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.'"

Comments

Of course they did...

[crowbarsarefornerdyg]

Anyone appealing anything is hardly newsworthy. We knew it was going to happen. Just like whats-her-name eventually going to appeal the judgment of $222,000 against her for "making available 24 songs". Not meant as trolling; just a simple observation.

So What?

[Archangel Michael]

"'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.

Re:So What?

[hnile_jablko]

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.

You make light of this as if it is easy. When facing legal action, most people will succumb to pressure and retreat. The rare person who does is generally labelled a leftist lunatic who does not value nor deserve the 'freedom' and security of a 'democratic' nation.

We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.

It seems from the article and the provisions of the patriot act, this person does not have the right to speak under threat of prosecution or jail.

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.

You are telling the person to speak out, but the person can be prosecuted for doing it. Most people don't stand up to well in the face of tyranny which is why there are so many in the world and in history. I wonder how you would act in a similar circumstance.

Re:So What?

[Archangel Michael]

Some 210 years ago, a bunch of guys under threat of death decided not to take it any more. Tossed some tea in the sea, and thus you have the rights today. Doing the "right thing" isn't always easy, its still the right thing to do.

That's the problem with Tyranny. It makes doing what is RIGHT, hard. That's how it wins.

Re:So What?

[adrianmonk]

So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away.

The stupid Patriot act makes it illegal for the person to tell their wife! So, that's not really a work-around. It'd be better for them to just say whatever they're going to say.

For what it's worth, I think the ISP owner has done the right thing. They've done everything they can without getting arrested. They haven't said, "Ah, it's too much trouble to fight this." Instead, they've called in the ACLU and taken the government to court. The government, so far, is losing. There's not much point in risking what the ISP owner would risk by giving up their identity. The ACLU has already drawn a lot of attention to it, and it doesn't seem like they'd get that much publicity by shedding their anonymity.

By the way, if you appreciate the fact that the ACLU provided free lawyers and made it way easier for the guy to fight the government on this (thus decreasing the chances he'd blow it off), you might consider donating a little cash to help them provide more lawyers in future situations like this.

Re:So What?

[tftp]

200 years ago if you were arrested (and not hanged, or shot right away) you'd be eventually released, and you could continue to live your normal life (modulo the unpleasanness of the experience.)

In the modern society an arrest may be more than that. You could be charged with a random offense just to justify your arrest; we probably all do a dozen of those offenses before breakfast, so many laws are on the books that it's not humanly possible to know them all.

An arrest record, not even mentioning a conviction, is a massive dark stain on your reputation. And you can not (at this time) point at British soldiers and earn karma; quite opposite, you instantly lose all the value, at least in the eyes of HR. Your career may be destroyed, and that means your family too. If things turn out really bad you can join the society of homeless.

So it would be unwise to treat an arrest today as a picnic. 200 years ago you would be risking your teeth, or your neck. But if you survive you'd be OK. Today an arrest may make you into a non-person, a member of the lowest caste that there is in the society. Besides, the society as a whole usually does not look at lawbreakers as heroes, and the media does not present them in the best possible light either. Remember the guy who was asking Kerry some inconvenient question and got tasered? The media described him as a troublemaker, and the police accused him in inciting a riot. The country meekly accepted all that and joked that maybe the guy should have been shot instead. Hardly encouraging to future challengers, just as intended.

Re:So What?

[Elemenope]

It is a little different when most of your neighbors and friends sympathize, and "the man" is a three week ocean trip away. And, if I recall correctly, the tea party gang did their bit in disguise so as to prevent reprisals and maintain plausible deniability who were willing to "do the right thing" so long as the right thing didn't tarnish their good name.

I certainly agree that "doing the right thing" is right even when it is not easy, but speaking as a person who has been arrested and charged for leading a protest, even winning a minor beat like a disorderly conduct charge can really toss a wrecking ball through an otherwise orderly life. The six of us involved won the case, but still failed nearly every class that semester just from missing class to be in court all the damn time. Now, instead of class, imagine it was work (supporting your family) and instead of disorderly conduct, it was some serious federal charges. Suddenly, doing the right thing isn't such a "no brainer" that you make it out to be; it's a hard choice I wouldn't expect even very principled people to make very often.

Re:So What?

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually, that's the fun part. Most of them lost either "everything" or "close to".

Guess that's what happens when you go against Caesar... and the worst part was that they reinstated an easily exploited, very strong central government with "checks and balances" which were only seen as such by those promoting them.

Hell they had to EMBARGO and blockade Rhode Island to force them to ratify it, after RI shot it down in civil referendum, 11 to 1.

