Supreme Court Won't Hear ACLU Wiretap Case

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The US Supreme Court refused without comment the ACLU's appeal of a lower court ruling that prevented them from suing over the government's warrantless TSP program. The problem was a Catch-22: they lack legal 'standing' to sue over it because they can't prove that they were suspected terrorists, but neither can they find out who was actually suspected, because this is a matter of national security." Update: 02/20 00:17 GMT by KD : Removed an incorrect statement after a reader pointed out that, with the expiration of the Protect America Act this weekend, foreign surveillance will revert to oversight by the FISA court.

Comments

Far too much power

[nurb432]

The supreme court has.

Re:Far too much power

[moderatorrater]

As demonstrated by their refusal to use it? The Supreme Court is probably the most easily abused of the three branches, it's true, but you've got to remember that there are still checks and balances. The president can refuse to execute a ruling (technically it's illegal, but it's been done), Congress can rewrite the law in a way that gets around the ruling, and they can even start the process of amending the constitution.

Looking from a purely constitutional perspective, the supreme court is also the branch that has abused its power the least imho. Congress routinely enacts laws that are only constitutional if justified by the "general welfare" clause of the preamble, not any part of the actual constitution. The president can send troops anywhere to fight that he wants without a declaration of war, and this president has outright ignored several parts of the constitution.

So, while I am a strong believer that the supreme court has had its share of overreaching rulings that weren't strictly constitutional, I think that pales in comparison to the abuses that the other branches have managed to pull off.

Re:Far too much power

[DaHat]

> the supreme court is also the branch that has abused its power the least

Really? You should double check the Constitution with regards to the enumerated powers (you know, what the 10th amendment discusses) of SCOTUS... in fact they are the ones (not the constitution) that declared themselves the supreme arbiter of the constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).

Technically speaking... the scope of power SCOTUS has is in of itself unconstitutional... problem is that as things have evolved... in order to change things back... we'd either need a SCOTUS ruling (of them giving up their power) or a constitutional amendment... which could still in theory be ignored by them (see cases of how they have ignored the 10th amendment).

Re:Far too much power

[SlowMovingTarget]

What, you want the U.S. Supreme Court to be forced into taking cases that don't meet legal criteria for bringing a lawsuit? That doesn't make sense. Any court in the U.S. has that power, by the way, not just the Supreme Court.

Would you prefer, then, that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case and start issues subpoenas for classified information on behalf of the ACLU? That makes even less sense, as then the SC would be exercising far too much power.

If there is any digging to be done, the ACLU is not the one to do it, nor is the Supreme Court. That power is granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution. Congress must investigate, hold hearings, and can even produce a report detailing "injured" parties. It is at this point that those injured parties could sue, or join a class action suit brought by the ACLU.

By refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court is correctly interpreting the law and the Constitution with regard to what powers it holds. In other words, the refusal was just right.

Re:Far too much power

[rpillala]

In Free Lunch, David Cay Johnston notes a trend in limiting access to the courts. In this way, If someone somewhere doesn't want a case to be heard, they just have to buy a little influence and can claim a legitimate victory. Note the reason the courts dismissed ACLU's earlier efforts in this line: only persons under surveillance have standing to sue, and the nature of the program is such that you're not allowed to know that you're under surveillance. That is, if you can prove that you have standing, you can be imprisoned. If you can prove that someone else has standing, you can be imprisoned.

In the book, Johnston details one case of a couple who owned an auto repair business in a spot where (I think) Jeep wanted green space for its factory complex. You can guess whose complaint was thrown out. These days it seems like there are only checks and balances when they're backed up by personal relationships or bullying. Note the number of subpoenas the white house has simply ignored.

Re:Far too much power

[RiotingPacifist]

nah they have the right amount of power, its just that some idiot spent the last 8 years appointing crooks and lairs with amnesia to it. Next president should dismiss all the people bush has appointed and then fill it up with honest people (even if there honest democrats/republicans).

Re:Far too much power

[Chris Burke]

Really? You should double check the Constitution with regards to the enumerated powers (you know, what the 10th amendment discusses) of SCOTUS... in fact they are the ones (not the constitution) that declared themselves the supreme arbiter of the constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).

How you figure? The Constitution itself states that the Judicial branch shall have jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Law of the U.S. and the Constitution. Marbury v Madison was just a case where a Law passed by Congress conflicted with the Constitution -- and again, it is clear from the Constitution that in such a case, the Constitution wins. That case may have formalized the notion of "Judicial Review", but the principle itself is quite Constitutional.

Oh and by the way, the statute which the Court ruled in Marbury v Madison to be Unconstitutional was one which increased the Court's power. It's kind of hard to call this a power grab when the executed their Constitutional power to judge a case under the law in order to reject an Unconstitutional increase in power.

see cases of how they have ignored the 10th amendment

True enough, everyone pretty much ignores the 9th and 10th. But it's worth pointing out that they ignore this ammendment by not finding a law passed by Congress to be in conflict with the 10th, and thus Unconstitutional. How exactly would they do this if not via Judicial Review as established via Marbury v Madison?

In other words this is a case of the Judicial Branch abusing their powers by under-utilizing them, resulting in an increase in power of the other two branches.

Re:Far too much power

[palegray.net]

As demonstrated by their refusal to use it? Sometimes that's the greatest power of all... the ability to stand by and do nothing with zero consequences.

Re:Far too much power

[Opportunist]

Just so I get this straight, to defend my freedom, I have to incriminate myself and get arrested?

Re:Far too much power

[Darren Hiebert]

It's is naive to claim that the Supreme Court has too much power. Anyone who says that does not understand the law and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can only hear, and rule on, complaints brought before it. For a complaint to be valid, it must be brought by an "injured party" (i.e. one harmed or affected in some demonstrable way). who brings their plaint (i.e. plaintiff) before the court. The court rules on the merits of the complaint. The ruling only has authority over that specific case; this does not make that ruling law. It does indicate how the court would theoretically rule on a similar case, but the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule on very similar caseit prefers to hear new cases with merits not before considered.

The effect of Supreme Court rulings does not compel other courts to rule the same way, although they are guided by legal precedent.

In short, the only power the Supreme Court has over anything but the specific case brought before it is whatever authority people believe it has (i.e. it influences people because of what they believe). However, the Supreme Court does not have actual authority to enforce its ruling upon any but the parties to the specific case.

Re:Far too much power

[Sancho]

Perhaps it is right according to the letter of the law, but it's still troubling. As it stands, the government can seemingly declare any potentially unconstitutional act as "top secret" and they get no oversight. We can't even get the courts to take a look at it, because we don't know the details of the act. It's really quite disturbing.

Re:Far too much power

[AuMatar]

No, it means we disagree that the law states we can't sue due to lack of standing.

Re:Far too much power

[Money for Nothin']

Congress routinely enacts laws that are only constitutional if justified by the "general welfare" clause of the preamble, not any part of the actual constitution.

Note, of course, that the "general welfare" clause was not intended to permit unrestrained growth of government services for whatever vaguely-collective reason Congresspeople might concoct in the service's defense. The "general welfare" clause was not intended to permit galloping socialism.

At least, that's true according to James Madison in Federalist 41. Alexander Hamilton, OTOH, took the broader view that Congress may spend as it sees fit, so long as it doesn't favor a particular party.

Of course, even according to Hamilton's relatively-leftist, pro-government position, expenses to pay for, say, private military contractors, farm subsidies (which mostly go to the largest 20% of farms, often owned by e.g. Tyson Foods), welfare checks for the poor, (benefiting a subset of the population is not necessarily a benefit to the whole population. This doesn't make welfare a bad idea (though its implementations thus-far have ranged from moderately-useful at best (e.g. the EITC), and idiotic at worst) - merely, it conflicts with the way the U.S. Constitution both stands and as was intended by its authors), etc. would, I suspect, be invalid reasons for government spending.

Luckily for American Congresspeople, the majority of the American public has neither read the Constitution or Bill of Rights, nor has been asked to think hard about those documents -- we can thank the public education that the Dept. of Education tries to manage -- and the 20% or so who might have given them more than a passing thought tend neither to abide by those documents nor care about their intent. Combined with incentives to ignore the meaning of the highest law of the land, Congresspeople thus trample the documents they are supposed to uphold...

Re:Far too much power

[Martin Blank]

Federal judges are appointed for life. A president cannot remove them after appointment; only Congress may do so through impeachment proceedings, and a rash of such proceedings would look like a raw power grab of the judiciary by the Democrats and hurt them in the next elections.

Re:Far too much power

[Atlantis-Rising]

Perhaps you are not aware of exactly how Stare Decisis and precedent work- lower courts are indeed bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Not following precedent is an error and grounds for appeal to a court that will.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

"Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere -- "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.""

