Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties

rgiskard01 writes "Glenn Greenwald is reporting at Salon.com on a win for the EFF, in the battle for clarity regarding the telecom surveillance scandal. A federal judge ordered the Bush administration yesterday to accede to the EFF's Freedom of Information Act request. Assuming the White House follows the court order, they would have to make public their lobbying ties to the telecoms industry. 'These disclosures will reveal ... which members of Congress McConnell and other Bush officials privately lobbied. As an argument of last resort, the administration even proposed disclosing these documents on December 31 so that -- as EFF pointed out -- the information would be available only after Congress passed the new FISA bill. The court rejected every administration claim as to why it should not have to disclose these records.'" Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.

Comments

They'll ignore the court order...

[SeaFox]

They think they are above the law already.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[__aawbkb6799]

Im not sure if they can, given the atmosphere of lame duck surrounding the administration right now. Approval ratings in the 30s and a hellacious economy going into the xmas season, it would seem like a battle not worth fighting... for right now at least. But then again, the likelihood that any action will be taken before the end of the administration seems slim; I can see them just playing out the clock for 417 days...

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your honor, we respecfully ask the court to quash this subpoena on the grounds that complying with it would require the defendant to reveal State secrets.

Sincerely, the Government.

So ordered (gavel banging)

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[FatMacDaddy]

My bet: They won't ignore it. They'll use the national security ploy to deny the order or delay compliance until they can get legislation passed to make it a non-issue. It's not like Congress has the guts to oppose anything that purports to protect us from terrorists.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Nimey]

The Bush admin are masters of stonewalling and delaying tactics. I'd be pleasantly stunned if this happens.

You *know* they're going to appeal this to the federal appeals court, and if they lose that one the Supreme Court will take quite a while to make a ruling, and there's a certain chance that the Supremes will make some bullshit ruling about how the EFF doesn't have standing rather than rule on the actual crime.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[truthsearch]

What does the lame duck atmosphere, approval ratings, or economy have to do with anything? This administration has already accomplished most of their goals and will suffer no consequences for any actions. The president doesn't care at all about his approval ratings or changing the economy. Everything has gone pretty much according to plan, so why would they not ignore this court order?

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[purpledinoz]

What happens when they do ignore the court order? Nothing? Does someone go to jail and then gets pardoned?

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see them just playing out the clock for 417 days...

What happens in 417 days, other than continuation of the same-old-same-old? All of the leading candidates in the two major parties, have up to now, supported increased executive power, supported spending huge amounts of money on the war, supported increased surveillance of domestic citizens, etc.

The part about roaches scurrying for cover is particularly ridiculous. The roaches merely stare back, daring the American people to vote against them. And every time, American voters (the ones who bother to show up at the polls) vote overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo.

Nobody gives a fuck.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[elrous0]

What exactly do they have to lose? Bush isn't up for reelection and the court has no enforcement power. So why WOULDN'T he just ignore it?

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[SlipperHat]

How much guts does it take to say "Prove it". Isn't it within Congress's power to ask for proof?

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Nimey]

Of course it is, but the Bush Admin will dispute that, it'll have to work its way through the court system, and there's the question of whether Congress has the will to make them.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Nimey]

Ah, I see some cowardly conservative mod has used the (-1, Overrated) ploy.

Taco, it'd sure be nice if you'd make overrated and underrated meta-moddable or just do away with them entirely.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[SeaFox]

What happens when they do ignore the court order? Nothing?

Pretty much. Undoing things and removing people in power is incredibly difficult in Government, not necessarily because the procedures are long winded, but because its a representative democracy so the people can't do it themselves.

If someone commits a crime against you, you can't put them in jail yourself, you can't seek charges against them yourself, ect. You have to have the police arrest them, but there's no rule saying the police have to arrest someone, either. So you really have to find a cop who's willing to go to the trouble to arrest them, and a prosecutor who will attempt to prosecute them. Of course, these are these people's jobs, but the fact remains they don't always do them.

It's the same with government. Even if there's an overwhelming amount of evidence the president did this or did that, and those things are illegal, they don't automatically get in trouble for it. Congress has to agree that the action was serious enough to warrant them getting off their asses to do something. And with party politics you'll have a bunch of people who will agree with the president and therefore feel he's doing nothing wrong, even if law books say he is. So they wont want to do anything, and without the needed majority agreement nothing will.

And the crook gets away with it.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[SeaFox]

Im not sure if they can, given the atmosphere of lame duck surrounding the administration right now.

That's exactly why they will ignore it. It's a lame duck administration, it's not like they have to worry about getting re-elected. It's the last year or so of the Bush administration, there's nothing to lose.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Mister Whirly]

Can Bush order a pre-pardon for himself and the rest of the administration?? Some sort of political golden parachute?

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your all wrong and right.

They will ignore or delay this until the new president is sworn in, the new president will do the same thing that every president since Ford took office has done. Pardon anything the previous president or his administration has done. And if the Judges and lawyers want to pursue this any farther they will be wasting there time.

Ford pardoned Nixon, Carter Pardoned Ford, Reagan Pardoned carter, Bush pardoned Reagan, Clinton Pardoned Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. Pardoned Clinton.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat after me: Bush != conservative.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Drgnkght]

IANAL, so I really don't know if he could or not, though I suspect not.

Regardless, he wouldn't do it. It would require that he list all the criminal acts he wanted to pardon. That might get him into trouble, especially since he'd effectively be admitting in a legal document that he knew about these acts before any investigation turned up evidence of wrong-doing.

That isn't to say he wouldn't write up a pardon after the investigation, as everyone here is no doubt aware.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[pravuil]

because if they can get away with doing it, their political enemies can do it as well if not better.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[smilindog2000]

Ok... Bush != conservative. Frankly, calling Bush a conservative is an insult to conservatives I admire. I'm from a family of mostly Republicans. Lately, we're mostly Democrats, simply because of Bush Junior. Bush Senior is my favorite president during my lifetime. I've seen an interesting stratification... most conservatives I admire want someone other than Bush at this point. Some, however, are incapable of believing a Republican president could be in any way less than fantastic in every way. I call them "glass eaters". A "glass eater" is any Republican or Democrat who can't accept the possibility of a bad president from their party, someone who would rather eat glass than admit the truth.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[smilindog2000]

Ha ha!! So, what has Bush Junior accomplished according to plan? His approval rating is so low that he has nothing left to lose, so I totally get the indifference, but again, what has gone according to plan? And... remember, your post was moderated "informative", so please... inform.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[smilindog2000]

All of the leading candidates in the two major parties, have up to now, supported increased executive power, supported spending huge amounts of money on the war, supported increased surveillance of domestic citizens, etc.

I recommend that you read "The Audacity of Hope". There are a few good candidates.

And every time, American voters (the ones who bother to show up at the polls) vote overwhelmingly in favor of the status quo.

Arrrgh! You got me there. However, I do hereby declare that I "give a fuck". Many of us do, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[MillionthMonkey]

Repeat after me: Bush != conservative.

But he calls himself one, and so do all his fans.

I would consider myself a "conservative" because I'm generally comfortable with things working the way they did most of my life as I was growing up. Unfortunately the people now usually referred to as "conservatives" want to restore the world to the way it was a hundred years before any of us were born (according to a grotesque understanding of history which considers the Founding Fathers as Christian ayatollahs with beliefs that apparently contradicted all the writings they left behind). These people are "conservatives" in the same way that the "National Socialists" were "socialists". So I don't call myself a conservative, and I pay no attention to the "true" meaning of the word since it's commonly understood as meaning its antonym. The meanings of words change over time, and when the meaning of my self-description changes, I start describing myself differently.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[causality]

So I don't call myself a conservative, and I pay no attention to the "true" meaning of the word since it's commonly understood as meaning its antonym.

Yes, and this is not an accident; it's an unusually good example of Newspeak. The word didn't just gradually evolve its meaning over time, but instead it took on its completely opposite meaning in less than a decade. This is what happens when masses of people identify with a term without knowing anything about its history. The people who identify with a party or a label simply because their parents did are not doing themselves or their parents any favor. You need neither a conspiracy nor a coincidence to explain this. As politicians and others with a media presence continued to call themselves "conservative" the former meaning simply became less and less true. So long as the change isn't too sudden, those who use the term will continue to receive the backing and political support of those to whom the term appeals. This works so well because party affiliation is best understood as a poor substitute for thinking for yourself.

The practical effect this has had is that there is no longer a choice about whether state power and size should continue to increase. You may elect either a Democrat or a Republican and in either case this will be the result; all of the arguments in the mainstream media are about how and why it should be done. Whether it's for the war effort, for senior citizen prescription drug entitlements, for a public health care system, or to bail out irresponsible home buyers who signed the dotted line on a loan they couldn't afford -- and of all of these, only the military action is a legitimate power of government -- there is always some justification being sold to us as to why government should be expanded with little attention paid to the full consequences of doing so.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[causality]

Ha ha!! So, what has Bush Junior accomplished according to plan? His approval rating is so low that he has nothing left to lose, so I totally get the indifference, but again, what has gone according to plan?