Makes one wonder if the American Revolution wasn't merely a power grab, and the Bill of Rights was a way to pacify the recently veteran revolutionaries who might've raised arms one more time before putting them away for the 230 year long winter that has set since then.

Re:So What?

[networkBoy]

OK Enough, I call bullshit.

Look,
If taking one for the team is the *only* way then fine. If it's the *best* way then maybe. If there is a fairly equitable solution that does not involve martyring one's self then that is the correct course of action. I mean you're almost acting as if the ISP should line up like the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad from Life of Brian, pull aside the armor, and stab one's self in the heart. I mean really, this ISP has armor in the form of lawyers that will go to the press for it, with a media/propaganda devision that rivals the duopoly political party's media machines... Why not use it?

-nB

Re:So What?

[cheater512]

Well you revolt first. They will run out of bullets after the first wave. :)

Re:So What?

[h4rm0ny]

All correct, but there's an interesting corollary - the more people who are convicted of crimes, the less effect this threat has. It doesn't even need to be conviction as simply the experience of being arrested and thinking that you may be sentenced is enough to open your eyes and disabuse people of the Us vs. Them stereotyping of criminals. When you or your friend or brother or your partner has a criminal record, the mark on a job candidate's history becomes much less of a instant trigger for dismissing them. Instead, you start to do what you should do all along which is assess it on the merits of the actual case - was it breaching a silence order from the government or was it murdering little old ladies? I personally have recommended that someone with a criminal record be hired. They appeared to be the best candidate.

The other effect of arresting someone, is that the ability to frighten them with arrest is often somewhat diminished thereafter. A senior British police officer here remarked in interview, that laws were for keeping the law-abiding law-abiding. I.e. people are afraid of being caught. Once you have been caught and your record marked, you usually care less about further marks. I might even go so far as to say that going out and getting yourself arrested (preferably for something minor and non prison-worthy) is quite a liberating experience.

Finally, is the very wrong law in the US that disenfranchises convicted felons from voting. As more and more people are convicted (and very predominantly from poor demographics), the US democracy becomes less and less representative. And we all know where that leads.

Re:So What?

[bigstrat2003]

That's only the right choice if taking one for the team and revealing their identity would accomplish something useful to advance their case. Since it seems to me that it wouldn't, I think they're quite justified in taking one for the team.

Defying unjust laws to defend your rights is admirable. Defying unjust laws when you were already defending your rights just fine without said defiance is idiotic.

Re:So What?

[Elemenope]

And Rhode Island still almost didn't. The ratification convention, I shit you not, happened about a hundred yards from where I'm sitting now, in a surprisingly tiny meeting house in Kingston. The story goes that the federalists did not have the numbers to force the issue, and the convention was deadlocked, so they recessed the session, and took the anti-ratification contingent for a round of heavy drinking. While many of their opponents were heavily inebriated, the federalists rushed back to the meeting house, reconvened with a bare quorum, and passed the motion to ratify (and even then just barely).

Re:So What?

[Randyj70999]

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Re:So What?

[computational super]

200 years ago, people were hung for this sort of thing, not locked up and released.

Actually, anybody caught running an ISP 200 years ago would probably be burned at the stake as a witch.

freedom

[hnile_jablko]

free-est nation in the world my ass. the country is slowly turning into totalitarian soviet rule under the guise of democracy.

Re:freedom

[hnile_jablko]

Tell you what genius. You come sit down with my girlfriend's family and have them tell you some things about how the soviets operated. You might see some frightening similarities. The very idea that a person can be prosecuted or jailed for speaking publicly about a trial because it is in the interest of national security is VERY soviet.

Systemic problem

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:Systemic problem

[Eskarel]

There's nothing wrong with biggish government. The world is both bigger and smaller than it was in 1776 and we need a bigger and more complex government to deal with it. It's also expected that certain parts of government will attempt to change things in order to make their lives easier at the expense of private citizens. The US and most western democracies have checks and balances in place for that.

We even have checks and balances for when the people who are supposed to keep the three letter organizations in check get out of control. It's called voting. We even have the ability for third parties to run when everyone sucks. The problem we have is that the people on average don't care. They buy the line about how doing all this will save them from the terrorist threat which doesn't exist. They buy the idea that the terrorists hate American freedoms and the only way to save our freedoms is to let the government take them away.

Democracy is about getting the government you vote for, and when the people who vote are apathetic, ignorant, greedy, fearful, and bigotted, you get apathetic, ignorant, fearful, and bigotted government. In other words crap government.