Re:Far too much power

[puff3456]

So, while I am a strong believer that the supreme court has had its share of overreaching rulings that weren't strictly constitutional, I think that pales in comparison to the abuses that the other branches have managed to pull off. Congress and the President can choose to abuse their power in any number of ways, however, they are elected, and thus accountable to the people who put them in office. The Supreme Court is made up of unelected, unaccountable, justices, making them far more powerful and their abuses far worse. With the stroke of the pen just 5 individuals (assuming the other 4 dissent) can make far reaching legislation that can attack any number of freedoms we enjoy. The Court has intervened in issues of national security, intra-state commerce, freedom of political expression, even personal private behavior in ones own bedroom. Their actions would make one think they must be experts in all issues, knowing what is best for the country in every which way. The Court's wild interpretations of the law and the Constitution, their inserting of their own personal feelings and beliefs into the opinions they write all point to the dangerous abuses which have become second nature to many of the Courts members. They have shown that nothing is beyond their reach and no branch less powerful than their own.

Re:Far too much power

[element-o.p.]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. When I first figured that out in high school civics, I thought it completely unfair, but think about it...it's the Supreme Court. If you think a law is unconstitutional, you have to break the law, get arrested, then have your day(s) in court. Basically, nothing gets changed unless you are willing to take a stand.

While it kinda sucks for the activist, I guess it's one way to keep from having to hear cases from every stupid schmuck who wants to challenge a law that doesn't personally affect him/her from wasting the court's time with trivial lawsuits.

Re:Far too much power

[servognome]

Oh and by the way, the statute which the Court ruled in Marbury v Madison to be Unconstitutional was one which increased the Court's power. It's kind of hard to call this a power grab when the executed their Constitutional power to judge a case under the law in order to reject an Unconstitutional increase in power.

Like most other power grabs, it was done in an covert manner. By rejecting the law, the Court appointed itself ultimate arbitor of Constitutionality which is not an expressly enumerated power. It's just like the Interstate Commerce Clause and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," powergrabs by the legislative & executive branches, not specifically stated but arguably in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

In other words this is a case of the Judicial Branch abusing their powers by under-utilizing them, resulting in an increase in power of the other two branches.

No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?

Re:Far too much power

[Opportunist]

Ok, I can follow that train of logic, but in this case it's a bit more tricky. I don't think a law outlawing terrorism is a bad thing (and I doubt this could be thrown out as unconstitutional), but unless I do something in that area (and bluntly enough to make sure our incredibly efficient system tracks me), I cannot be sure that I'm being wiretapped. But if I can't be sure, I can't go to court...

I cannot win in this case, no matter what I do. To challenge the law (or rather, procedure since afaik there is no law legalizing illegal wiretapping, or it would not be illegal), I would have to commit a completely different crime, which is a crime by anyone's definition.

Re:Far too much power

[Anonymous Coward]

bravo, mr. burke!

phooey on you, dahat. try actually reading and comprehending the entire constitution next time, not just the parts you "think" (and that incorrectly) support your fascist religious views --oh yes, that goes unsaid doesn't it? it's a simple, quick, process of elimination.

a new reich will NEVER rise.

Re:Far too much power

[rpillala]

I eagerly await the outcome of Congress' investigation into this secret program.

Re:Far too much power

[Chris Burke]

By rejecting the law, the Court appointed itself ultimate arbitor of Constitutionality which is not an expressly enumerated power.

Yes, it is: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

What do you think a judge does, if not arbitrate? This is the fundamental meaning of "judging", to interpret the meaning of the law, and when multiple laws conflict, to decide which applies and which must fold. And in the case of a law passed by Congress and the Constitution, the laws of Congress must always fold.

Or more to the point, what do you think should happen when a case comes before the Supreme Court, and a law passed by Congress is in conflict with the Constitution?

No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?

The other two branches have always been subject to decisions made by the Courts in cases that came before it. To suggest otherwise is to imply that the other two branches are in fact above the law and cannot be brought to justice for violating the law. That may be a popular theory these days, at least for the Executive branch, but it has zero Constitutional basis.

As to your "devil's advocate" question: Because the Judicial power isn't granted to the President. The Executive branch can in fact decline to enforce a law, this is what the DoJ does all the time by choosing who to prosecute and who not to. But that decision does not in any way constitute a legal decision, because matters of law are decided by a Judge. And if a certain law requires action of the Executive branch, then in a case brought before the courts, the Judicial branch has the power to render judgement against them and a proscribe appropriate penalties.

Re:Far too much power

[servognome]

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

What I meant is that as arbitor there is nothing in there about remedy. So the judicial branch can rule that a law is in violation of Constitution, but does not have the explicit right to strike it down.

Or more to the point, what do you think should happen when a case comes before the Supreme Court, and a law passed by Congress is in conflict with the Constitution?

I'm not saying I'm against Judicial review, but there are alternatives. As I mentioned the Executive branch can decide to not execute, or Congress can decide to take the opinion of the court and change the law.

As to your "devil's advocate" question: Because the Judicial power isn't granted to the President. The Executive branch can in fact decline to enforce a law, this is what the DoJ does all the time by choosing who to prosecute and who not to. But that decision does not in any way constitute a legal decision, because matters of law are decided by a Judge. And if a certain law requires action of the Executive branch, then in a case brought before the courts, the Judicial branch has the power to render judgement against them and a proscribe appropriate penalties.

Executive Orders have been used to manage the execution part of law... and the Judicial branch has no power to penalize, that falls upon the legislative branch.

Re:Far too much power

[Darren Hiebert]

You have oversimplified the principle of Stare Decisis. The balance of issues regarding this principle presented in Wikipedia demonstrate the approximate accuracy of what I stated. In particular,

The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.

Anyway, your point, even taken at face value, is about principles of the legal system in general--not the Supreme Court. It is not an indication that the Supreme Court has too much power (i.e. more than it was intended to have). The whole point of it being the Supreme Court is because it was intended to be the final arbiter of complaints. It has not attempted to appropriate to itself extra power than it was not granted in the Constitution.

Re:Far too much power

[Anonymous Coward]

As I mentioned the Executive branch can decide to not execute

Oath to "faithfully" execute the law aside (I guess if Clinton is "faithful" to his wife...), selective enforcement of laws is the first step towards despotism.

Re:Far too much power

[evil_aar0n]

I think you're crediting the Dems with too much intestinal fortitude - even if only hypothetically.

That's part of the conundrum in which we find ourselves, this November: vote for a Republican, who, while far from gutless, are just flat out evil; or a Democrat, who, even with a majority, can't bring him or herself to take action. Pansies...

We need a viable third party, if only to shake things up. This is terrible.

Re:Far too much power

[Atlantis-Rising]

"There can be no right, without remedy."

"Ubi jus ibi remedium." (Where law prevails, there is a remedy.)

Go ask Blackstone.

Re:Far too much power

[Atlantis-Rising]

Of course. But you said

In short, the only power the Supreme Court has over anything but the specific case brought before it is whatever authority people believe it has (i.e. it influences people because of what they believe). However, the Supreme Court does not have actual authority to enforce its ruling upon any but the parties to the specific case.

Which is simply not true. Stare Decisis causes those decisions to 'flow' downward, and be imposed upon substantively similar cases that are brought forward in courts of first instance; and in fact, that a lower court does not follow precedent is grounds for appeal.

Admittedly, there is a grey area in which courts debate over whether precedent is binding with regard to a specific case; however, in general, the Supreme Court's ability to enforce its rulings are far more substantial than you appear to give it credit for.

In the same way, the Executive is not bound to obey rulings of the Courts, and, for that matter, the military is not bound to obey the orders of its legitimate civilian commanders, either, but they do, in many cases against their specific personal objections- for example, see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

Those issues aside, I take no issue with your statements regarding the powers of the Supreme Court and never did; I apologize if it seems that way.

Re:Far too much power

[DM9290]

Congress routinely enacts laws that are only constitutional if justified by the "general welfare" clause of the preamble, not any part of the actual constitution.

Note, of course, that the "general welfare" clause was not intended to permit unrestrained growth of government services for whatever vaguely-collective reason Congresspeople might concoct in the service's defense. The "general welfare" clause was not intended to permit galloping socialism.

At least, that's true according to James Madison in Federalist 41. Alexander Hamilton, OTOH, took the broader view that Congress may spend as it sees fit, so long as it doesn't favor a particular party.