What has gone according to plan? The deliberate expansion of power of government, especially the executive branch, to a level never before seen in the history of this country. In the big picture this hurts the country far more than whether or not Iraq turns out the way we wanted it to. Bush is not nearly the only person who has done this, of course, and to think that one political party has enjoyed this trend any more than the other is to miss the point. It just happens that he has been more successful than most.

I have no idea what the GP's answer to this question would be, but that's mine.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[causality]

but because its a representative democracy

Yeah, they call that "representative democracy" a republic, only it's deliberately designed to avoid democracy. If you think you disagree with that, I suggest you fight the urge to have a knee-jerk reaction, do a little reading up on what those two terms actually mean and then get back to me.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Arapahoe Moe]

Well put.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[misanthrope101]

When he had a 90% approval rating, conservatives counted him as one of their own. When he got reelected, conservatives counted him as one of their own. When did he stop being a conservative?

He wasn't any smarter then that he is now. He wasn't a better speaker. Iraq wasn't a better idea then than now. The "Bush doctrine" wasn't smarter then than it was now. Habeus corpus was just as valuable then as now. Torture was as wrong then as it is now. Whether the Executive Branch should be exempt from all laws hasn't changed. That spending vastly more than you bring in creates a huge deficit was as true then as it is now.

It's just that the critics over the years were dismissed as "Bush haters" while you ignored all of their specific, detailed, prophetic criticisms, and now all of a sudden you don't want him in your little club anymore. I'm a bit amused at all the conservative hand-wringing, as if they had no way of knowing that all of this was happening before their very eyes, when all the time millions of Americans were hopping up and down, pointing vigorously, and yelling at the top of their lungs that all of these criticisms were true. You just impugned our patriotism and dismissed the obvious. Go you!

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[truthsearch]

You're kidding, right?

Remove Saddam Hussein from power... Check. (Execution was a bonus.)
Increase corporate profits of friends... Check.
Embolden the link between corporations and government... Check.
Keep political opponents in check... Check.
Increase influence in the Middle East to bring armageddon closer to fruition... Check.

Have you been asleep? What hasn't gone according to plan?

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[OwnedByTwoCats]

What penalty would the current administration face if it were to ignore the court order?

Who would administer the penalty? The US Attorneys Office? They've already been purged of independent thinkers.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Deliveranc3]

I knew someday there's be a company that shipped an empty box, changed name offered a new product and did it again. Immune from prosecution that company would just keep doing it...

I didn't expect it to be a political party... way to think outside the box conservatives!

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, only civil war will clue them in. It's the only thing that clued the English in back in 1776.

For those who say they 'believe' in democracy, perhaps they should check what 'democracy' means before they decide we have it.

In the meantime, the oligarchs who run this country will continue to do whatever they please, because they can.

I am posting AC to preserve what little freedom I still have....

Clarification

[AchiIIe]

The article is a bit dense, but those documents don't relate to the spying, only the the telecom immunity bill which was proposed.

Re:Clarification

[kat_skan]

Specifically it seems to be records of lobbying activities. Does anyone know where the Administration's arguments for keeping this sort of thing from the public can be read? I would like to know why they think that the public shouldn't be allowed to know who is trying to sway the opinion of their representatives.

Re:Clarification

[sumdumass]

The supreme court had already said that the Vice president could claim executive privilege over a meeting with oil execs before the drafting of an energy policy months after the administration first took office. The claims where that the ability to keep comments secrete were essential for getting truthful, honest as well as unpopular advice without the threat of retribution on those giving the advice.

It seems like a slam dunk under this line of arguments. And yes, the lower courts said he had to give up the info before it was overturned by appeals. It is likely that this will just be a duplicate.

The only difference is that this isn't congress asking for the documents. I don't know how it will play into things. and I don't know if this is the reasoning behind keeping them secrete now.

Re:Clarification

[pluther]

The supreme court had already said that the Vice president could claim executive privilege over a meeting with oil execs before the drafting of an energy policy months after the administration first took office.

The supreme court never ruled on that use. Congress demanded the documents, Cheney claimed executive privilege and Congress chose not to pursue the matter any further, as they didn't think at the time anything would be gained by doing so.

So far, this has been the case of all of the Bush administration's use of Executive privilege. None have (yet) made it to the Supreme court. In previous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled (Clinton and Nixon being the two most recent), they have ruled that it covers only cases of national security, directly involving either military details or discussions with foreign nations.

The claims where that the ability to keep comments secrete were essential for getting truthful, honest as well as unpopular advice without the threat of retribution on those giving the advice.

Which, it should be noted, is exactly the claim made by Nixon, which the supreme court rejected in ordering him to turn over his tapes. From which, of course, someone had accidentally deleted a completely inconsequential 14 minutes.

Re:Clarification

[sumdumass]

The supreme court never ruled on that use. Congress demanded the documents, Cheney claimed executive privilege and Congress chose not to pursue the matter any further, as they didn't think at the time anything would be gained by doing so.

Are you sure we are talking about the samecase?

So far, this has been the case of all of the Bush administration's use of Executive privilege. None have (yet) made it to the Supreme court. In previous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled (Clinton and Nixon being the two most recent), they have ruled that it covers only cases of national security, directly involving either military details or discussions with foreign nations.

Wow, Am I reading this Wrong? IT might be that Bush's cases have never made it to the supreme court but it appears that the answer is more then national security and military. Actually the first links shows the intent better. But this one isn't really lacking.

Which, it should be noted, is exactly the claim made by Nixon, which the supreme court rejected in ordering him to turn over his tapes. From which, of course, someone had accidentally deleted a completely inconsequential 14 minutes.

Actually, the Supreme court said that private matters are not protected and that was why he had to give it up. there is some extensive discussion about it on the Washington post link above. Nixon couldn't claim executive privilege because it was about a private matter and criminal in nature. And after rereading it, I noticed that they forced two people to offer testimony and restricted 1 or two as noted by the redacted who did fall under the executive privilege. So it appears that the context of the discussions is what matters most.

Re:Clarification

[sjames]

Errr, Uhhhhhhh, For the children.....Uhmmmmmmm.....So the terrorists can't read it....UrmmmmUhh....NATIONAL SECURITY!!!! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Glowing Fish]

Has anyone else noticed how much that tag is used?

If it is used every day on a different issue, it seems that common sense isn't as rare of an asset as was once believed.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[techpawn]

I was thinking the same thing. Not so much that it's a rare asset, but, that perhaps this is what my polisci prof. meant by a realignment of the system.

The people are getting more and more fed up with the system and it's beginning to show itself more and more with favorable laws and judicial decisions after minor elections and before major ones.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are realizing that there's only a year left for them to get an envelope of anthrax sent to them if they dare challenge the administration. The shorter the timeframe, the more people are willing to put up with that risk.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[tmarthal]

There are 10000 other things in the news that show that common sense is still as rare as once believed. they just aren't posted on /., since they are just the norm.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Qzukk]

If it is used every day on a different issue, it seems that common sense isn't as rare of an asset as was once believed.

It's not much of an outbreak if it's a single isolated incident.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[HalAtWork]

No, it's because now we're further from 9/11 (omg teh terror!!!), so now there's less sensationalism and less people are acting paranoid, and more are acting rationally. If we were closer to 9/11, wouldn't the chances increase that the courts would ok "teh secret wiretap against the terrorists!" for no rasin?

constituents

[ryen]

Once all the greed comes out, how will the EFF get that information into Joe-citizen's hands in time for elections and voting (and not just the tech-community and other usual suspects).

Re:constituents

[Trepidity]

And what's more, the EFF would need to conjure up someone worth voting for. As it currently stands, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and are poised to pass a telecom-immunity bill. So voting to maintain Democratic control is not going to do anything there. Voting to switch control to the Republicans, meanwhile, will probably also not improve matters (if anything they'd pass the same telecom immunity bill, only with more enthusiasm).

Re:constituents

[EastCoastSurfer]

As it currently stands, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and are poised to pass a telecom-immunity bill. So voting to maintain Democratic control is not going to do anything there. Voting to switch control to the Republicans, meanwhile, will probably also not improve matters You know, I was thinking about this the other day while researching the presidential candidates. None really fit what I want. Ron Paul seems like the most interesting one to me because he's big on smaller government and returning power back to the states. To bad he comes across as a bit of a nut job. Hilary is just too socialist. Obama doesn't seem to know what he wants to run on. The other Republicans and Democrats seems mostly interchangable with each other to me. I'm thinking what we need is a candidate that is not part of the current establishment. Someone like a Arnold who would show up and question everything instead of doing something because that's the way it's always been done. Why do we have a 'war on drugs'? What has it solved? Is it worth it? Does the tax code need to be so complicated that we have to spend billions of dollars to enforce it? What are the goals in Iraq? Where are we currently? Can they even be achieved?