Is this current state of affairs George Bush(or more accurately Dick Cheney)'s fault? Yes. Dick Cheney is an evil bastard and Bush seems for the most part to just do what he's told. We've established that, we've paid for it now comes the new question?

Why are none of the feebs running for the next election being held accountable for fixing it? Why are we letting both parties and most of the third party candidates get away with not promising to dismantle this crap?

Re:Systemic problem

[tftp]

The problem we have is that the people on average don't care.

I think this is exactly the reason why democracy just can not exist as a stable state; it can be seen briefly in popular revolts, for example, but after things settle down people abandon their duty to the state. There are very few countries in the world that can be even called democratic, for a certain, watered down meaning of democracy.

Most countries are ruled by people who came to power because of who they are themselves or who they know. If a country has a good ruler (previously known as King) the country is in luck. If a stupid King settles on the throne - bad news. And the more industrialized and advanced the country is, the less active the population becomes, and thus the country becomes less and less democratic, and elections hardly mean anything.

Re:Systemic problem

[QuantumG]

Even if we went to the libertarian ideal and got rid of the government all together we'd still have to have someone organize all those things, and after a bunch of groups got together to negotiate for the same things you'd end up with basically a government again. Except, ya know, that we all wouldn't be forced to pay for it.

If you don't understand libertarianism, don't talk about it.

Re:Systemic problem

[tftp]

There is no intrinsic reason why a democracy must fail sooner than any other form of government.

I think I can easily offer you such a reason. It is called motivation. Take two opposing examples - democratic Athens and tyrannical Iraq (under Saddam.) What drives the rulers (the collective ruler in Athens' case) to rule?

I think it can be universally postulated that people are lazy, and won't do things that do not seem to be necessary. If we take this issue and think of our examples, a Greek voter is only minimally interested in details of state; those details are often complex and politics is something that simply can't be done collectively. The voter in a democracy just does not have enough motivation to vote one way or another. On the other hand, the tyrant holds all the reins of power and intimately knows every important issue. He has only one vote, but this vote often means life or death to him, and the tyrant considers the implications very carefully. The tyrant usually optimizes his own goals, but often they coincide with the public goals. For example, in Saddam's Iraq all religious crazies (or criminals in general) had a good chance to be imprisoned or worse; the society was stable and safe for most of the people (and very unsafe for the political opposition.) So in terms of motivation the dictator is far more motivated than all the democratic voters combined; exceptions are known, as I mentioned, only during times of great social instability, when motivation of the population increases sharply. When millions of angry people go to the streets and demand something usually they get what they demand. (or they get killed, which is also possible.) On this scale of things modern Pakistan is more democratic than the USA because there are Pakistanis who are ready to die for the democracy; some do. But do we have such people in the USA?

It is also important to understand the value of voter's education in a democracy. If the voters are uneducated and vote randomly then they are irrelevant. Think of this as the year 2000 vote which elected Bush - the entire country voted as white noise and effectively averaged itself out; so one carefully selected locale decided the fate of the whole election.

In terms of education, a dictator also outperforms the mass of voters. He himself, or as a close circle of advisers, is a concentrated knowledge of issues. Often these issues are secret, or minimally known. This is common when diplomacy is involved. For example, Musharraf disclosed recently a plain and simple ultimatum given to him by the USA - bend over or be bombed. This is something that he could not publicize, and his motives at that time were unclear - until now. So the dictator has an advantage here as well.

I don't imply here that a dictatorial form of government is my ideal, I only indicate important factors that determine stability of various forms of control. I can also opine that socialism is even less stable than a democracy, for example, that's why in the USSR it devolved into a dictatorship of one party, of one collective tyrant. Most stable societies in history, however, were monarchies or semi-monarchies, where the same power group controlled the country even if the nominal head of the government was changing periodically. They were collective kings, called "king makers" at that time, more influential than the king himself (cardinal Richelieu vs. king Louis XIII.)

And the desire and hope for a perfect democracy, even if thwarted, can also raise us up to a more representative society...

I wish there was a way to instill this "desire and hope for a perfect democracy" into the brains of stupid voters. But you see, I do not find any reason to believe that humans naturally wish for a democracy. Psychologists researched many motivations, and they can enumerate by now probably every single desire a human can have - money, power, sex, food, etc. but a desire for democracy is just not there. I think it can be logically concluded that democracy is one of the w

Don't mod parent down. Contains kernel of truth

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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).

Contact their congressman

[GrEp]

Sharing one of these letters with your congressman is fine. The executive is supposed to keep them abreast of all matters anyway. I don't remember reading anywhere in the "patriot" act that congress asked to be left in the dark...