Of course, even according to Hamilton's relatively-leftist, pro-government position, expenses to pay for, say, private military contractors, farm subsidies (which mostly go to the largest 20% of farms, often owned by e.g. Tyson Foods), welfare checks for the poor, (benefiting a subset of the population is not necessarily a benefit to the whole population. This doesn't make welfare a bad idea (though its implementations thus-far have ranged from moderately-useful at best (e.g. the EITC), and idiotic at worst) - merely, it conflicts with the way the U.S. Constitution both stands and as was intended by its authors), etc. would, I suspect, be invalid reasons for government spending. I don't think you are considering the economic effect of welfare properly. Anything which gives income to the unemployed by the operation of the free market indirectly raises the wages of the employed. If you can make $5/hour doing nothing. You aren't going to work for $5. That would be the same as working for free, or worse (since you would need to hire a babysitter while you were working for free).

So a job which might have commanded $3/hour in a pure free market, must command more than $5 if there is a $5/hour equivalent welfare. Another way to look at it is that anyone satisfied with what they can make on welfare is not going to work, thus the labour pool is smaller, thus those with jobs benefit from welfare in the form of decreased competition for their jobs. real jobs must pay significantly higher than welfare, since people on welfare avoid the costs associated with having a job (such as transportation, work clothes etc).

It would not be correct to ignore the other factors such as inflation (which congress also tries to influence via the Federal Reserve that it has created) but it is wrong to say that welfare only benefits people without jobs. We don't even need to get into the other side effects such as decreased crime that exists in welfare states. Obviously decreased crime benefits everyone (except those in the business of selling crime-fighting related products - guns, police cars, jails, security).

Luckily for American Congresspeople, the majority of the American public has neither read the Constitution or Bill of Rights, nor has been asked to think hard about those documents -- we can thank the public education that the Dept. of Education tries to manage -- and the 20% or so who might have given them more than a passing thought tend neither to abide by those documents nor care about their intent. Combined with incentives to ignore the meaning of the highest law of the land, Congresspeople thus trample the documents they are supposed to uphold... well.. I'd basically have to agree with that, except the congress people are neither lucky nor unlucky. It is the private interests (i.e. the wealthy) who benefit. If the public was more educated there would be a different set of congress people and they would be lucky in other ways (they would be beloved and trusted by the people and the world and celebrated as heroes for all time to come). Currently each and every congress person is going to have to take to their grave, knowledge of the disaster they have wrought on their homeland, and the knowledge that future generations (if there are any future generations) are probably not going to forgive them.

Re:Far too much power

[entrigant]

What I meant is that as arbitor there is nothing in there about remedy. So the judicial branch can rule that a law is in violation of Constitution, but does not have the explicit right to strike it down.

And what effect, exactly, do you suppose ruling that a law is in violation of the constitution does? Perhaps make the law ineffective, null, unenforceable, .. striked down? This is very simple. You have 2 conflicting laws, so which one has the bigger dick? The constitution does one might think. So.. what do we do with the other law? It can't stand. It can't be enforced. .. Think about it.

I'm not saying I'm against Judicial review, but there are alternatives. As I mentioned the Executive branch can decide to not execute, or Congress can decide to take the opinion of the court and change the law.

What you managed to completely sidestep is the issue of the legislative and executive branches not being above the law. If we do what you suggest and just remove the need for the judicial branch at all then that's EXACTLY WHERE WE PUT THEM. If a law says "you must do this" and a senator doesn't do it then the judicial branch *can* be used to slap them around for BREAKING THE LAW. It's still up to the citizens to use the judicial branch. The executive and legislative get away with as much as we let them get away with and no more, as it should be.

Selective enforcement does not give anyone the power to interpret the law. It only gives them the power to ignore it at their own peril.

the Judicial branch has no power to penalize, that falls upon the legislative

The legislative branch defines how and to what extent violations of law can be penalized. That is all. The judicial applies the penalizations. Judges wield enormous power. They can throw a senator in jail if given a good enough reason to do so within law. The police are under the authority of the judicial branch.

Re:Far too much power

[eh2o]

Eh, whatever. It is pointless to argue about which branch is the most corrupt because none of it qualifies as surprising. This government is a sham all the way from the top to the bottom, left to right. It only marginally qualifies as a democracy at all -- we don't have proportional representation, and huge portions of the government are run by appointments with little oversight.

Re:Far too much power

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to point out that economic stimulus packages are perhaps the worst sort of government spending (ironically what you call "socialist"). Revitalizing the economy disproportionately benefits the wealthy, who have the most to gain from a healthy economy. For that matter, everything the government spends money on - including social programs, pork, and undeclared war - benefits only a subset of the population. By your reckoning, the government was never supposed to spend money on anything at all.

Re:Far too much power

[runderwo]

How you figure?

Marbury v. Madison established that the judicial power the Court was granted was sufficient to establish that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void". It was the first decision to defer to a "founders' intent" argument to read non-textual power into the Constitution -- that of removing invalid laws from the books.

The founders didn't write in the Constitution that illegal laws were to be voided by the judiciary, relying instead on inferior courts being bound by the Supreme Court precedent if the matter again reached their desk at a later point.

And the founders certainly didn't write that interpretation should be based on their perceived intent, rather than on the text of the Constitution they painstakingly crafted. Even in the case that they had, most certainly no intent other than unanimous intent would be an acceptable basis for further argument, considering their wildly differing opinions on many aspects of the Constitution.

Wouldn't you think they carefully considered the impact of each word when crafting the text? Why do we allow our partisan modern judiciary to second-guess them, second-guess our reading skills, and tell us what they think the Constitution 'really means'?

Well, we know why. Supreme Court justices can only be removed from office pursuant to a conviction for violating their oath of office, and yet they have convinced us that they can tell us what the very document that binds their oath of office 'really means'. And we are to respect that utterance as the highest decree in the land. Talk about job security!

Marbury started us down a long, painful road of judicial tyranny. It's not that the judiciary grabs power for itself, as you point out. They already have what they sought, because they are in the position of being the most Godlike political figures on earth.

The tyranny comes when the judiciary, over the past 150 years, has utterly failed to constrain the enumerated powers of the federal government in any meaningful way, has utterly failed to protect the natural rights of the individual to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and has even had the audacity to roll back Constitutionally enumerated rights in the name of the Drug War, in the name of the Global War On Terror, in the name of Progressivism, in the name of Public Safety, and in general whatever any federal social-engineering effort or boogeyman required. And because of its stature, its passive endorsement of the growth of government is taken as the highest endorsement.

It's long past time we held justices accountable to their oath of office, and stopped allowing them to rewrite their own terms of employment through "interpretation".

Re:Far too much power

[manifoldronin]

Too bad it's not my mod points day, but kudos to you sir, well said!

Re:Far too much power

[servognome]

And what effect, exactly, do you suppose ruling that a law is in violation of the constitution does? Perhaps make the law ineffective, null, unenforceable, .. striked down?

That is where the Constitution is not clear, and how Marshall made a power grab.

If a law says "you must do this" and a senator doesn't do it then the judicial branch *can* be used to slap them around for BREAKING THE LAW.

No, the courts do not have the power to remove somebody from the structure of government. Impeachment falls towards the people, the states, and the legislature, which can render decision based on the legal opinion of the judicial branch.

Selective enforcement does not give anyone the power to interpret the law. It only gives them the power to ignore it at their own peril.

Which places them in some respect above the law - for example presidential pardons.

They can throw a senator in jail if given a good enough reason to do so within law.

But they cannot remove him from office.

Again, I'm not saying that I disagree with the power of Judicial Review, but it is an implied power that goes beyond that specifically outlined in the Constitution - Just like the ability of the president to start combative actions without a formal declaration of War by Congress, the establishment of Federal Reserve, and a laundry list of other powers not enumerated.

Re:Far too much power

[pfleming]

No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?
The President serves as an arbiter of Constitutionality by vetoing the bill, not by rejecting the "execution" of it. If the President wishes to reject the execution, it is up to him/her to draft a new law rescinding the old one. Or do like they've always done and let the Court strike down the law based upon Constitutional arguments.

Re:Far too much power

[servognome]

The President serves as an arbiter of Constitutionality by vetoing the bill, not by rejecting the "execution" of it

It is arguable that the president has the power to reject execution: "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," so he can choose to be faithful to the Constitution by rejecting "execution" of unconstitutional laws. Further, the power of pardon places such power to reject the opinions of Congress (law makers) and the Judicial Branch (interpreters of law).

Or do like they've always done and let the Court strike down the law based upon Constitutional arguments.

Which again was a power grab - One could argue that since the power to strike down law was not explicitly given to the Judicial Branch that under the 10th amendment it falls to the states.

Marbury v Madison was a political power play and ultimately it was the Judicial Branch that seized the power.

In other words

[MillionthMonkey]

If you can sue us, we'll let you know, unless we consider that to be a secret.