I'm just totally fed up with both sides, and have no idea how to approach the problem of voting next year. I agree with something I heard once. "Anyone who wants to be President should automatically be disqualified from every becoming President."

Re:constituents

[entropiccanuck]

Perhaps you're thinking of Douglas Adams' quote?

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Re:constituents

[FunWithKnives]

Hillary Clinton is about as far from a socialist as possible. I have no idea why people trumpet this baseless notion. She is part of the capitalist status-quo, just as the rest of the "popular" candidates are. Her proposed "health care" plan, which is the only part of her platform that I imagine one could even attempt to call "socialistic" (though all of the main candidates have or will have something similar), would do absolutely nothing to combat the broken private system. True socialist change would involve placing the health insurance and pharmaceutical giants under public ownership, where they would be conducted as a public trust under democratic control of the workers. That is socialism. Creating a "safety net" or a "welfare state" is not socialism. Those are simply policies meant to keep the populace complacent, nothing more.

Also, I believe that if she were truly socialist, she would receive much less than she does in "campaign contributions" (read: legalized bribes) from corporations. Anecdotally, regarding her "health care" plan, if it would really make any profound difference in the current system, then why is she currently the number one recipient of contributions from both the HMO Industry and the Health Professionals Industry for the 2007-2008 election cycle?

Re:constituents

[mbius]

At the risk of being read sockpuppetty, "nut job" is a hatchet job. From Bill Maher to Sean Hannity, everyone on TV is a jerk -- yes? -- supporting one party's lizard so the other party's lizard won't win. I don't hear crazy from Ron Paul. I hear it from them.

Drugs, taxes, and Iraq are all in the Ron Paul platform, aren't they? Questioning the system? Right? And from a guy genuinely more interested in policy than his political career?

Can I ask why your image of the ideal presidential candidate, then, is a guy who (1) found celebrity lifting weights, (2) has conventional ties to a "side you're fed up with," (3) isn't running and (4) legally can't?

Directly: which Republican candidate do you want on the ballot? It's not an abstract choice.

I did process of elimination, and once I crossed out guys who remind me of Bush and guys who deny evolution, the guy left was the one whose contrasts I like. That Fox News seems to hate him is gravy.

Re:constituents

[dkleinsc]

I always think more about his society that votes for lizards, because if they don't the wrong lizard might end up in charge.

Re:constituents

[EastCoastSurfer]

You're right, 'nut job' was probably a wrong term on my part. I like most of Ron Pauls platform, but when I see him speak I just don't see a President.

Can I ask why your image of the ideal presidential candidate, then, is a guy who (1) found celebrity lifting weights, (2) has conventional ties to a "side you're fed up with," (3) isn't running and (4) legally can't? I was only using Arnold as a loose example, and he definitely isn't ideal. An ideal example would be me, since I mostly agree with myself :)

Re:constituents

[Jaysyn]

Mike Gravel seems pretty down to earth if you still want to Democrat.

Re:constituents

[Jaysyn]

"...I don't see a President"

Funny, that's what I've been thinking for the past 7 years now. I'd rather have a president that works for me than one that can speak "pretty words".

Re:constituents

[runderwo]

Hillary Clinton is about as far from a socialist as possible. I have no idea why people trumpet this baseless notion. [..] Creating a "safety net" or a "welfare state" is not socialism. Those are simply policies meant to keep the populace complacent, nothing more. [..] Also, I believe that if she were truly socialist, she would receive much less than she does in "campaign contributions" (read: legalized bribes) from corporations.

Dude, chill.. GP misspelled fascist, that is all.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Re:constituents

[Anonymous Coward]

Review the voting records. The worst bills all enjoy nearly 100% support from Republicans, and generally under 50% support from Democrats. That's enough support to pass some of them, despite the Democratic "control" of congress. It turns out that voting in more Democrats actually would improve things if you believe the statistics. I'm not going to recommend voting for them (they're so unreliable), but at least we can all agree that we need fewer Republicans.

If I am not mistaken

[zoomshorts]

The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees.
He did this with knowledge and aforethought. Bush is
really a traitor to the American people.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[noidentity]

Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob, so he's clearly still a good president.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[Shadowlore]

You know what is really funny. A group of people saying Bush is stupid, dumb as a box of rocks, and a dunce all while claiming he masterminded a grand conspiracy and is pulling it off.

Even funnier:
They don't see the contradiction.

If you s/funny/sad/ or s/funni/sadd/ it holds just as well.

But here is a newsflash for the poster:
a decade ago the SEC and FCC were filled with Clinton appointees. And *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.
a decade before that, the FCC and SEC were filled with Reagan appointees; *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.

Are we seeing a pattern here? G
uess what, 5 years from now the SEC and FCC will be filled with appointees of the next president who will do with knowledge and forethought.

Can you see the pattern yet?

Furthermore, do you want a President appointing people to the SEC and FCC without knowledge and forethought? Wouldn't you think about putting people into those posts? While it can be argued these posts should be eliminated, I hold it rational to assume that if they are going to exist that qualified individuals should hold those positions.

That's one of the differences, IMO, between a mere malcontent[1] and a genuine dissident. A malcontent will just make thing sup that sound important or impressive, and label his or her target with whatever epithet sounds denigrating at the time. If it suits a malcontent's argument to say the target (in this case the POTUS) is stupid, he or she will do so. The next day if it suits the malcontent to say the target is a criminal mastermind, he or she will do so. Why? The point is not discussion and resolution. It is about bitching, whining, or an agenda to make oneself (or political allies) feel or look better. And for some it is about blog ad revenue.

A dissident however, has no need to make such contradictory claims. A dissident doesn't care whether he or she likes the POTUS, he or she knows the POTUS gets neither blame nor credit for the economy by right (for example), or can see good and bad, agreeable and disagreeable in, for example, the POTUS regardless of party, state of origin, campaign contributor beliefs, sex, or whatever else.

And finally, there is no "The American People". We are a very diverse bunch. We do not all agree on pretty much any given political or social matter. Malcontents like to portray this fiction because it lets them imply or claim that their target is not among the group. It's a form of the logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. It is particularly popular for nationalist malcontents to portray a country's population as a people; and for the same reasons.

1: malcontent (a person who is discontented or disgusted); not the Shakespearean/English theater Malcontent.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob

We don't, actually, know that for a fact.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

You Democratic trolls and Democratic Fascist Moderators are FUCKING UP SLASHDOT. FUCK OFF!

Re:If I am not mistaken

[s4m7]

Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob In his defense, he thought it was a chick at the time.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[Eskarel]

Personally I don't think that Bush does anything with forethought, or any other sort of thought for that matter, I think he does what Cheney tells him to. I also think that Cheney is a slimy evil bastard..

That said, there's a difference between appointing people to the FCC and SEC with forethought and planning with the goal of selecting the best people for the job(as you invision the job to be), and appointing people who will let you get away with things you know are wrong.

Anyone with any understanding of U.S. history knows that things like wire taps without a warrant are not only likely unconstitutional but fly in the face of everything the U.S. stands(used to stand) for. That's the difference.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[Jimmy_B]

Even funnier: They don't see the contradiction.</blockquote>
No one's claiming Bush masterminded anything. Bush is, in fact, as stupid as people say he is. Vice President Cheney, on the other hand, has James Bond suspended over a shark pit, and Bush does all and only the things Cheney tells him to. That's the genius of this administration; all the publicity focuses on the dumb monkey, while all the power is in the hands of the evil genius. There is no contradiction.

This will be fun to watch...

[Starteck81]

...kinda like switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches scurry for cover to hide.

Re:This will be fun to watch...

[Bearpaw]

This will be fun to watch...kinda like switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches scurry for cover to hide.

The risk is that the rats and roaches may attack rather than scurry for cover. Make sure your flamethrower is fully charged before turning the light on.

Re:This will be fun to watch...

[spun]

Scurrying for cover isn't their style. More like, switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches invade Iran.

Re:This will be fun to watch...

[Karzz1]

Why not just use the flamethrower for light?

Re:This will be fun to watch...

[morcego]

I'm not sure if are joking or not, but this is a real issue.

In politics, what you describe is called "bullring tactics". It is a very well known and effective way to keep the population under control, by diverting their attention toward an outside "enemy". An enemy that threatens the very thing that makes us human, perhaps (Nazi). Or someone that threatens our way of life (Terrorists). Or someone who corrupts our children (Commies).

