tells the NSA to do the wiretaps. By making a law stating that illegal wiretaps are beoming illegal, do you really belive that this will stop the NSA and OSS and CIA? NO! It wont becasue these people have been going aroung the law for years. I am always being made aware of everything going on with these branches (as well as FBI branch, but besides the point)and I can tell you that for the last two years, thee branches have had many cases stating that what they are doing is illegal.
But they always win becasue they say that it is a matter of National Securtiy. Another example of this happening is from an interview with Nixon in 1977 "...where the president can decide that it is in the best interest of the Nation or something,and do something illegal?" His response was "Well, when the president does it that means that its not illegal." Saying that they can use FISC isnt goint to help him eavedrop on his citizens for it specializes in Foriegn wiretaps. The OSS is in trouble becasue now they have to actually focuse their attention on important stuff, such as Wars and matters of national security.
I really like this new law, but I can see why others may not
Not wanting to hear it doesn't make it false. Bush has outright claimed that he can arrest people "because they're terrorists" (whether they are or not is immaterial) and then do the following: Hold them indefinetly without charge, torture them and/or ship them to places where they will be tortured, deny the accused access to counsel (or deny the lawyer access to information that may exhonerate his/her client), and wiretap anything he feels like (since there would be no oversight). Do you believe that things like this have any place in a just society?
It may also suprise you to know that very few of the people held in Guantanamo Bay are actually terrorists at all. Most of them were turned in by local enemies when the US offered big rewards for terrorists and never checked stories. There's a big mess now trying to let about half of them go, because they've been branded "terrorists" and due to that the State Department can't find anywhere that will accept them.
Terrorists getting nuclear weapons is extremely improbable. It's impossible to make one without a huge manufacturing effort, and everyone knows (even if the US hasn't stated so explicitly) that the country which gives terrorists a nuke will be bombed until it's a hole in Earth's crust. Frankly, I think the best defense against that would be "You nuke America, we nuke Mecca."
Your statement is logically correct, but does not apply because no one wants to release terrorists. We want to release the majority who even the government acknowledge are innocent, and put the remainder on trial. If they're obviously terrorists, finding them guilty should be an open-and-shut affair, yes?
Then why is it that the Bush administration has been not-at-all subtle in saying that any opposition to it's conduct of the war on terror (particularly if it comes from Democrats) is tantamount to treason? You know, like when Tony Snow would stop one inch short of outright claiming that the Democrats were allied with al Qaeda?
A strawman which you know to be a strawman. First of all, I never brought up the troops. Second, I went into some detail as to what I meant by massive power concentration. I'll go over it again. The Bush administration claims it has the right to: Hold people without charge, torture them, send them to be tortured, tap phones without a warrant,
...is what holds the world together from all-out chaotic, no-holds-barred total war. Why don't more people get this? Most, if not all, who oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq know damn well that Saddam was a brutal, evil dictator. Opposing an illegal, sovereignty-violating invasion and occupation does *not* equate to endorsing Saddam's regime!
Parent is right -- if the U.S. administration really believed its own bullsh*t, it should be deploying troops to at least a dozen other nations that don't do things the good ol' U-S-of-A-way. Hell, they should have invaded Canada already since we are all evil marijuana-smoking, p2p-downloading terrorists. The fact they only invade oil-rich, linchpin nations to destabilize and control resources is pretty obvious.
It's an age-old strategy: keep things unstable and chaotic, and loot loot loot during all the confusion.
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
You Republican TrollMods have driven our country into ruin, and all you can do is anonymously trollMod me "Flamebait"? You pussies.
--
make install -not war
You must be one of those mentally fscked 28% of America that still believes in Bush... or you're making fun of those raging insane blockheads.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I trust him as much as I trust Saddam.
Blar.