Re:In other words

[cayenne8]

I thought this 'catch-22' type thing was the very thing that had been used to overturn laws like this? Wasn't this type of logic used for SCOTUS to overturn the marijuana tax stamp act in the 70's? That one said you couldn't legally sell pot unless you had a tax stamp, but, you couldn't get a tax stamp unless you had some pot to sell...etc. Basically you were breaking the law if you followed the law to get legal. I thought the SCOTUS said this was unconstitutional, and overturned it. (I believe it was Timothy Leary that brought this suit). This pissed of Nixon and then they came up with the 'scheduling' of drugs act...that remains in force today.

Anyway, why would precedent on this type of law force them to look at this case?

Re:In other words

[jmauro]

Nope, the pot stamp laws are still on the books and enforced in many states. It's easier to prosecute someone for tax evasion then pot dealing so they're kept around. The drug scheduling was developed to harminoze and simplify the laws on the books at the time of passage, not due to any overturned laws by the Supreme court.

Re:In other words

[j-turkey]

Nope, the pot stamp laws are still on the books and enforced in many states. It's easier to prosecute someone for tax evasion then pot dealing so they're kept around. The drug scheduling was developed to harminoze and simplify the laws on the books at the time of passage, not due to any overturned laws by the Supreme court.

I can't find anything to verify your statement. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. From what I know about the 1937 marihuana [sic] tax act suggests that it was overturned by the supreme court and later repealed by the drug abuse prevention act of 1970. Here's a wiki article that discusses the 1937 act and its repeal.

Where are cannabis prohibition laws still being enforced as tax law?

Re:In other words

[cayenne8]

"Nope, the pot stamp laws are still on the books and enforced in many states. "

I don't think so...the pot stamp law was a Federal law....not a state law. Here is a listing. I'd think that this Supreme Court ruling would overrule any state law that was similar to this??

Re:In other words

[MillionthMonkey]

Except that preventing someone from buying weed isn't quite the same as listening in on their phone calls and reading their mail without a warrant.

Now if the Fourth Amendment had only protected the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, rolling papers, and effects... well actually you'd need more than mere Constitutional Amendments to safeguard your right to inhale sticky bud around here. A chapter in Leviticus might do the trick.

Re:In other words

[drinkypoo]

Except that preventing someone from buying weed isn't quite the same as listening in on their phone calls and reading their mail without a warrant.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is that the constitution does not grant the federal government the right to tell us what can go into our bodies. Weed was made illegal under the much-abused interstate commerce clause.

Re:In other words

[UbuntuDupe]

I support legalization of marijuana.

I think most arguments for banning it are bullshit.

I think the extension of the interstate commerce clause to ban certain drugs was about as atrocious as anything in jurisprudence can be.

NEVERTHELESS, I would have to concede that there's a pretty fundamental difference between "you may not manipulate your consciousness in *this* specific way" and "you have no right to privacy in any telepresence", and any attempt to put them on the same level trivializes the right to privacy.

Re:In other words

[sumdumass]

"you have no right to privacy in any telepresence",

When are they saying that? The domestic spying is only about international phone calls and when someone is a suspected terrorist and an american is on the line. FISA laws don't deal with domestic communications, they only deal with Citizen presences on international calls.

In essence, they are saying you have no right to privacy in a "telepresence" dealing with these factors. Of course I understand why you believe the way you do. Before it was labeled domestic spying, it was simply described as violating FISA laws which the majority of Americans didn't see a problem with. Then it was changed to domestic spying in order to make it appear as if the government was listening to your conversation with Aunt Betty about Grandma's pot pie recipe.

It worked pretty well too. Most people railing about it forget what FISA is, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It was set up to protect Americans on international calls where the government could listen without restriction to foreigners outside the country in an effort to gain inteligence about national security.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

The law passed in 1970 creating today's drug scheduling actually mentions by name the overturned law from the 1969 Supreme Court case. Essentially, your facts are wrong. Not even sure where you get your claims about tax stamps being use for marijuana today. What are you smoking? Tobacco?

Re:In other words

[Mr. Slippery]

Except that preventing someone from buying weed isn't quite the same as listening in on their phone calls and reading their mail without a warrant.

The government thinking it can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body is much more of a problem than mere eavesdropping.

The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. If that's not understood, all else is moot.

Re:In other words

[MillionthMonkey]

The government thinking it can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body is much more of a problem than mere eavesdropping.

I agree with this but remember that buying and selling weed isn't the same as actually smoking it. Not in California anyway- that's right where they split hairs.

Re:In other words

[drinkypoo]

NEVERTHELESS, I would have to concede that there's a pretty fundamental difference between "you may not manipulate your consciousness in *this* specific way" and "you have no right to privacy in any telepresence", and any attempt to put them on the same level trivializes the right to privacy.

Actually, it's not "this specific way" but in fact "any way which we do not approve of". One by one the medicinal plants with interesting side effects are banned in the USA; wormwood, damiana, cannabis, salvia divinorum (which is a common ground cover plant spread all across the country - but then, cannabis grows wild all over it as well.)

Anyway, you are trivializing the issue here! There is no difference between these issues because they are both issues regarding personal freedom and the government exceeding its constitutional mandate.

The ACLU has no credibility with me because they don't believe in the second amendment, the one which protects all other amendments. (Freedom of speech disappears when someone holds a gun to your head, after all.) What's the difference here? Either way it's the federal government overstepping their power.

Re:In other words

[drinkypoo]

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2007/2/25/172012/182 - your beloved FISA has only been abused.

Re:In other words

[pgillan]

Except that preventing someone from buying weed isn't quite the same as listening in on their phone calls and reading their mail without a warrant. But would you really want to? All the conversations would sound like this:
A: Hello?
B: Duuude....
A: ...Dude?
B: ...what's up?
A: Nothin'...
B: ... what?
A: ... nothin'... what's up?
B: Just chillin'....
B: ... you still there?
A: ... yeah, I'm just watchin' TV... what're you doin'?
B: ... what?

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is that the constitution..."

Doesn't say anything about that, it's the Declaration of Independence.

"Don't feed the trolls - when an AC says something stupid, let it slide."

So now that I've said something intelligent, how about you go away again. No one missed you, and your posts are perfect examples of why this place went to shit, lots of chest thumping rhetoric backed up by nothing ignorance.

Re:In other words

[siesindallerscheisse]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead.

Re:In other words

[drinkypoo]

The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead.

My time and effort is better spent attempting to organize peaceful revolt against our government than any of this shit.

The Declaration of Independence is one of our two most significant founding documents. It is in fact the document that denotes the founding of our nation! Perhaps it ought to be considered.

Re:In other words

[siesindallerscheisse]

All I'm saying is, of you plan to argue about rights, quoting the relevant document will help you look like you know what you're talkign about (and conversely, quoting the Declaration of Independence as if it is anything more than a nice composition will make you look like you don't know what you're talking about).

"My time and effort is better spent attempting to organize peaceful revolt against our government than any of this shit."

I suspect people would listen more if you used a relevant argument from a relevant document instead of quoting what is essentially a propaganda piece.

Re:In other words

[plague3106]

No, sorry. You can't read the Constitution out of context. Also, the 9th and 10th Amendments cover pretty much everything else.

Re:In other words

[plague3106]

Again, you fail the context portion of comprehension. Our nation was founded on the principals of classical liberalism. To ignore the philosophy behind the documents is stupidity, as you need that context to interperate them correctly.

Re:In other words

[siesindallerscheisse]

Um, WTF are you talking about? Are you sure you replied to the right poster?

Re:In other words

[plague3106]

Yes, I'm replying to you, that things ONLY the Constitution matters, and that you can take it by itself. The Declaration provides important context and explains WHY a revolution was needed, and to understand BOTH those documents you need to understand the philosophy (context) in which they are taken.

Also, I was pointing out that the 9th and 10th amenedments pretty clearly mark that the powers in the Constitution granted to the federal government are ONLY those experssly given. I don't see where the Consitution said that the feds can spy on its citizens anywhere, or limit what they injest. As far as spying goes, quite the opposite, the 6th amendment prohibits it.

Re:In other words

[vuffi_raa]

sorry, but I have to agree with siesindallerscheisse: if you go to court w/o presenting law itself or try to challenge standing laws it has to be based on constitutionality and not on "the spirit of the nation"- though legalization is a valid argument as the laws that govern substance use in the ammendments to the constitution only govern liquor

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. is the actual text for the prohibition amendment (XXI) addresses ONLY liquor and the repeal of prohibition states that

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. though, if you were to truly argue the legalization of drugs you might have a stronger case if you say that as intoxicating liquor is classified medically in the same category as other intoxicating substances, it clearly states that an amendment is needed to overturn the repeal ergo you would need a new amendment in order to reclassify any intoxicating substance as illegal- it would be a bit of a lean on the text, but similar things are applied to free speech laws all of the time.