This happened and still happens on many countries, not just USA. The USA is just the more obvious one. Maybe because they have such much presence on the media. Actually, you can see it happening everywhere if you study the history of any country. Sometimes the enemy is fabricated. Sometimes the enemy is real (ie: the politics got lucky and didn't have to create one). The tactics is always the same.

This is so widely known and used that you can even read about it on books (1984, Chapterhouse Dune etc). You can see it in your own country (doesn't matter where you live). You can see it in your church (in case you belong to one).

The saddest thing of all, even if you and everybody else can see plainly what these leaders are doing, 99% of the population accept it. I don't know why. Maybe people just don't want the responsibility. Maybe they like to be tricked. Maybe it is because a leader is that makes us a people (don't laugh, it is a verifiable historical truth). Maybe they just don't care. It usually takes things getting pretty serious on a personal level (something like the great depression or even worst) for they to do something.

Enters Caesar. Bullrings tactics, add some breads and circus, and you have a very simple recipe for keeping the population under control. How simple ? Take a look at the presidents of countries like Venezuela and Brazil. I'm mentioning those just to take a bit of the "anti-Bush" flavor out of this post.

Let the USA government continue to waste the country's money on all these wars for a decade or two more, and suddenly Iran and North Korea are no longer the real problem anymore.

Even if you agree with what your government is doing, don't simply accept it. Ask yourself also WHY they are doing it. Do actions and words agree ?

This EFF court case is a very good way to find out real motivations. I, for one, praise them, and hope they can manage to get the information. If the government tries to hide it, thats ok too. That by itself is enough of a message, telling us, again, what the real motivations are.

Re:This will be fun to watch...

[spun]

I wasn't joking, and I do not accept what my government is doing.

Well, if it's required by law

[roystgnr]

Then I'm sure the White House will get right on that.

Re:Well, if it's required by law

[purpledinoz]

As funny as that statement is, how scary is it that now the norm is for the White House to break laws with impunity?

Re:Well, if it's required by law

[sumdumass]

That depends on if they actually broke the law.

I know they broke the statutory law but one of the key defenses for the action is that the law didn't apply to them because of constitutional obligations that congress has no right to restrict in any ways. I'm not going to claim it is correct or not, just that the issue is there and it will eventually need to be decided by the supreme court.

Congress won't want to take it to that level because it might be true and they might lose a perception of power. Currently one side it attempting to use this as a campaign strategy and that side seems to be the most likely to push the issue too. If they push it, they stand a chance of losing their so called advantage and issue. It would devastate them in the way campaigns are being run. So they don't really have a desire to do anything about it either.

Re:Well, if it's required by law

[Anonymous Coward]

Those arguments only make sense if you're such a ludicrously partisan hack that you're willing to buy any argument at all.

I hope you get cancer of the anus.

Re:Well, if it's required by law

[sumdumass]

or if your not so biased and jaded that your willing to excuse the most prominent and workable defense they can put up if it ever goes to a trial.

You see, that was the one underpinning that excuses their disregard for a law in place. It is the same effect of someone not following a law because it is unconstitutional. First, they have to break it, then they have to get charged to challenge it. So either counter their argument or just the hell up.

I guess maybe your a troll. That would be why you posted AC instead of anything that could track your stupid comment back to you. and if your too stupid to understand what they are talking about, then you will be dumbfounded when they mount that defense and actually win. If I was you, I would stop hoping people got ass cancer and start thinking about where your head is right now. I hope your just checking yourself for cancer.

Re:Well, if it's required by law

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess maybe your a troll.

Gee, what was your first clue?
Apparently your username suits you.


nigger nigger nigger

Similar news.

[palegray.net]

It's worth referencing this recent /. article on a similar topic. Wonder how many parallels or ideas we can draw from both...

Yeah Right!

[explosivejared]

Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.

And I'd like a pony that floated on rainbows and candy and secreted money instead of sweat! Geez! Can't you learn to be content!

Joking aside, that would be the next logical step. Of course having all lobbying be completely transparent has always been the logical next step to cleaning house, but now Washington doesn't run on logic does it?

Executive Order #456632346

[Anonymous Coward]

By the authoruty invested in my cocaine-snorting, I, "President" George W. Bush, do hereby
declare you have NO rights.

Criminally yours,
W.

Why isn't this done allready?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any reason that doesn't involve corruption we can't know what corporate/other representatives our elected officials are meeting with?

It seems like most of the time these meetings couldn't involve national security(I would go so far as to say most things don't, whatever they claim), so why are they secret to begin with?

Re:Why isn't this done allready?

[Intron]

The justification for not releasing the names of Cheney's Energy Policy group members was that the Administration didn't think they had to, even though the FACA has been on the books since 1972. However the court ruled that they did in April 2004, so we expect those names any day now.

Re:Why isn't this done allready?

[tomthegeek]

Whoops, inexperienced mod here. That's funny at all, pretty sad really.

Re:Why isn't this done allready?

[sumdumass]

Well, actually, the court said the reason was because they need to be able to take counsel and advice from a number of people without them having a fear of anything coming back from what they said or who and when they met. They said it was an integral part of the office he holds.

So it wasn't because he didn't want to. Even if you want to make it look that way. I tend to agree with the decisions as much as I did when Clinton used it.

No, Washington runs on money.

[xC0000005]

and logic says that if you are a congress man living on lobby money then you don't want a clear paper trail, because it will make it harder to get more of that wonderful pony sweat. Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to protect his own interests as often as he can without completely alienating the plebes who vote him in based on his name recognition.

Yeah! EFF Go For It!

[curmudgeon99]

Some good news for a god-damn change. This is great. Hold the Bushies to the fire--make them sweat--let all their high crimes and misdemeanors come to light. Light the torches and throw the ropes over the trees--it's time to get jiggy with W.

Here's your pony

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. The pony you describe (pretty much) is here. Enjoy!

Checks and balances

[stormguard2099]

I know washington hasn't heard those words in a while but it's glad to see they still exist somewhere every once in a while. This is why the founding fathers of the US made three branches instead of just 1 blunt club. I just wish we would see this sort of thing happen more often..

Re:Checks and balances

[sumdumass]

You do realize that the founding fathers also said how the checks and balances were to be made right?

They didn't give all out authority of one branch to interfere or "express oversight" with the another. It has to be done within the context of the constitution. This is something that makes me believe this would be overturned in future appeals.

Re:Checks and balances

[DynaSoar]

> You do realize that the founding fathers also said how the checks and balances were to
> be made right?
>
> They didn't give all out authority of one branch to interfere or "express oversight"
> with the another. It has to be done within the context of the constitution. This is
> something that makes me believe this would be overturned in future appeals.

Fine in theory, but executive ignoring the other branches' checking and balancing is a time honored tradition. Frinstance, when the supreme court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign nation and that the treaty with them had to be honored (ie. they were entitled to live on the land that the treaty stated), Andrew Jackson said "The chief justice has made his decision, let him enforce it." And he proceeded to round up as many Cherokee as he could and sent them on the Trail of Tears.

Nothing will come of this decision. Nothing came of the many previous ones. I'll bet most people don't even remember them.

Re:Checks and balances

[sumdumass]

Lol.. You picked a point where Both I am not extremely familiar with and the executive appears to ignore the judicial.

But the reality is, The Treaty of New Echota was made after the supreme court ruling you mentioned and while it was unpopular at the time, it did give Jackson the required prerequisites that the court demanded. You could say that a few Cherokee sold out the Sovereign Cherokee nation.

So no, the executive did not ignore the Judicial in that case. They may have railroaded their way through it, but it didn't ignore it. But that is besides the point I made. I didn't say that the other branches couldn't do oversight, I said it is laid out in the constitution and there are some places that one branch cannot interfere with another.

Surely you agree with me that congress cannot pass a law saying that the courts cannot find another law they pass unconstitutional if that law is unconstitutional. And surely you agree that congress cannot pass a law saying the president has to sign every bill into law. Both those examples are where the founding fathers set the roles and oversight specifically in the constitution. Likewise, the executive couldn't use the pressure of arrest and imprisonment to convince congress or a court to act in a certain way. And so on. Some positions, like making laws, or interpreting laws or acting as commander in chief just cannot be screwed with unless the constitution specifically lets another branch do so.

So what?

[He Who Waits]

Won't the administration simply issue copies of all the requested documents with all the relevant information "redacted in the interest of national security"? (I'm a Canadian. I don't know how crap like this works.)

Re:So what?

[SeaFox]

That's a pretty good guess as to how the initial release will work. Then the EFF will have to file a lawsuit or something arguing that the documents are too redacted and don't fulfill the request. Then we're back in a long, protracted court case.

US Govt

[youngone]

Sorry guys. Your system of Government has been up for sale for a long time now. The highest bidders are just sorting themselves out now. Democracy has ended in the US, is it now an oligarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy or a Plutocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy ?