Re:I HATE THE ACLU!

[jo42]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Or are you ready for "Heil Bush!" followed by "Your papers." ?

absurd

[drDugan]

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.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU!

[hotair]

How do you know that they only protecting my life from Mohammad? BTW, there is a Mohammed who lives in my community. He's a nice guy from a long line of Americans. Why should they protect me from him any more than any other guy walking down the street.

How do you know they are not listening to John talk to his wife or a political opponent plan his/her campaign? It seems like the John Doe bringing the complaint might know. He was forced to cooperate and is saying that he has something to say on the subject that you or I might be interesting in hearing.

I don't use a sig, but the answer is:
Lrf!

Right...

[NEOtaku17]

Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?

Re:Right...

[hnile_jablko]

In fact I have. I have spent the last 3 years living in and working in Spain and the UK. I would say there are much freer(sp?) states in Europe than the US. Many more.

I am missing your point about Europe and its relevance to my comment about the US slowly becoming a totalitarian state. That I know of, the number of totalitarian states in Europe has gone from about 50% in all of europe down to near 0% in the last 15-20 years. Sorry to ask and please forgive me, but can you please clarify because I am assuming I am completely missing something.

Re:Right...

[4D6963]

Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?

I live in France. Can you tell me how France is "not freer" than the USA? Or any other European country for that matter? Are you sure the USA are freer than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and every country of Europe (not put together)?

My point is, if the USA have ever been "the freest country in the world", it had to be a long time ago, if ever (for example, a few countries had abolished slavery before the USA even existed)

Re:Right...

[networkBoy]

freererer...er, yeah, you got me on that one...

As a red-blood yank I have to agree though. Europe (as a whole) is rapidly becoming the role-model that the USA once was.
Sad really. I still love my country, just my governments breaks have melted and if you thought a run-away semi down hill was bad, try a trillion dollar ball of red tape, pencil pushers, and self-important lawyers (as most congress critters are).

It's called checks and balances

[Infonaut]

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:

...without first obtaining a judge's approval

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.

Re:It's called checks and balances

[Insightfill]

Even though what I hear them say is that they haven't got time to go to court first, they already have a court which can grant retroactive warrants.

Correct: they can go to the court up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, and get the approval to use the data already collected. There are judges waiting 24/7 to grant these warrants (literally). If the warrant is refused, then the data is inadmissible and unusable. But in 2005, for example, 2,072 warrants were requested and ALL were issued. The total denial rate in all of FISA's history is way less than 0.1% (no hard data handy).

The broader problem is that the current administration has declared that it doesn't needed even these rubber-stamp warrants. The only reason for this has to be that people are being tracked who shouldn't be. Political opponents, perhaps? Lawyers for pending government cases? The fact is, without a warrant/record of WHO was tapped, there's no oversight as to why they're being tapped.

George Christian

[kmarek]

His name is George Christian. I met him a few months ago when he came to my town for a speech about this very issue. He told us his story from his perspective. This was the day after the September ruling. I even have his card somewhere here on my desk. Boing Boing was all over this 9 months ago. Old news. Here's a few videos about this case: PBS (RealPlayer) (June 2, 2006), YouTube (September 5th, 2007).

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch.

[PHAEDRU5]

It should actually read that

The Executive Branch of the US government appealed a September ruling by the Judicial Branch of the US government, striking down as unconstitutional an act approved by the Legislative Branch of the US Government.

Got that?

EVERY product and service could be compromised.

[Futurepower(R)]

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?

Plaintif letter contents

[renegadesx]

The following is a copy of a National Security Letter, the FBI has requested that we remove all contents that would make them look bad

Dear Plaintif,



















Sincerly
Special Agent
John Smith

Re:Plaintif letter contents

[Ihlosi]

The following is a copy of a National Security Letter, the FBI has requested that we remove all contents that would make them look bad

Dear Plaintif,

Apparently, misspelling "plaintiff" doesn't make them look bad.

The Proverbial Simple Solution

[Ambiguous Coward]

There is a simple solution to a significant portion of this bullshit (which will absolutely not become a reality until there is an actual revolution and the current establishment is dissolved): DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, allow the GOVERNMENT to appeal a decision made in the courts. EVER, EVER, EVER. (implied underline, strikethrough, blink, and high-voltage electrical shock)

The moment "the government" attempts to appeal a court decision, it is PAINFULLY CLEAR that "the government" is serving its own interests, rather than those of the people. If the court has made an incorrect decision, let THE PEOPLE appeal the decision. Let a private citizen (or group thereof) take up the torch and fight the incorrect decision.