Re:In other words

[plague3106]

sorry, but I have to agree with siesindallerscheisse: if you go to court w/o presenting law itself or try to challenge standing laws it has to be based on constitutionality and not on "the spirit of the nation"- though legalization is a valid argument as the laws that govern substance use in the ammendments to the constitution only govern liquor

There are no laws in the Constitution which govern liquor. Now that that is out of the way...

Do you go to court and argue only the facts, or are the facts in some kind of context? Is it simply "you killed someone, you get life," or do we allow "you killed someone during a loss of control due to emotional stress, so you get 15 years." Context is always important, and to think you can disregard it even in court is doing a disservice.

That's how you lose things like jury nullification, if you're told you must only consider what the law says, and not include any context around it. That's how you end up with the Bill of Rights being a set list of rights, which it was never intended to be. Our founders certainly didn't want things interpreated without context, and its evidenent in their writings.

The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
is the actual text for the prohibition amendment (XXI) addresses ONLY liquor and the repeal of prohibition states that
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Again, had we NOT ignored context, the 18th amendment would have never been passed. The 21st says that states may regulate liquor. However, given the context, I'm not sure our founders would approve. Look at how amendments one through eight are written; they furter restrict the federal and state governments, not the people. The bill of rights doesn't exist to grant more and more power to the government, they exist to limit it. I think that's an important distinction and given how the founders felt about the federal government I don't think you can argue that they should be given more power than they were originally given. At most, individual states should be deciding these issues, not the federal goverment.

Re:In other words

[sumdumass]

Yes, and taking the words of an activist who wa fired from her job is really a good thing here.

But more aptly, that article says nothing about the context of those calls or attests to the authenticity of them. More to the point, the don't refute anything I have said.

But more likely, the article and the claims by edmond are more political oriented then factual. If you follow the link to her name, it takes you to an article complaining about a federal judge. It is as if everyone except a few Bush bashers is against her and anyone who doesn't instantly take up her cause in support of it, is nothing but a lap dog for Bush. Here is a question, if that was remotely the case, why hasn't be "disappeared' like everyone claim will happen if you buck Bush? Why is it that instead, she was met with laws in a court of law and has been defeated? The article you pointed to shows it was sent to congress to ask for hearings in 2007, so why hasn't a democrat controlled congress taken it up and done something about it? And yes, that goes a long way to the credibility of the claims when all the democrats in office are Bush's lapdogs because they blindly support her.

Re:In other words

[manifoldronin]

Now if the Fourth Amendment had only protected the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, rolling papers, and effects...

Huh? What did you think "effects" mean here?

Re:In other words

[Naomiah]

I agree and disagree with you.

The 4th amendment: "Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I think it was beyond the comprehension of the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that science would develop the way it did. This was pre-Darwin. They had no idea that you could find out from a cigarette butt the exact person who smoked it. This is a good and bad thing. They also had no idea that you would be able to find out what drugs a person had ingested for up to 30 days previously.

I am not sure how that would have changed the wording of the amendment. I think that while forensic science can definitely be used for good, it can also be used as a form of government oppression. Witness: In Great Britain, it was considered legal for a town where a little girl had been raped and killed to subject every man in the town a dna test. This would NOT reach a level of "probable cause" that is traditionally considered consistent with the 4th amendment, and no town in the US could require a similar thing. And I say that is how it should be.

But, if they find a guy with a bloody knife stumbling down the same street as a stabbing victim, with the skin of her attacker under her fingernails, I think that is a reasonable search, and use of forensic science.

On the other hand, I think it is a HIGHLY questionable practice to have blanket urine tests in order to get employment, pretending that a) your behavior off hours is legally within their scrutiny, and b) failing to acknowlege that while you could be tested for illegal drugs, you could also be tested for legal drugs, to see if you are pregnant, have heart disease, a psychiatric illness, or other medical information that is explicitly privileged by law.

Re:In other words

[jmauro]

The tax is here for one. Because the purchase is anonymous you don't have the issues with the 5th ammendment that Leary v US did, but you can still be prosecuted after the fact for failing to pay the tax if you're caught with the controlled substance.

Also, the 1970 law was written for a whole host of reasons, to state that it was just a reaction to Leary v US greatly oversimplifies how the law proceeded through Congress (since the drugs were illegal with or without the taxes applied to them).

Unless they fall for the trap

[SpaceLifeForm]

Then proof will exist that there is standing.

Re:Unless they fall for the trap

[Anonymous Coward]

> You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Lamest. Sig. EVER.

What did you expect?

[Sepiraph]

Some of these guys are hand-picked by the very same administration, did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them? Don't expect any real change unless there are fundamental changes to the whole administrative.

Re:What did you expect?

[grahamd0]

That hand doesn't feed them. They serve for life. The president has no political power over sitting justices. They ARE loyal cronies, but that won't change with administrations.

Re:What did you expect?

[Artagel]

It takes 4 justices to grant certiorari to a case, except in certain capital punishment circumstances. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Certiorari Therefore, we know that at most 3 justices were interested in hearing the case. None of them felt strongly enough about this to write a dissent from the denial of a grant of certiorari. That has happened in the anti-terrorism context, with Justice Breyer writing and Souter and Ginsburg joining. URL:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-1195Breyer.pdf>. President Bush has appointed two out of 9. A full four, enough to grant certiorari, are liberal and often at odds with the president.

Regardless of your politics, the decision of the trial court was awful.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/08/shocking-decision-in-aclu-v-nsa.html This just puts an ACLU fantasy about its reach to bed.

Justice is served.

Re:What did you expect?

[Phroggy]

That hand doesn't feed them. They serve for life. The president has no political power over sitting justices. They ARE loyal cronies, but that won't change with administrations. Precisely right. They're loyal to the Bush administration, and perhaps more generally to the Republican party or the Executive branch (this is why they were appointed), but it's entirely by their own choice; Bush has no power over them.

Re:What did you expect?

[Zordak]

Some of these guys are hand-picked by the very same administration, did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them? Don't expect any real change unless there are fundamental changes to the whole administrative. Yeah, just look at John Paul Stevens and David Souter. Nothing but a couple of lap dogs for the Republicans.

Re:What did you expect?

[ptbarnett]

Some of these guys are hand-picked by the very same administration, did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them? Don't expect any real change unless there are fundamental changes to the whole administrative.

This particular legal doctrine has nothing to do with the Bush administration. Despite the Catch-22 of "lack of standing", it's used quite often. Courts have been avoiding Second Amendment challenges for decades, using the same rationale.

A writ of certiorari requires only four votes among the nine Supreme Court justices. Four justices: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing. If they felt strongly about this case, they could have voted to do so.

Re:What did you expect?

[iminplaya]

Don't expect any real change unless there are fundamental changes to the whole administrative.

And that won't happen until 2013 at the earliest.

Re:What did you expect?

[BinaryPower]

Don't just blame one party. It's members from both parties that are doing this. People always get mad at Bush for these laws, and I'm mad at him for not vetoing them as well. But really, it was the congress who wrote these laws. It was the congress that passed them. The "hand" that the judges feed out of is the congress, because if they really wanted to they could impeach the judges, but why would you impeach a person for not ruling on a piece of legislature that you wrote and voted for. We need to allow the state legislatures to impeach the judges, not the congress.

Re:What did you expect?

[smidget2k4]

The Court lacks the power of the sword and the power of the purse. They have no enforcement power and no monetary power. They are only as powerful as the other branches let them be. It is a very delicate balance. Of course, they are utilized by the elected branches to decide issues that would be political suicide to take a stand on, and that is what they are they for.

That is why they are appointed for life "while in good behavior". This has come to mean anything short of being imprisoned or bribed (even then...) will let you keep your judgeship. But these people are supposed to be the intellectual barrier between the law and the masses. They are supposed to keep congressmen, who have to follow the whims of their constituents, in check. And for the most part, they do.

Putting judges under popular control would allow all of the branches to fall to "fly-by-night" laws and legislation, severely undermining the relatively stable system we have now.

Re:What did you expect?

[Martin Blank]

That gets states involved in federal matters, which is something that should be avoided, much as the federal government should keep out of state matters unless there is no other choice. Federal courts only take up issues from state courts if there is an issue of federal constitutionality, which is as it should be. There is no direct mechanism for the states recalling Congress or the president, just as there is no mechanism for the federal government to remove a sitting governor or legislator.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them?

Fed them, not feeds them. The Supreme Court is not accountable to anyone, and can suffer no political consequences for their decisions. This is part of the design to prevent exactly the sort of problem you describe.

Of course what has happened is that the Supreme Court was most likely stacked with some new people who already assured the Bush administration that they agreed with their policies regarding wiretapping. Because you don't stick your hand in a mouth that's going to bite you.