Lessons from Pakistan

[toddhisattva]

Obviously, Shakespeare was exaggerating. We do not need to kill all the lawyers.

But jailing the EFFluent for the duration of This Long War does seem like a good start.

Re:Lessons from Pakistan

[samwichse]

I hope this is sarcasm.

I really do.

Sam

Re:Who orders who?

[spun]

Simplistic and incorrect. You forgot 0. There was something before all divisions and definitions, especially before the division between self and non self. And anything you can say about that is, all at the same time, incorrect, correct, neither correct nor incorrect, and both correct and incorrect. But this is all just philosophical masturbation. Not that I don't enjoy a good wank now and then, but here's a thought. Stop trying to define. The desire to define and categorize comes from fear of the unknown. Just stop. Be here now. ;-)

I really wish that wasn't funny.

[Bearpaw]

But it's hilarious.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, what is "this" in your troll? Please define what "this" is, so we can proceed to discuss how little you know about that which your are running off at the mouth about. From parent:
"The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees."

If you can't add two and two together then the

And what idiot fucking mods thought a post like parent, devoid of ANY facts, logic, or insight of any kind wasted mod points on this nonsense? has better understanding of logic than you. You, Sir/Ma'am, is the troll.

In the beginning was zero sentients?

[Besna]

I don't think so. Zero is just a number. One can represent something meaningful. You might as well posit starting with negative one sentients. They are called whole numbers for a reason.

Re:In the beginning was zero sentients?

[spun]

You are thoroughly confused, and will only get more so if you keep to this path.

Where does the definition of sentient come from? Where does the definition of definition come from? You haven't thought about this deeply enough. One cannot represent anything. The idea of representation must first be defined, the idea of reference. Where does reference come from, originally? Why did the undivided and undefined divide and become defined? It is because it is undivided. Thus is contains all divisions. Because it is undefined, it contains all definition. The undefined is your starting point, not something definite like one. Figure out how one came about from null, and you'll be on the right track. It has to do with reference, division, and definition, that's the only hint I'll give you.

Re:In the beginning was zero sentients?

[Chris Burke]

No, he's right, zero is transcendent. Zero is not just a number, it's the concept of nothing, of not having something. For anything one or any other number can represent, zero represents its absence. Before there was any sentient, there was zero sentients, and you cannot begin to count anything as but you have begun with not having counted any. And it took sentience to realize that nothing was a concept unto itself as important and critical to understanding as any something, that absence is in fact a something itself. Zero is the most critical value for understanding anything, and in many ways it is only by comparing ourselves to zero that we know that we are one or more.

Negative numbers are just positive numbers in the opposite direction. Whether reversing the polarity or enumerating debt or the loss of sentients, it still begins with the concept of not having any of those. Zero is the beginning of everything.

Guess I fell for it

[Besna]

I'm looking for real philosophical discussion, not wordplay. Reply to the original post if you have something meaningful to say.

Re:Guess I fell for it

[spun]

Your original post is only wordplay, signifying nothing. That's why I called it masturbatory. There are an infinite number of catchy little lists like yours, and none of them mean anything. I'm trying to show you something real. But as usual, it's like I'm pointing at the moon, and saying "moon," only for you to point at my finger and ask, "moon?" No, that's my damn finger. Look what I'm pointing at.

Infinity

[Besna]

There are not an infinite number of catchy little lists. Given the reasonable requirements of English and size of list, there are a finite number.

Re:Infinity

[spun]

And English words mean exactly the same thing to every sentient being in all places and times. Just stop it. Stop thinking, you're never going to get it with all that thinking getting in the way. You are stuck in dualism. Subject and object are arbitrary. You are not an self-existing, separate and self-defined entity. You are not a soul. You are not a little man inside your head, looking out through your eyes and listening through your ears. The sense of self is only another sensory track, like sight or sound. It is not separate, it does not signify a thing-unto-itself. You are caught in the trap of symbolism, so caught you can't even see the real world, only your own symbols for it.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, don't use the fucking word if you can't be bothered to use it correctly.

Oh please... this is slashdot; this is par for the course. Anyway, we all know grammar nazis have less to say than those with poor grammar.

Second, what is "this" in your troll? Please define what "this" is, so we can proceed to discuss how little you know about that which your are running off at the mouth about.

Oh, I dunno, maybe it refers directly to the action he described in the previous sentence? Dude... grammar aside, at least he can fucking read.

And what idiot fucking mods thought a post like parent, devoid of ANY facts, logic, or insight of any kind wasted mod points on this nonsense? I don't care how bad Bush is, if the alternative is to side with you fuckers, I'll take rich and corrupt over young, delusional and retarded any day.

hmm... devoid of any facts, logic, or insight? Sounds a lot more like your post to me. Anyone stupid enough to think that, in order to have an opinion, you must ally yourself with every member of one of two political parties is operating on half a brain cell. Oh, and if you honestly think that your side is the smart one, you should do a survey of the political beliefs of the most respected scientists, engineers, and college professors. You're in for a rude awakening.

No, you wont continue supporting Bush because he's smart. You'll continue to support Bush, no matter how corrupt, because, as you reason, some guy on slashdot had a grammatical error in an attack against him, and the rest of his post seemed confusing and offensive to you. Essentially, you'll continue to support him because he's on your team, and you'll support your team no matter what they have done or continue to do. That's what's scariest about idiots like you.

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, I dunno, maybe it refers directly to the action he described in the previous sentence? Dude... grammar aside, at least he can fucking read."

And maybe you're a god damned idiot. Why, tell me, you fucking pap smear, would someone be guilty of treason for doing EXACTLY WHAT EVERY PRESIDENT HAS DONE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESIDENCY?

I guess that makes sense, if you have extra chromosomes.

You have, somehow, found a way to give Anonymous Cowards a bad name.

Stop posting. Then stop breathing. Then, if the world is very lucky, stop living.

Socky McSockpuppet

[Anonymous Coward]

Glenn Greenwald!

Sockpuppet!

Can we expect another Watergate?

[r_jensen11]

00:00 [b]Bush:[/b] Hey, Cheney, get in here! I need you to help me figure something out here.
00:10 [B]Cheney:[/b] What is it now?
18:40 [B]Bush:[/b] That's brilliant! Get right on top of it!

Re:Can we expect another Watergate?

[nacturation]

00:00 [b]Bush:[/b] Hey, Cheney, get in here! I need you to help me figure something out here.
00:10 [B]Cheney:[/b] What is it now?
18:40 [B]Bush:[/b] That's brilliant! Get right on top of it! 18:41 Slashdot: Why is some idiot posting bbcode?

Tell the EFF to Stuff It

[tjstork]

Just on general principal, Bush should not give into these people. It's a bunch of leftists looking to drag down a political rival, and one wonders, who exactly does the EFF lobby?

Re:Tell the EFF to Stuff It

[GameboyRMH]

Are you serious? How the hell did you get +3 Insightful for that mighty steaming pile of shit!?

I would like to know if the EFF is lobbying any political groups (especially since it would be a despicable waste of donation money, although I doubt they could afford it since they run on donations) but the EFF is basically just pro-privacy, pro-fair-use and anti-censorship:

http://www.eff.org/work

Do you think privacy, fair use and free speech are "leftist political goals?"

Anyone who is anti-privacy and/or pro-censorship is the EFF's rival, for no reason other than that.

Re:They'll ignore the court order... [OT]

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a humble suggestion... you should attribute that quote in your sig, which is "Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy." The quote is by none other than Benjamin Franklin.

don't worry too much

[misanthrope101]

Don't worry yourself too much. It won't last. After the next election the millions of Americans who have all this time believed that holding the President accountable under the law was equivalent to helping the enemies of our nation will suddenly discover a newfound skepticism of government, a newfound fondness of government oversight, and a newfound reverence for the rule of law. Signing statements will go from being a vital tool in the war on terror to the mark of a looming dictatorship. Detention without trial will go from being vital to our freedoms back to what it has always been, a hallmark of totalitarian governments. Torture will become torture again, especially when the militia movement pulls a couple of stunts that clearly qualify as terrorism.

They will loudly denounce all the very things they considered so vital. The 180-degree turn will be fun to watch, but also sad, in that I know now that they're all lying would-be totalitarians who only distrust government because they don't happen to like who's in charge that week.

So that's OK, then?

[jandersen]

You sound almost as if you are defending the corruptness of the system; or at least saying 'Well, that's just the way it is'.

I don't agree with that - if the system doesn't work, it has to be changed. And it clearly doesn't work, because:

- as this government has demonstrated again and again, they can get away with just about any crime. This one is just one of the small ones - how about the war in Iraq and all the others? Ie: they are not accountable.

- the government's policy is determined, not by the people elected and according to what they stand for, but by big business: the energy industry, the big telecoms, the religious extremists, the military. The interests of the people do not enter the equation at any point. Ie: they do not govern for the people.