I have a difficult time imagining ANY situation in which "the government" should be allowed to appeal a decision made in the courts. All that really allows is to require only a very small subset of judges be corrupt. The government can simply escalate all the way to the top, past the non-corrupted officials, at which point the case falls under the control of the corrupt party, and "the government" wins.

-G

P.S. I absolutely loathe the term "the government." It is only used to make those being abused by "the government" think there is a single, cohesive entity against which one can wage battle. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The only way to fight this creature is to destroy the entire thing at once. A Wish would do it, and maybe a Fireball, but only if you roll really, really high.

P.P.S Sorry if the paragraphs above are a bit muddled or poorly organized. When I get riled up, I have difficulty organizing my thoughts.

Re:The Proverbial Simple Solution

[Antique Geekmeister]

No, I'm afraid it's nuts. A minor ruling by a local court would then outweigh the ability of the US Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a law itself. The ability to appeal is vital to prevent a badly handled first trial from ruining a person's life, or destroying an otherwise fine institution. And the court hierarchies exist for a reason.

Mind you, they're badly abused by people who spend their way out of suffering consequences for crimes. But I don't want to see some corrupt judge running for re-election rule without any check on their authority when the government is involved.

Actually

[Sycraft-fu]

You probably can talk about it with your wife. Spousal privilege is rather powerful. Your spouse can't testify about what you said to them in confidence (as in when no 3rd party is around), even if incriminating. Also, your spouse cannot be forced to be a witness against you in a trial. They can choose to, if they wish, but they cannot be subpoenaed or compelled by any party.

It is a privilege nearly as powerful as attorney client privilege. Since spouses are considered to in many ways legally be the same person, they are granted the right to free and open communication, without fear that it will be used against them in trial, civil or criminal.

The upside of naming John Doe

[Harmonious Botch]

How much does it change if we know John Doe's name? It might be very good for John Doe's business. I know when I am looking for an ISP, it would be a very good selling point if they said " We honor our customer's privacy. Even if it means risking jail. And we have court transcripts to prove it"

Imagine how his business would boom if privacy advocates and tin-foil-hatters accross the nation started transferring their business to him.

Three words

[brundlefly]

Why We Fight.

Explains how we got here, what we're facing, and why we are screwed. US Government is FUCKED by private interests, largely because there is no line between the two any more.

I'm getting my son EU citizenship and teaching him French. Hopefully that's enough to ease his transition to a new continent.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU!

[ScrewMaster]

I don't know about the "Heil Bush" part, but I already got the "your papers, please." at LAX when I was coming home a few weeks ago. I was in line at the security checkpoint, and this Indian character in a security jacket went down the line looking at everyone's boarding passes, saying, "I'll need to see your papers, please." When he got to me I asked him if he knew how scary that sounded. He looked at me and blinked, and finished the line saying, "Tickets, please."

I'll take the bait

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

The nuke will not be ticking. The person who delivered it there will also be the person who pushes the button to set it off. What, you think an organization that specializes in suicide bombers wouldn't be able to find someone to do that?

The whole "ticking bomb" scenario is a straw man. Any organization with basically competent operational security (which is something that Al-Qaida has demonstrated) will compartmentalize essential information so that no one person can compromise the whole plan. Well, except for the man carrying the nuke, but if you catch him he just pushes the button.

And assuming for the moment you do have a "ticking bomb" scenario, and you've got the guy who can lead you to the bomb, all he has to do is run out the clock. It's amazing how much a person can endure if they know they only have to do it for some definite time, even if they don't expect to get a free ticket to Paradise out of it.

There is a story I read years ago, possibly in a science fiction magazine, that I'd like to track down, and can't. I believe the title was "Citizen Torturer" but I've been unable to find any reference at all to anything by that name. The basic premise was that ordinary citizens were recruited and trained as official government torturers for just such "ticking bomb" scenarios, and their purpose was gradually expanded until they were doing such things as torturing a group of office workers, knowing all but one of them were innocent, to find the one who was embezzling. That is chillingly like what we've seen with everything from the RICO Act to these National Security Letters. First the extraordinary power is for a specific, worthy goal, such as going after the Mafia, then it is broadened to apply to other sorts of "bad guys", and in the end it is turned against ordinary citizens. I want to read that story again, so if anyone can give me any information -- the name, the author, anything -- I would very much appreciate it.

Re:I'll take the bait

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

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?

No Sh*t Sherlock -

[Nursie]

"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)