However, the Justices are free to develop a conscience now that they are on the Court.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the congress that passed them.

There was no law, that's why it's illegal.

Now, there was that one law that created the FISA court, but Bush repeatedly asserted that he didn't have to obey some stupid law and could do whatever he wanted, such as wire taps without obtaining a warrant even after the fact. Members of the administration even went so far as to lie to the public about the FISA requirements in one case where it was claimed that they had to wait for a warrant before they could tap a terrorist phone in order to determine the whereabouts of a particular person who was abducted and subsequently killed.

Re:What did you expect?

[imipak]

Note that this is a separate case to the EFF NSA case with the whistleblower from AT&T who provided the schematics showing how all the IX traffic was mirrored to the NSA - that is, they spied on *everyone*, by default. Apparently that's bad news under the US constitution, in theory anyway.

Re:What did you expect?

[BinaryPower]

In generally, I agree with you. The federal government should deal with federal issues and the states with state issues, just like the executive, judicial and legislative branches remain separated. However, I think the states should have a check on the federal government and vice versa, just like the three branches have on each other. No, there isn't a mechanism for this to happen now, but I personally think it's a good idea that should be implemented. Maybe not as I just proposed it, but I think there needs to be even more checks and balances in our government.

Re:What did you expect?

[BinaryPower]

Of course, they are utilized by the elected branches to decide issues that would be political suicide to take a stand on, and that is what they are they for. Yes, I agree, that is how they are used. However, they were intended to be an equal branch of government.

Putting judges under popular control would allow all of the branches to fall to "fly-by-night" laws and legislation, severely undermining the relatively stable system we have now. I understand the worry. However, I said state legislature, not popular control, and I don't think it should be an easy process, something like three-fourths of state legislatures. What I would like to see is more checks and balances in our government and a little more respect given to the states.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also worth noting that, contrary to popular belief, denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court "agrees" with the lower court. It could mean, for instance, that this particular case is not conducive to a proper analysis/determination of the issue. It could mean that the four who would vote to hear it think the rest of the Court isn't "ready" to come around and thus will granting cert likely result in the "wrong" outcome. Or it could mean that instead of challenging the wiretapping (of which they don't even know they've been the target), they should be challenging the failure of the NSA to disclose whether they've been targeted.

Re:What did you expect?

[ptbarnett]

It's also worth noting that, contrary to popular belief, denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court "agrees" with the lower court. It could mean, for instance, that this particular case is not conducive to a proper analysis/determination of the issue. It could mean that the four who would vote to hear it think the rest of the Court isn't "ready" to come around and thus will granting cert likely result in the "wrong" outcome. Or it could mean that instead of challenging the wiretapping (of which they don't even know they've been the target), they should be challenging the failure of the NSA to disclose whether they've been targeted.

Good point. I've had to remind people of this in the past, although in a bit different text. The best quote I've found, written by Justice Frankfurter:

Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. STATE OF MD. v. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW -- 338 U.S. 912

Re:What did you expect?

[uhlume]

What "laws" are you talking about that Bush should have (or would have) vetoed? This isn't a case of Congress passing unconstitutional laws, but of the President himself ordering actions in direct controversion of established law and the Constitution. How can you not blame one party? Does Bush have some secret party affiliations I'm not aware of?

Re:What did you expect?

[drinkypoo]

this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.

That doesn't mean that they were telling the truth, and in this statement, they are never insisting that they were.

Even if they give you a reason, you don't Really know why they refuse to hear a case.

Re:What did you expect?

[lysse]

Justice is served.

Well, serviced.

Re:What did you expect?

[Phroggy]

While I didn't mean to single out Republicans, seven of the nine members of the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents.

I don't think the Supreme Court justices need to be impeached, but I do agree with you that Congress needs to grow a pair, and actually pass legislation that says what they mean. The trouble is, they're afraid of not getting re-elected when Bush says things like

To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning. Last year, Congress passed legislation to help us do that. Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on February the 1st. That means if you don't act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Their opponent in the next election will paint them as being in league with the terrorists, and there's a chance the voters might fall for it.

Re:What did you expect?

[Phroggy]

There was no law, that's why it's illegal. The White House disagrees with you. They say that warrantless wiretapping falls under the category of "necessary and appropriate force" as authorized here.

Obviously that's a load of crap, but that's why the Supreme Court needs to step in, which they're refusing to do.

Re:What did you expect?

[Phroggy]

Personally I believe this law to be unconstitutional. Fortunately, it has expired.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

These people have the job for life, and live to have their opinions matter. There's no intelligent reason, why they wouldn't tell the truth, and every reason why they would.

Stop posting.

Re:What did you expect?

[mqduck]

The Court lacks the power of the sword and the power of the purse. They have no enforcement power and no monetary power. They are only as powerful as the other branches let them be. Case in point: the Supreme Court decision of Worcester v. Georgia. The Court ruled that the State of Georgia had no authority to make or enforce laws covering Indian territories. President Andrew Jackson famously replied "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".

It is a very delicate balance. I don't think it's really a matter of balance, despite the "balance of powers" rhetoric. The court, when it does have an effect on the other branches, really only works to retard the efforts of one or both (in the contemporary case of Bush v. the Constitution, it would be Congress). Its political role is really more like a US version of the British House of Lords.

Those of us with something to hide...

[KingSkippus]

What's kind of depressing is how much the general public just doesn't care about this at all.

I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else.

I think most people are like that, even the ones who proclaim so loudly that they have nothing to hide. I mean, if you have something to hide, you're a terrorist, right? The government could never use your dirty little secrets in any shape, form, or fashion, right? Because the government never loses our personal information, never has "leaks" that could reveal compromising information, would never do anything seedy for purely political purposes?

All of those who have "nothing to hide" are really starting to piss off those of us who do.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[stoolpigeon]

well, unless it is between you and at least one other person, over the phone - wiretapping isn't going to be a problem. not disagreeing that people should be concerned - but this isn't an issue for things that are "stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else."

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Jimithing DMB]

I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else.

Unless the government has come up with some way to read your mind I think you're safe.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. You're not that important to the government. You really think the government is wiretapping you to find out that you have a fetish for tranny porn and follow the news on Tom Brady a little too closely? They are wiretapping communications between the US and overseas. If you keep your Tom Brady sleuthing to US-only, you'll be fine.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[AP2k]

I'm sure the vast majority of Britons were unaffected by illegal search and seizure by British authorities, but the American founding fathers thought it was wrong to do to anyone under any circumstance. Are you calling our founding fathers terrorists, comrade?

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'll admit up front: I have things to hide.

Oooh, are you into BBW too?

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[garett_spencley]

"I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else."

Like what ?

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Qzukk]

You're not that important to the government

How important is "that important"? As the marginal cost of wiretapping decreases towards zero, I think you'll find that more and more people are going to be "that important".

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Romancer]

Uh, it doesn't have to be with a person that knows who you are. How many times have you talked with a person that didn't know your name or could't identify you? So these wiretappinhg issues are also about the right to privacy when you wish the privacy te remain intact. Calling to find out when a certain church is open, calling to ask the location of a certain bookstore, adult vieo rental store, or any other general information conversation can be logged with very real weight but the second person doesn't have the same need for privacy in these cases since they are tied to the location in other fashions. the wiretapping issue completely dissolves the privacy of phone conversations unless there are stopgaps in place to prohibit the misuse of data collection. Namely warrants and limitation scopes of information retrieved. That's why they were put there in the first place. So that people in the future wouldn't abuse the access to this type of information, not so that they could do an end run around the constitutional rights of the citizens and bypass the checks and ballances. The "it makes it harder" line is BS since making it easy isn't the only goal. We're protecting our way of life as well as our lives here. So to all those who claim patriotism without knowing what it means to sacrifice ease of safety for peace of moral mind, go look up the history from where we came and what we've been through to get the rights that are being stripped from us.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

That's because fear is the only thing that will always lead us to hurt ourselves while we are under its control. The fear of dying will strip us of our rights to live. The threat of anonymous terrorists will allow the domestic terrorists we elected to weild impending doom over our heads and threaten us with more attacks unless we bow to the demands to give them more power. If we do not obey or question that power we are labled enemy combatants and no longer have the rights we were afforded as citizens and we are then shipped away to where the remaining laws we haven't lost cannot even protect us. Torture by any other name, and terror by any guise are both using fear to conquor the will. And we are letting it happen. /rant (got a little carried away there)

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[ArcherB]

I'm sure the vast majority of Britons were unaffected by illegal search and seizure by British authorities, but the American founding fathers thought it was wrong to do to anyone under any circumstance. Are you calling our founding fathers terrorists, comrade? No. Our founding fathers didn't think that wiretapping was important enough to be included. Just like they didn't include any rights for citizens traveling via airplane.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

They were, they overthrew england... er waitaminute

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[huckamania]

but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else Then why are you talking about it on the phone? Are you calling yourself?