- the elections are simply an elaborate fraud. The people are not given sufficient relevant information about the political views of the candidates, for one thing - instead they are fed a mixture of soap opera and reality tv where such momentous subjects dominate as eg. the scandalous story that 'X once smoked dope'. And apart from that, the only real candidates are all in the pockets of those who own the real power: Big Money, so it doesn't matter who the hell you elect.

Is that democracy? Of course not; Americans have not known democracy for generations. In a real democracy the government

- is independent of special interest - they serve the whole of the people.

- accountable under the law

- elected from candidates that stand only on their own merits, not on the buying power of their secret backers

Did you know that in several if not most countries in Europe, each party is only allowed the same amount of tv time as the other parties during an election? That members of governmet are often held MORE responsible than ordinary people rather than less? Think of the British ministers who've had to go for having an affair, something that would hardly have raised an eyebrow, had they not been in government. The Europeans may all be 'bloody commies' for all I know, but they have a better democracy.

probably based on her '93 proposal

[Trepidity]

Her 1993 health-care proposal was somewhat more ambitious, although it was mainly criticized for being excessively bureaucratic rather than "socialist". Basically it would've kept everything nominally private, but created a detailed set of rules for what exactly corporations and private HMOs would have to offer to whom and in what manner.

Her current proposal seems to have backed off a lot and basically consists of a recipe for the government to shovel lots of money at insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

Are you serious? How the hell did you get +3 Insightful for that mighty steaming pile of shit!?

Dude, THINK. For the love of God, or whatever you believe in. Separate, if you can, in your head, these desirable political causes that you find interest in, from the reality that the EFF is a business just like any of these other businesses that they would "save" us from. Dude, you could take Jerry Falwell (were he still alive), and the head of the EFF, and switch their jobs, and they would be doing the exact same thing:

a) look at xyz about to take 123 away from you. they are so evil!
b) we're on the ball to protect that. we're the friendly little guy competing against this v a s t conspiracy, but despite that, we've scored some impressive victories.
c) so, give us money!

I would like to know if the EFF is lobbying any political groups (especially since it would be a despicable waste of donation money, although I doubt they could afford it since they run on donations) but the EFF is basically just pro-privacy, pro-fair-use and anti-censorship:

OF course they lobby. Do you suppose that EFF has never written a letter to congress, written to a senator, or gasp, even called a congress men? That's lobbying dude...

But the reality is, that the EFF has other political agendas despite its high minded goals. Look at how much they are expending to oppose the immunity of telcos for, gasp, listening to the government. If the telcos stopped spying, that's should be enough for them. But they aren't. They are looking for damages. You know why? Because they want the money.

It's all about money, and you are just too ladeedahdahdah your stupid causes to see it.

bore me to tears..

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

Separate, if you can, in your head, these desirable political causes that you find interest in

Privacy, free speech, fair use = political causes. Gotcha.

the EFF is a business just like any of these other businesses that they would "save" us from.

Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.

OF course they lobby. Do you suppose that EFF has never written a letter to congress, written to a senator, or gasp, even called a congress men? That's lobbying dude...

Sure it is, but I'd say there's a difference between trying to convince people with words and trying to convince people with money.

But the reality is, that the EFF has other political agendas despite its high minded goals. Look at how much they are expending to oppose the immunity of telcos for, gasp, listening to the government. If the telcos stopped spying, that's should be enough for them. But they aren't. They are looking for damages. You know why? Because they want the money.

Other poitical agendas? Such as? And is there any hint, in the article or from the history of the EFF's cases, that they're looking for damages?

It's all about money, and you are just too ladeedahdahdah your stupid causes to see it.

Oh yeah my stupid causes, how silly they are. I should forget them and instead, blindly follow some political party on their every decision, deriding any group that opposes them. And the best way to do that is by explicitly stating what "the reality is."

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

Privacy, free speech, fair use = political causes. Gotcha.

How much privacy, how much free speech, how much fair use... are ALL political causes. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.

Yeah, that's right.

Other poitical agendas? Such as? And is there any hint, in the article or from the history of the EFF's cases, that they're looking for damages?

They are looking for money. What more do you need. Just another bunch of people, looking for money. Tell me, what is it that the EFF does the precludes you from lobbying your congressman yourself?

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

How much privacy, how much free speech, how much fair use... are ALL political causes. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
I've been trying to hold off calling you a right-wing nutjob, but what am I supposed to say now? The answer to those three is "infinite." I was going to say "as much as is possible without hurting others" but I can't think of any way that privacy, free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:

"The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored."

Nonprofit organization = large corporation. I'm following.

Yeah, that's right.
Oookay O_o

They are looking for money. What more do you need.
More than you saying it. See my original question on this point.

Tell me, what is it that the EFF does the precludes you from lobbying your congressman yourself?
Well first of all, I'm not an American, I'm just along for the ride as you guys drunk-drive the technology industry around with the Internet backbone in the trunk. And if I was, sure I could write a congressman, but at the same time what's wrong with forming a group or supporting a group that supports your cause? People in groups make a bigger impact. Does the EFF threaten you? Are your ideals, political or otherwise, incompatible with the EFF's goals?

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

I've been trying to hold off calling you a right-wing nutjob, but what am I supposed to say now? The answer to those three is "infinite." I was going to say "as much as is possible without hurting others" but I can't think of any way that privacy, free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:


Well, then, in that case, you aren't thinking. If there is infinite privacy, then, certainly the shareholders of the phone company that you are suing are having -their- privacy rights violated. Phone companies belong to people and those people have privacy rights too. Therefor, what the EFF is really doing, is violating someone's privacy. Like I said, its politics. You just don't want to see it.

free speech or fair use could be harmful. Sure there's hate speech, but as Slashdot user Chandon Seldon once said:


If there is infinite free speech, then, I could say whatever I wanted. If I was a billionaire, then, I could, in fact, put into the media whatever I wanted to about whatever candidate that I wanted. Bottom line is, that, again, there is always a boundary line between the free speech of people, and where that line is drawn is political.

And infinite fair use is the same as saying there is no such thing as a copyright.

Well first of all, I'm not an American, I'm just along for the ride as you guys drunk-drive the technology industry around with the Internet backbone in the trunk. And if I was, sure I could write a congressman, but at the same time what's wrong with forming a group or supporting a group that supports your cause? People in groups make a bigger impact. Does the EFF threaten you? Are your ideals, political or otherwise, incompatible with the EFF's goals?

You could write a congressman, whether you are in the USA or not.

You're right, I am a right winger, but, since we right wingers were way ahead of the left in exploiting the internet, we're a bit farther along in seeing its consequences. The idea, that you don't get, is that the internet is balkanizing the world. Everyone is getting feedbacked looped into signing up for varying groups and clubs. These groups are becoming the prime source of information, self reinforcing - really, religious theocracies in their own right. When you support one of these groups, all you are really doing is enriching the would-be-dictators that run them. I'm sorry you can't see it, but when my group decides to take the next step, and form a militia, then, perhaps you will. I already know plenty of righties that are thinking about revolution.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

Well, then, in that case, you aren't thinking. If there is infinite privacy, then, certainly the shareholders of the phone company that you are suing are having -their- privacy rights violated. Phone companies belong to people and those people have privacy rights too. Therefor, what the EFF is really doing, is violating someone's privacy. Like I said, its politics. You just don't want to see it.
Should privacy in business matters be the same as in personal matters?

If there is infinite free speech, then, I could say whatever I wanted. If I was a billionaire, then, I could, in fact, put into the media whatever I wanted to about whatever candidate that I wanted. Bottom line is, that, again, there is always a boundary line between the free speech of people, and where that line is drawn is political.
That's not far from the situation today. Again too much freedom is better than too little.

And infinite fair use is the same as saying there is no such thing as a copyright.
Only if you see fair use as being synonymous with piracy, and not what it really is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Being way ahead in exploiting (I assume you mean the "abuse" definition of exploit, since you bunch are still mainly on the AM waves otherwise) the Internet is nothing to be proud of. Also even if a webmaster or forum administrator tries to act like a dictator, all they'll do is scare off their users. Also they don't have much power beyond what happens on their server.

Good luck with your militia, the guys in Waco didn't make out so well.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

Should privacy in business matters be the same as in personal matters?

For that matter, doesn't the President of the USA have a right to privacy? What about any elected leader?

As I said, the right to privacy is not absolute, and where the line is drawn, is a political matter. You've said that businesses do not have the same right to privacy as the personal, and I assume the EFF feels, the same way, and that makes them squarely a political organization.

There's nothing wrong with that... its just don't get all into thinking that organizations like that are all "different" just because they agree with you. You have, that's too bad.

