Slashdot Mirror
National Security Letter Plaintiff Speaks
Panaqqa writes "On Monday, the US government appealed a September ruling striking down a controversial section of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. The section permits the FBI to send secret demands to ISPs (called 'National Security Letters') for logs and email without first obtaining a judge's approval. The ACLU has quoted the president of the small Plaintiff ISP, identified only as John Doe because of a gag order under the law, saying that the gag provisions make it 'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"
"'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"
So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away. Set up a blog to record all dealings with said 3 letter organizations. So what if they try to gag you. Leak stuff to the press. Hell even DRUDGEREPORT would cover it, if nobody else would. They can't hide if you speak out.
We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.
The only question left is, what do you stand for? If you don't speak out, neither will the next guy and the guy after that. This is how tyranny wins.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
free-est nation in the world my ass. the country is slowly turning into totalitarian soviet rule under the guise of democracy.
The idea is that once these clowns are out of office, these attempts to remove procedural constraints on law enforcement will end, right? Bushies are evil and want to eat your babies and all that. But the pressure to create these laws comes from law enforcement itself. The DHS wants these limits removed so that it can more effectively combat crime and, as its name implies, keep the homeland secure.
So even after GWB leaves office, the DHS and all the subdepartments under it will still be there demanding to have more access with less oversight. Will the next President have the balls to dismantle DHS into its constituent parts? Hell, will the next President have balls at all?
The growth of government into a huge self-sustaining entity is the root cause of this type of abuse. Only by returning to a smaller government with a more focused raison detre can we expect to have the people running it rather than it running the people.
Of course, since that will never happen, I hope they provide lube.
While your inflammatory comment will be taken for a troll, I think that you do bring up a good point, and it's one that I agree with. Tying the hands of law enforcement is counter-productive in some cases. Letting the NSA wiretap international calls is one way to gain valuable information, especially if the calls originate from a suspicious person or are terminated at a suspicious person. While it grates the wrong way for most slashbots, I think that they see espionage as wrong in this case because of its ease.
But the problem with this law is that it requires private citizens to comply with demands that originate wholly from within a government agency without checks and balances. The judicial stamp of approval, even if it is really nothing more than a rubber stamp, at least preserves the appearance of checks and balances. Removing that requirement to grease the wheels of law enforcement removes a critical check on the powers of the executive branch of government. If we don't have checks against the executive branch, then we have, in essence, a dictatorship where the executive decides what the law is and executes it according to his own wishes (or according to the department's wishes in the case of FBI or DHS).
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Or are you ready for "Heil Bush!" followed by "Your papers." ?
At what point does the story become so absurd that people will rise up with some energy and stop this insanity.
This is one of a long list now that together paints absurdity:
gag orders from the state like TFA
fake government news conferences
secret rules for companies offering travel
warrentless searches, warrentless wiretaps without oversight
executive officials declaring they aren't part of the executive branch
former AG and AG in the approval process both who think simulating death by drowing is OK
overt torture of dissidents by the state
political litmus tests for federal prosecutors
taking water and degrading people with "security theatre" before they can fly
secret prisons
history rewritten with medals of freedom
CIA IG hamstrung by OMB red tape preventing the investigation of illegal activity
police that require papers on demand, without reason
overtly funding terrorist dictators, then attacking them
being tazed and arrested for asking tough questions to Senators and acting up
the lead opposition party candidate supporting the war through 2012
somehow "not finding" the Saudi prince who was "responsible" for the 9/11 attack
spending fully 60% of the global military expenditures ($623 Billion, not counting Iraq)
a looming awful choice: a draft -or- mid-east civil war. Pick one.
a president beating war drums about WW III
an endless war on fear that causes fear
This is the United States today. Any memory or idealism of some other "land of the free" is completely gone.
Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?
Creative Demolition
It's not racist or bigoted or infringing on anyone's civil liberties - it's an accurate and reliable way to find out about possible terror attacks.
The ACLU isn't trying to eliminate all wiretapping. They're on record as saying that there are times when wiretapping is necessary. I think any but the most deluded would agree that sometimes in order to stop people from doing very bad things, you need to use wiretapping. But this is the part that many people (not just the ACLU) object to:
Organizations like the NSA perform valuable service in defense of the country. So does the U.S. Navy. But just as I don't want the U.S. Navy deciding to bomb dangerous countries whenever it likes, I don't want the NSA deciding when to wiretap without any judicial oversight. Our system of government was initiated by men who were very aware of the dangers of too much power concentrated in one arm of the government. That's why we divide power in our government.
In a society that values the rule of law, the involvement of an independent judiciary in anti-terrorism matters is a good thing, not something to route around out for the sake of temporary convenience.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Consider carefully what has happened. The U.S. government has established that it can break the law, and demand that those who know about it keep silent.
That means that EVERY product and service from the U.S. could be compromised. Those who don't want to risk U.S. surveillance and control won't want to risk buying from manufacturers in the United States.
If you are a U.S. citizen, are you ready to be poor? Are you ready to live in a poor country?
"Besides, the society as a whole usually does not look at lawbreakers as heroes"
No, the US society really doesn't. To a suprising extent.
I went on a tour of Alcatraz recently, I found it utterly amazing that when the tour guide told us about the indian/student occupation of the island that took place after the closure of the prison. She explained about the fact it was a protest against the taking of indian land and how they'd declared that at the time.
She went to great lengths to try and explain to the (mostly american) crowd how, sometimes, criminal activity has an intent other than just vandalism and damage, and how sometimes, decades later, you can even look back and see what motivated them, even if it didn't justify breking the law.
That staggered me. That these people have such an awe for laws and lawmakers that they don't even consider that some people, in some circumstances, break the law as legitimate protest. No, they just write it off in their heads as the work of "criminals", "lawbreakers" and "vandals" and let history sort them out.
It's incredible, given the origins of the nation, that US society has sunk so far into the "authority is always right" mindset.
(in no way do I mean to imply other societies have not, before I get blasted with mindless patriotism by a flag-worshipper)
Seeing as you don't know if I'm even American, I think your reply is a bit ill-thought-out.
As for people "allowing" Bush's election, I'm curious as to what you suggest they should have done. Are you faulting everyone who did not martyr themselves in some kind of armed insurrection? Do you think the aftermath of such an act would lead to more freedom rather than less? At what point should they have done it? When he was first elected? He only looked like a second-rate president, not a nascent tyrant; the erosion of freedom has come one grain of sand at a time. His second term? By then he was too entrenched for anything short of (and possibly including) the aforementioned armed insurrection to pry him out.
In addition, your statement is self-contradictory. You say that Americans got what they said they wanted -- but you also acknowledge that Bush was not elected by the majority of the popular vote. Which is it? More voters didn't want Bush in office than did want him, so at best the majority is getting what the minority deserves.
What concerns me is that the Bush administration is not acting like it is approaching the end of a term and contemplating the possible, even probable, transfer of power to the opposition party. Instead, it is taking steps that only seem logical if it, not any successor, intends to remain in office. Anyone want to start a betting pool on when the Reichstag fire will be?