The reason why SCOTUS refused the case is because the ACLU doesn't have standing. Those who are performing the wiretaps would be really, really stupid to show the list of those they are tapping to anyone else, especially a group on a fishing expedition to sue them.

If the wiretappers did show the list to the ACLU, the ACLU would sue them for doing the wiretaps. Then, they would sue them for releasing the information. Can't have the government leaking stuff like this even if it is because they filed a lawsuit and won.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like they didn't include any rights for citizens traveling via airplane.

And so the invention of airplanes automagically stripped rights endowed by the Creator from men who used them? I always thought those dag-blasted things were an abomination, why, if God had intended for humans to fly, he'd have given us wings!

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[iamwahoo2]

It does not matter if he is important or not. It is about protecting everyone's liberties, not just his own. If we are dumb enough to hand anyone this kind of unmoderated power without any checks or balances, then we deserve what is coming to us because you can bet your ass that it will be abused.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Opportunist]

The Founders of the US were under the impression of a government that didn't represent them, a government they wanted to separate from, a government that offered them no benefit but only burden, a government that only siphoned money away from them, locked them in and forced them to do business only the way they and their protected industries wanted, a govern...

It's kinda bad that D.C. ain't as far away as London, separating from that could be a tad bit harder...

Anyway, where was I? Right. Maybe warrantless searches were no problem for people living in England, but maybe they were for the people in colonies who had "lesser" rights, who were not considered full citizens? Also, don't forget the third amendment, which has little to no meaning today (it's the part of stuffing soldiers into your homes), but was a serious and important issue in the 18th century.

Times change, as do requirements for laws. Of course the founding fathers didn't put too much thought into wiretapping or air travel restrictions. How much thought do you put into the effects of human cloning, the human rights of clones or the property and/or citizenship state of people who decided to be frozen and reheated when they could be cured?

Laws are a matter for times. And they should adapt. Unfortunately, it seems we're today too busy spending time at the mall to concern ourselves with such petty things as privacy or politics. Or, as Homer Simpson put it, we elect people so we don't have to think ourselves.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Opportunist]

Important? Me? Unlikely. But would I be the first one to fit a certain profile without having anything to do with whatever they're looking for this time?

And what are you going to get once they have turned our home, your credit rating and your life upside down, made sure every neighbor thinks you're Osama's best buddy and pretty much ruined you? "Whoopsie. Our bad."

If you're lucky.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> You're not that important to the government

You're not that important until some overworked person takes something out of context.
Now you're presumed guilty and have to prove yourself innocent.

You mention that the pile of 20s you've got is now up to $10,000? You must be a drug dealer... gov't seizes it until you can prove where it came from.
Too bad you can't since you just popped a 20 in there every time you hit the ATM.

They overhear you talking about that nice little rifle you've got, and they have some sort of a warning about a potential crazy in the area? SWAT team to the house. hope you don't get shot. And hope you don't need the gun while it's been seized. (What? Guns are bad? They weren't 100 years ago, and there was a higher death-per-gun rate then. Anything can become "interesting" later)

Remember these are the same people running things like the No-fly list. If you had nothing for the gov't to worry about, you wouldn't be on the list.
(My roommate is on the list, but fortunately he's also a pilot so he is still able to fly but it's always a worry.)

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Perhaps, perhaps not. But if you had the ability to search through everyone's phone calls, listening for anything potentially embarrassing, incriminating, or interesting, without the possibility of anyone finding out, would you? You never know when someone who today isn't important to the government will become very important tomorrow.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that any members of Congress would support giving the Executive branch that much power. After all, if I were President and had this much power and not-so-many morals, the first target I'd have for my cronies to wiretap would be the members of the opposing party in Congress. After all, if you know their plans, it's easier to stop them or turn them to your purposes.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business Likewise, and I further agree that this is commonplace. The difference is that I look around and observe that in my society there are very few instances of actual, credible abuse of this power. Lots of cranks, but little in the way of demonstratively unjust treatment of my fellow citizens. I, therefore, feel no need to stew in fear and hate based on some worst case fascist fantasy.

even the ones who proclaim so loudly that they have nothing to hide Where do you see this? Who makes this claim "so loudly". I've been around a while and I can't say I've seen this behavior you cite very frequently. I suspect that's actually another figment of your vivid imagination.

All of those who have "nothing to hide" are really starting to piss off those of us who do. Since you and I agree that the number that have nothing to hide is vanishing small, I'd suggest you're doing pretty well; you're fine with the vast bulk of people. Your hate is focused on a tiny fraction of everyone.

What's kind of depressing is how much the general public just doesn't care about this at all. They care, they simply don't agree with you.

Fools believe there is some underground bunker with tens of thousands of people listening to your pizza orders on behalf of TeH EEv1Lz b000ShM0nKY!!!11one. The rest know they don't actually live in Soviet-era East Germany. We don't allow enough resources for this to permit more than a relatively focused and limited operation, and we're convinced there is more than enough public scrutiny. We are satisfied that the low hanging fruit that is catching and killing islamists as a result of their own ignorance (using easily intercepted public communications) is being picked.

There are places in the world far less tolerant of their malcontents. You would appreciate that, if you weren't a malcontent.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

From a Briton point of view they are terrorists and traders.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Daimanta]

The problem is that filtering out the relevant information is incredibly hard. You probably need 10% of a nation's population if you want to spy on the other 90%. Which means that you need to have a big authoritarian state. Something I don't see happening very soon.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Sylver Dragon]

Am I that important? At the moment no. Now, prove to me that I won't end up in some grouping of people who is later considered dangerous, because I was born to the wrong parents. Won't happen in the US? Bullshit, it already did once and nothing has changed drastically to prevent it happening again.
The problem with unchecked data collection is that that data will hang around for a long time to come. Should some faction of the government, or the government as a whole decide that they suddenly want to be rid of a certain segment of the population that data will be searched and the hits will be hit. The problem about data collection isn't what is being done with it now, it's what may be done with it in the future. Unless there is a compelling reason (sorry, both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror fall under epic fail here) the government should not be allowed to collect that information. The government, no matter how benign at the moment always has the potential to grow out of control. It is important that should such an unfortunate occurrence come to pass that it is as difficult as possible for that government to dominate the people.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[moderatorrater]

Voice recognition software coupled with intelligent filtering can easily bring that number down to 1% or lower. Besides, the USSR did a pretty good chance of spying on everyone all the time. Set up a website where people can download snippets of audio and flag it as suspected terrorist; if it is, they get $40! Make it so that too many false positives disqualifies them in the future, do some redundancy, and you've got yourself a system where you can easily get 10% of the population involved in spying on each other.

Isn't technology great?

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... *I* surf porn. That's *MY* dirty little secrete that could lose a presidential campaign for me. And I bet 75% of you share it. (Statistics.) I've read the anarchist's cook book. I read comics online. I buy sex-toys.... I do a thousand and one things that society frowns upon, and NONE of them are illegal.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Nimey]

That's *MY* dirty little secrete I wasn't aware that one could get a sexually-transmitted disease from a keyboard. Is your discharge yellowish-brown?

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[causality]

You really believe that they are, in fact, two separate parties who want to compete with each other? Why do you believe that? Because they claim to be? To quote Bill Hicks:

"They're all the same! I'll show you politics in America; here it is right here."

"I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."

"I think the puppet on the Left is more to my liking.... hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holdin' up both puppets!"

"SHUT UP! Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's 'Love Connection', watch this and get fat and stupid."

Pay attention and what you'll find is that the kinds of issues on which Democrats and Republicans oppose each other have a common property. Note, this is different from the tactic of finding a different method to get the same result but justfied by a different reason. The common thread is that none of the solutions proposed by either party have the effect of significantly altering the balance of power between the people and the government. So, you have the appearance (real or otherwise) of a constant fluctuation in the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans and it seems very effective at distracting from the steady trend of shifting power towards the government. When a duopoly controls a market, they can corrupt, manipulate and effectively control that market to the detriment of everyone else. Why do we have this silly idea that a duopoly controlling political power is somehow less prone to using these tactics than a duopoly controlling money alone?

What I used to say is that you can vote for a Republican and they will expand the size and power of government at the expense of personal liberty or you could vote for a Democrat and they will expand the size and power of government at the expense economic liberty. Or I would say that you could vote Republican to expand government in the name of the stock market and economic freedom, or you could vote Democrat to expand government in the name of saving the poor people and the environment. Over time the given reasons change, of course; now it's Iraq etc. but there will always be an $ISSUE_OF_THE_DAY that can fit this formula. The result is that if what you want is less government size and less government authority, you're effectively disenfranchised. If I really wanted to live in an eventual police state, I would consider this a work of genius.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[jollyreaper]

I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Oooh, are you into BBW too? I'm into open source! I like PHPBB a lot. Is this an expansion I'm not aware of?