Good luck with your militia, the guys in Waco didn't make out so well

Nah, but, imagine if they had just made IEDs instead.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

I put nonprofit organizations into a different category as big corporations. I suppose you could call the EFF a political organization in the sense that they aim to affect policies, but they don't side with or against any party. So I do put them in a different category than partisan political organizations.

I'm not going to try to talk you out of your IED-building militia of right-wing nutjobs, but you do realize you're no better than any terrorist organization, no saner than any of its members, and that the Patriot act and similar laws that you seem to like so much will only work against you? It's quite funny.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

I put nonprofit organizations into a different category as big corporations. I suppose you could call the EFF a political organization in the sense that they aim to affect policies, but they don't side with or against any party. So I do put them in a different category than partisan political organizations.


No, the EFF is political, and its partisan, and it exists to make some kind of money for its members. So, its just another money making con job, just like every other one.

I'm not going to try to talk you out of your IED-building militia of right-wing nutjobs, but you do realize you're no better than any terrorist organization, no saner than any of its members, and that the Patriot act and similar laws that you seem to like so much will only work against you? It's quite funny.


And, what makes you assume that I'm in favor of all of this so-called anti-terrorist legislation? I'm really not, and neither are a lot of right wingers. Sure, there's idiots on the right that seem to think that those laws are only meant to go after muslims. All I say to them, and really, the same thing to the left as well, is, if you don't want a government that can abuse its power, then do not give it power to abuse. Sure, they might not mind Bush chasing down a bunch of muzzies, but, the question to really ask, is what would Hitlery do?

It goes back to my original point.... the most dangerous political force in this country today is partisanship itself. Both Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, liberals, etc, are all guilty of the same thing. We think, geez, if our guy gets in, and we give him or her all this power, they will make things right for us. Sure, you can mock us righties as if we looking for a fuhrer to follow, but you lefties are always look for a Ghandi, and I do believe it was John Lennon that said, the only person that can save you is you. But, look at what the candidates promise today... the same old game, give us power, give us money, and we'll prevent someone else from taking your power. So, really, what we have here is a suckers game, a big protection racket where every election we give someone 10% of our rights in order to save a perceived 50%, and now, we've been through so many of these things, we've got no rights left. Seriously, as much as you liberals hate Bush, did you really celebrate Clinton all that much?

You before said that people banding together is a great thing for expressing power, but you are totally wrong. Humans are like grasshoppers. They become like locusts, caught up in whatever cause it is, oblivious to the destruction that they do. Sure, its intoxicating, you feel a part of a million feet stomping in unison on the way to victory, its easier to not think and just crush and not worry and feel good about things. But its still stupid and animalistic, and if you want to be a man, do this: look at all of these money laundering false heros in the face, and tell them to go pound sand. If you want to save your rights, and your power, do not give them to anyone at all.

You don't need to start a Revolution to gain your freedom. You just need to live free.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

One minute you're part of a revolutionary militia, you're anti-privacy, you're ready to lube up and bend over for whatever your favorite politicians or any big corporation wants, and you're calling the EFF partisan (heh explain that one). Then, around the second paragraph of your last post, you spin on a dime and say we all need to bury the hatchet, disband our groups and protect our rights as individuals, and tell the money laundering false heros to pound sand.

You're flip-flopping like a fish out of water. There's medication you can get to deal with that.

Either that or you're trying the ol' "rake everything together and then move it to my side" trick, and it's way too early to try that sort of thing.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

You're flip-flopping like a fish out of water. There's medication you can get to deal with that.

No, not at all. The best thing is to get rid of all the organizations. But, if you have to line up, pick one that is prepared to escalate all the way.

By the way, you are the one that's bending over for a religious dogma.

"your privacy good"
"someone else's privacy, bad"

You are sort of a fraud, you know.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

It's more like "personal privacy good, privacy in business and government bad"

"Privacy" in business and government is what allows corruption. It's the opposite of transparency. It's that simple.

When the same horrible CEOs and senators go home I hope they have as much privacy as the rest of us, but when they step into the office they lose all of it, just like any middle/lower class working person today.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

It's more like "personal privacy good, privacy in business and government bad"

Like I said, that's a political decision. You assume that businesses and governments are bad, but private political organizations are good. I should point though, that the EFF (like most political organizations) is absolutely aweful when it comes to the openness of its own operations. The EFF is actually more secretive than Exxon Mobil. Exxon Mobil must provide annual statements and quarterly statements that can be used to give some idea what they do. They describe exactly the goods they deliver, and at what price, and statements they about all of their communications are regulated by various government agencies. On the other hand, organizations such as EFF do not give you -a thing- about where there money comes from, what's the political affiliation of its donors, board of directors, and so forth.

"Privacy" in business and government is what allows corruption. It's the opposite of transparency. It's that simple

First off, that's not what you said before. You said : "I can't see why there should be any limit on privacy whatsoever", and then added that there should be "infinite privacy rights." Now you backpedal to a more political stance, which is individuals good, corporations bad.

Sadly, even your backpedalled argument is shallow. If you assume that privacy implies criminal behavior, than, doesn't it imply that privacy in one's personal effects also implies criminal behavior? I mean, how many individuals hide behind privacy to steal digital content, commit minor insurance fraud, use illegal drugs, potential terrorist sympthaties, and so forth? And, your own privacy idea is appalling.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[GameboyRMH]

I didn't really backpedal, I just thought that when we were talking about privacy we were talking about individual privacy, as you're the first person who has ever introduced me to the absurd concept of privacy within a business with a straight face.

Now I'll discuss the differences between a business' dealings and an individual's personal life.

An individual's personal life doesn't include other people's money, right off the bat. It's pretty hard to do something that could hurt others in private - let's look at the things you listed.

Piracy - How much damage can you do by pirating things if nobody knows about it? You have to sell pirated content to make money with piracy.

Drug use - Prohibition 2.0, drug use itself doesn't hurt anyone. If you want to get your drugs, you'll need to meet with a drug dealer, and the police are all over that right now. If drugs are legalized, anyone can make their own drugs cheaply (perhaps even buy them at the pharmacy without a prescription), the drug trade dies and drug use becomes, at worst, akin to alcoholism, which isn't illegal right now (not that it should be). If the idea of buying currently illegal drugs at the pharmacy seems strange and ridiculous, consider that you can buy alcohol and cigarettes at a supermarket right now.

Insurance fraud - Medical insurance usually includes a number of health checks, no? Again pretty hard to do in private.

A business on the other hand, is merely a set of transactions in money and service between people. A business is not a sentient being, and therefore I see no reason for it to have any more privacy than a machine. It consists of sentient beings but their personal lives aren't involved in a business' dealings (or at least shouldn't be). A business involves lots of other people's money. A lot of crime can be done within a business, and you're suggesting that there should also be privacy in dealings between businesses, which sends the potential for crime through the roof. That's why transparency is needed. A whole industry could be turned into a black box where money goes in and you get your product out. You eventually end up putting in more money for less product but you can't find out why. Not an appealing idea, to me at least.

Re:EFF - Same Old Story

[tjstork]

didn't really backpedal, I just thought that when we were talking about privacy we were talking about individual privacy, as you're the first person who has ever introduced me to the absurd concept of privacy within a business with a straight face.


That's probably because you aren't very open minded.

An individual's personal life doesn't include other people's money, right off the bat.

Um, last time I checked, individuals are extremely intertwined, and have other peoples money, either owing, or more.

It's pretty hard to do something that could hurt others in private - let's look at the things you listed.

If so, that's only because the kind of society that the left wing has given us essentially robs the individual of any real power.

Piracy - How much damage can you do by pirating things if nobody knows about it? You have to sell pirated content to make money with piracy.


How much damage could I do to other people if I dump motor oil on my own land?

Drug use - Prohibition 2.0, drug use itself doesn't hurt anyone

That's patently not true. Take a walk down the streets of any major city and have a look at the people sleeping on the gretes. Everyone else around the user has to pick up the pieces from lowered productivity. Now, if we did not have welfare, I'd say, have at it, go ahead, but don't expect me to pick up the pieces when you starve to death. And, I would argue that drug use is a huge part of the growing wealth gap.

If drugs are legalized, anyone can make their own drugs cheaply (perhaps even buy them at the pharmacy without a prescription), the drug trade dies and drug use becomes, at worst, akin to alcoholism

It depends on the drugs. I could see legalizing pot, becuase, even though productivity takes a hit, that, you have to get tested for that hit suggests that its not so bad. Just, people that smoke a lot of pot shouldn't be bitter about ultimately being left behind. Cocaine, pot, oxycodone, and all of the other stuff, though, I can't see being available over the counter. However, I'd rather have it rationed and legal, so long as private companies could get involved. Hell, I'd love to have a legal business selling cocaine to people! It's easy money. However, what I will agree with you on, I hope, is that the present approach to throwing everyone in jail is a crock. 30 years of the war on drugs has been a total failure.