I think the core issue here is whether we want the government to obey the constituting authority, or not. If we're going to allow it to disobey, then the life-span and scope of every right, every enumerated power, risks becoming ephemeral as soon as there is a pressure upon the government to accomplish something where those prohibitions and enumerations stand in the way. The motivation for letting the government disobey, no matter how sterling, still forms the basis for a power structure that is governing without hard limits of any kind. Consequently, it is my firm conviction that if an action is forbidden, then that's the end of it — there is no excuse, emergency, or exigency that allows the government to break its own laws. None.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter how deep the problems pile up, where they come from, or if resolution to them looks like it is a slam-dunk with just a small compromise made with regard to the constitution. In the end, the constitution provides a perfectly effective mechanism for making changes to itself — nearly any change one can imagine — and if there is a problem of sufficient magnitude, then the duty and obligation of the government is to make those needs known, arrange to bring about the appropriate convention, representation and vote-gathering mechanisms, and see if the people also feel that the problem deserves the kind of change the government is advocating. If the people agree, then the change will be made, and the government will no longer be in the position of behaving criminally.
As things stand now, direct and obvious breaches of constitutional prohibitions, usurpation of powers not enumerated, and the making of legislation of explicitly forbidden are all part of day to day government operations. The president himself has been reported to have said of the constitution that it is "just a god-dammed piece of paper", judges even at the supreme court level not only render unconstitutional opinions, they also shirk dealing with constitutional issues using the most transparent excuses imaginable. This is the fruit of making law in any way that seems convenient in order to ameliorate the problems of the day. From where I stand, this fruit is far more bitter than, for instance, having the government say, "we were unable to [fill in the blank] and this has resulted in a poor outcome of [fill in the blank]." Finally, I would like to put forth the idea that just because the government can do something, doesn't mean it should. My parents taught me that when I was very young, and I saw the sense in it more or less immediately (actually, there was a beating involved, but still, timewise, we're not talking about a long sinking-in period; it isn't that difficult a concept.) The US government has yet to learn this lesson. Some might argue that they have, but at some point the lesson was forgotten; I say that regardless, they need to learn or re-learn it now, before things get much further out of hand.
Perhaps what is needed is something that can stop the government from declaring war on states that are not actively making war against us or our allies. Terrorists rarely act at the behest of a nation's people or even their governments at large. In this case — the current Iraq invasion — no such link has ever been demonstrated. Again,
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So?
Unless you want to become a muslim, the other side either wants to ritually humiliate you (if you're a quiet christian/jew) or kill you outright. And the humiliation route is no barrel of laughs.
sgt_doom - Thanks for your service. I can't disagree more with you about Iraq. Irregardless of the justification for removing Saddam's evil regime, the current government of Iraq officially wants us there and the UN has a nice piece of paper authorizing us to help in getting that internationally recognized government on its feet and completely independent.
Stop living in the past.
That's why they just voted for us leave - again! And why every poll has shown the (remaining) populace wants the US invaders/occupiers gone years ago. And how is that you know that Rumsfeld's old friend, Saddam, is so evil? Is it because Rumsfeld and Cheney told you that? Maybe Cheney's old lunch buddies, the bloody dictators of Myanmar, told you? You exemplify the herd, zombie mentality which is never, ever confused by such things as facts and data.....and, oh yes, where's Osama.....as far as that "internationally recognized government" - also known as the American-installed puppet government which is an Islamic Theocracy which has legalized Pedophilia - suggest you peruse the Iraqi "constitution" for a bit....
Everybody can have their own opinions but you seem to want your own facts. The Iraqis have not, in fact voted to have us leave. If they did, we'd be gone and relatively quickly.
The Iraqi Parliament voted just the other week for the US to pull out - that was their third vote. You need to go back into the military and fight on behalf of the Sunnis in your Iraqi war, dood.
Gonzales, is that you, fantasizing about slapping cocks? You're supposed to be busy lying your ass off about destroying the Constitution, not trolling Slashdot.
--
make install -not war
It just didn't happen. The consequences of a parliamentary request for the US to leave that wasn't obeyed would throw the entire international system direct into crisis mode.