Insurance fraud - Medical insurance usually includes a number of health checks, no? Again pretty hard to do in private.

The medical establishment, from provider to carrier, all condone a larger amount of prescription drug abuse. I mean, look at how many boys are getting slammed into ritalin for being "hyper" or suffering from ADD.

A business on the other hand, is merely a set of transactions in money and service between people. A business is not a sentient being, and therefore I see no reason for it to have any more privacy than a machine.

No, a business is the property of people, just as much as a house or a car is. Businesses are the most human of group activity, besides war. It's not, as you say, a "machine", and you most likely only feel that way because you haven't actually engaged in it or emotionally invested in it. Besides, if machines did become intelligent, wouldn't they have rights? I mean, if there are some animals that have rights, wouldn't machines ultimately have rights at some point?

Re:What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise...

What do you have in return?

[Besna]

At least I can claim something. The sense of self is nothing other than a memory going back in time to infinity. The threads of self are separate--this is consistent with reality. We don't have any sort of telepathy to others. What can you claim when you lay awake at night? What can you claim when you know death is near? Your statements are just like zero--fascinating, but empty.

Re:What do you have in return?

[spun]

You have no idea if 'the threads of self' are separate or not. You assume they are because you appear to have privileged access to the contents of your own head, and no access to the contents of others' heads. This is appearance, not necessarily fact. We could be living in a simulation where the sentients in the outside context have complete information on our thoughts, as one example. The sense of self does not go back in time to infinity. Time itself doesn't even go back that far. Time was created in the big bang, so it useless to speak about what happened before. There was no before.

The sense of self has something to do with memory, sure, but its primary function is to make sense of the mental models we build of the world. When we model the world, we also model ourselves so that the rest of our models has something to refer to. We notice, 'hunger exists' and the question arises, "who is hungry?" the sense of self answers, "I am hungry" and there is motivation to find food. A plan is made, "food must be found," and the question arises, "who must find food," so the sense of self answers, "I must." That is all. Do not attach some mystical importance to self, and do not anthropomorphize the universe by believing that it has a sense of self like you do. The all does not have a sense of self, even though it contains all sense of self. This is because the sense of self is finite and refers to the conditions of finite beings.

I don't lie awake at night. I sleep with perfect peace. I don't fear death, I've already died. I don't need to claim anything. I used to, and came up with all kinds of pocket philosophies like yours, but people said the same thing to me that I'm saying to you. The search for understanding is a search for control, motivated by fear. There is no control, because there is nothing outside of the all, and everything inside the all is one with the conditions in which it arises. The universe is no empty stage, and we are no actors that walk upon it. Stage and actor are all part of the same thing.

You don't even know what emptiness means, and you are obviously scared of zero because you seem to have a mental block against including it in your pocket philosophy. True emptiness isn't empty. Empty is a definition, true emptiness can not be defined. It is undivided. Saying it contains nothing makes a division of the all into "That which contains nothing" and "That which contains something." The true void contains all things, all definitions, all that is empty, and all that is undefined. But even that is a definition, and so is fundamentally false. If you are still caught in dualistic thinking, this will all seem like nonsense, I know.

As you ask what I claim, I'll give you one of my cast off pocket philosophies. Consider the true void as an infinite string of random numbers. Some subsets of those numbers can define universal laws, and others starting conditions. Those combinations which create universes in which arise intelligences which can deduce the nature of their universe are the ones that exist.

In our universe, time runs in two streams, forward and back. It 'starts' with the end, the universe's own perfect self understanding. This travels back in time, losing information the whole way. This creates the scope of possibility through which actuality will manifest. The lost information isn't lost, it just moves from the backwards time stream to the forwards one, determining the actual path taken from all the other possibilities.

So, the universe starts with perfect knowledge, but no possibilities; goes backwards to perfect possibility with no knowledge (in the process defining the scope of what is possible) and then moves forward, creating the actual path between the birth and the self actualization of the universe.

That's just one. I used to come up with crap like that all the time. You can have it if you like it, or throw it in the garbage where it belongs. True or not, like your own little philosophy, it signifies nothing important. You know what is important? Fluorescent lights. You know why? Because there is one in the room with me. I can see it, I can hear it, and it means more, implies more than any amount of empty words will ever mean.

Logic runs on logical arguments.

[Shadowlore]

Logic doesn't say any of that. Talk about a need for transparency. Claiming "logic says" without listing the premises and assumptions for the argument is a fallacy in that it is an appeal to a blind authority.

After all, otherwise one could do this:
Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.

Neither that statement nor yours are logical by themselves. The arguments ned to be put forth. For example:
Assertion A)
  Doing what the voters are eager for you to do will keep you in office
Assertion B)
  By working to minimize your interests in office you can write books and do speaking gigs and guest appearances that show you to be the better office holder
Assertion C)
  People will buy books written by you that demonstrate "the right way" to govern.
Assertions D)
  You would like to make more money than just your congressional salary

Argument:
  Given these assertions, the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.

Logic says that if the assertions are true, and the argument based on those assertions contains no logical fallacies, then it is logical for the man who makes the laws should work to minimize his own interests as often as he can while aligning his own interests with the plebes who vote him in based on name.

"Logic says..." is no different than "[Bush,Gore,Streisand,Chrichton,Clinton,Kerry,Paul] says...". Except that in the latter it can be verified by reference.

true, but they could block 'em if they wanted

[Trepidity]

It's true that the bills usually get more Republican than Democratic votes when it comes down to the actual voting, but since the Democrats control the leadership and all the committee chairs, they could make these bills be DOA if they wanted to. The Republicans were pretty good at that when they were in power---bills that didn't command a "majority of the majority" were basically never allowed out of committee. I suspect that the Democrats for whatever reason don't actually want to block telecomm immunity, because they could if they really tried.

Simple answers

[Besna]

You: You have no idea if 'the threads of self' are separate or not. You assume they are because you appear to have privileged access to the contents of your own head, and no access to the contents of others' heads. This is appearance, not necessarily fact. We could be living in a simulation where the sentients in the outside context have complete information on our thoughts, as one example.

Me: We could certainly be living in such a simulation. In that case, I can say that the sentients are not all-powerful. That would require only two or one people to be in existance. This is testable. If I ever fall out of the simulation, I will ask those present if they have any limits.

You: Time was created in the big bang, so it useless to speak about what happened before. There was no before.

Me: Consider a multidimensional array. The least significant part wonders what happened before 0. Well, I say that it is something like [infinite][finite] integer. What happened before zero? The previous reality. Again, this is testable and meaningful. If scientists find that the big bang really does represent a singularity, with a doubtful chance of being just a cycle in bang-crunch-bang, then what I think is strengthened.

Comments: There is no reason to cast off all pocket philosophies. I don't think the one you gave deserves to be thrown in the garbage. To me, it raises interesting questions of determinism.

I don't fear zero. I am fascinated by it, like I am about all of mathematics. If you want, I can add something to the start:

0. In the beginning was zero. All possibilities existed, but there were zero of each of them.

Something like that. What are your other "pocket philosophies"? Can you connect them? As long as they are consistent, then you have a good chance of believing it.

Re:Simple answers

[spun]

Let's take this over to a journal. Why don't you make a JE, I'll friend you so I can see when you post something there. This thread will close soon, and I'll be all like, "Hey, where's that cool Besna dude I was bull shitting with?" The truth is, I love pocket philosophies and I love discussing them. I'm just trying to be all Zen about it. "OOh, look at me, I'm all wise and enlightened and shit." Yeah, I'm a pain in the ass.

Here's more to get us started: In the beginning was zero, but that created a paradox, because all definitions are created in pairs by dividing the undivided all. So "nothing" implies "something." To exist, zero needs a reference. Where can this reference to zero be? There is no room yet, so it 'creates' the room. It is unit distance from zero, defining the first dimension, and "one." But this line is now unbalanced, and needs a further reference to exist. That reference is unit distance away from both zero and one, defining a plane, the second dimension. And so forth on up through the dimensions, with each one adding new scope of possible attributes. For instance, two points define the attribute of extension, or distance, while the third adds the attribute of angle or spin.

In Taoism, there is the Tao, the way. That is undefinable, but people still say it is made up of Yang and Yin. The deepest meaning of these two words are "Simple" and "Easy," respectively. Yang is the active and Yin is the passive. Yang is the nothing that refers to everything while yin is everything that refers to nothing. Thus the Tao is the undifferentiated all, while Yang and Yin are the zero and one that it splits apart into. Why does it split? Because "undifferentiated" means that it also contains all differentiations. To say otherwise is to place a concrete definition on it, and it is beyond all possible concrete definitions.

Dr Buzzkill

[mattwarden]

Let me guess, you don't get invited to many parties

...oh my...

[shentino]

Jack Skellington's gonna be PISSED that you're making out with his girlfriend