*innocent clueless look*

I was also looking for that latest DVD crack. I found a torrent with DVDA in the title so hopefully the crack's inside!

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[jollyreaper]

"I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else." Like what ? I like to make werewolf movies. Please, tell no one.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[evil_aar0n]

Actually, I'd say you had quite a bit further you could go before you were carried away too far.

I presume you're not running for President. What a shame. _I'd_ vote for you.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[cold fjord]

Oooh, are you into BBW too?

BBW? B.. B.... W.....? Barbeque Bean Wrestling? Ewwwww! I'll stick with Jell-O, thank you. (So to speak.)

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[sumdumass]

Quite frankly I am surprised that you have such a strong opinion and the apparent lack of understanding of the situation. First, this isn't listening to everyone and anyone. This is listening to international calls which an American might be a party to. This is the only reason FISA is involved. If ti was domestic to domestic calls, then other laws would apply.

So when you say this much power, you have to realize that is isn't much more power then they already had. International calls to which an American wasn't a party of has never needed a warrant.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Mr. Slippery]

The reason why SCOTUS refused the case is because the ACLU doesn't have standing.

The problem here is that under the prevailing theory, no one has standing.

especially a group on a fishing expedition to sue them.

No one was on a fishing expedition. The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation believed the NSA was snooping on them because the government accidentally sent them a copy of call logs during a court case regarding their alleged ties to Al Qaeda.

Those who are performing the wiretaps would be really, really stupid to show the list of those they are tapping to anyone else

Sure, criminals would be really stupid to come forth with a list of their victims. But people performing legitimate surveillance show the list before the begin the wiretaps. They show it to a court, one target at a time, in a process called "getting a warrant."

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You really think the government is wiretapping you to find out that you have a fetish for tranny porn and follow the news on Tom Brady a little too closely?

Maybe not the government, but an employee. An ex wiretapping you for personal gratification. A stalker. Someone who knows someone to whom you owe money. A curious acquantence. After all, no one really cares if the government knows those things, but if spouses/family/friends find out it could be embarassing.

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[huckamania]

But people performing legitimate surveillance show the list before they begin the wiretaps. They show it to a court, one target at a time, in a process called "getting a warrant." Except under FISA, they didn't have to, at least not for 2 weeks. Also, your presupposing that they didn't and that they broke the law, to which I say, 'Facts not in evidence' while shrugging at the jury.

The problem here is that under the prevailing theory, no one has standing. No one? How about PotUS, SCotUS and CotUS? Ever hear of them? How about the DNI, the FISA Court, the HCatNSA* and, since we're on slashdot, Skull & Bones? I'm pretty sure there is some oversight some where in there. I'm also pretty sure that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have access to 99.9% of our government secrets. I'm sure neither was shocked to learn that there have been a grand total of 3 waterboarding victims (oh the humanity) during the last 7 years. I'm pretty sure they also get updates on FISA activity.

*Head Cheese

Re:Those of us with something to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that filtering out the relevant information is incredibly hard.

That hasn't stopped the US from amassing a backlog of "intelligence" that will take years to translate and/or process.

Just think, once it's nationwide, you'll be 80 when all of a sudden cops kick in your door and arrest you because of something you did decades ago that wasn't illegal back then. SCOTUS repeatedly held in child porn cases back when it was made illegal a few decades ago that it won't be considered "ex post facto" as long as they can claim that breaking the law before it was a law means that you're still breaking the law afterwards. If you don't believe in slippery slopes and think that it would only be used on pedophiles, then people who bought ivory statues or eagle feathers want to have a word with you as well.

Quick Summation

[milsoRgen]

"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer That about sums it up, but it's certainly not the first 'very disturbing' action we the people have had to witness and suffer through during these last 2 terms.

Re:Quick Summation

[Anonymous Coward]

And it won't be the last.

Re:Quick Summation

[chicago_scott]

It's the last four terms that I've found to be very disturbing. And the three terms before that I would consider to just be plain disturbing.

Must be a terrorist to challenge the law?

[alapbj]

Let me get this straight - we will have to rely on a suspected terrorist to sue for this to go forward?

Re:Must be a terrorist to challenge the law?

[milsoRgen]

Let me get this straight - we will have to rely on a suspected terrorist to sue for this to go forward? That shouldn't worry you at all, what our government considers a terrorist is so broad I don't think we would have to rely on your atypical camel-riding-cave-dweller to move this forward. Just someone who get the label by our dangerous and overzealous government.

Re:Must be a terrorist to challenge the law?

[Beardo the Bearded]

No.

I (and and many others) suspect that the Democratic presidential candidates are those who have been wiretapped illegally.

Re:Must be a terrorist to challenge the law?

[dpilot]

It's just that you'll need proof before you can sue.

Besides, from another perspective, right now we're in the midst of a gigantic conspiracy to unseat and replace the government of the US. They even know the target date - next November and the following January. So it's merely a matter of using the tools of government to foil this heinous attempt at overthrow.

Re:Must be a terrorist to challenge the law?

[Chris Burke]

Let me get this straight - we will have to rely on a suspected terrorist to sue for this to go forward?

Indications are that the government spied on thousands of people, and based on what the AT&T worker who installed the hardware said, it's quite possible that they gathered communications from millions of people in a way that would require a warrant. Ultimately this whole fiasco is due to the fact that the Executive's definition of "suspected terrorist" is so loose and flimsy that not even FISA, a court known for rubber-stamping anything that comes before it, would agree that the searches were warranted.

But yes, in order to have standing to sue the government, you have to be able to show that you were one of the people whose rights were violated by a warrant-less search. How on earth you're supposed to prove that is left as an exercise for the citizen. I saw this whole "standing" issue coming a mile away.

That's why the lawsuits against the telcos are so important -- the discovery phase is when evidence would be acquired as to exactly who was subject to spying, which would open the door for those people to have standing to sue the government. I don't know the specifics as to why it isn't the same issue with the telco lawsuits, but clearly the bar for suing the government is higher since the telco lawsuits weren't summarily rejected on the same grounds. This is why the retro-active immunity is so abhorrent -- no matter what they say, it's about the government covering its own ass.

Re:Must be a terrorist to challenge the law?

[iamwahoo2]

I bet Nixon wished he had this type of wiretapping ability back in the day. He never would have been caught.

Remind me

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a line, I think it's in the national anthem of the United States of America and is intended to echo the general tone of some document, I think it's the Bill of Rights or something like that. If my mind is still working the line includes the phrase "The land of the free"

So, hows that working out for you all these days?

What was that again?

[KublaiKhan]

Something about how no charges shall issue except on a warrant or something like that?

Wasn't one of the bits in the declaration of independence criticizing King George III about secret trials?

Bit sad, really, that it's coming to this.

Re:What was that again?

[Stanistani]

Those boxes you use to defend your freedom, we've already failed on soap, ballot, and jury.

Damn, and I'm out of practice on the last one.

Re:What was that again?

[dpilot]

But then you'll get the argument that the Declaration of Independence is an historical document, and has no legal force like the Constitution. Those will be the same people who tell you that because some individual right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Amendments, you don't have it. (I don't have the patience at the moment to look up the specific contrary language in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.)

Re:What was that again?

[QuantumRiff]

Yeah, but you forgot the 4th one, "Ammo"

I'm pretty sure this comment is going to get me on the No-Fly list.. but what the hell..

Re:What was that again?

[turtledawn]

whoosh! :)

Re:What was that again?

[Opportunist]

Then start practicing again. Better hurry, might not have a lot of time left.

Sure, there's no way the 2nd will fall. But I'm fairly sure that some backdoor will be found sooner or later (for 'national security reasons') that pretty much makes sure that nobody but a handpicked few can still legally have more than BB guns.

Re:What was that again?

[sconeu]

Contrary language is in the Ninth Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Re:What was that again?

[SDF-7]

It isn't like you'd have to look hard.

Cut'n'pasting Amendments 9 and 10 [which are as clear as you can get, really -- someone should beat Congress with a rolled up copy of 10 every time they get some other bizarre way to stretch what "Interstate commerce" allows...] from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html :

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:What was that again?

[metachimp]

Fourth Amendment. Look it up.

Re:What was that again?

[Nimey]

Better get your ammo while it's cheap and available. .308, .223, .45 ACP, and 9x19mm will be easiest to find when the time comes, so best to have something in one of those.

Pity that I tend towards foreign mil-surp rifles.

Re:What was that again?

[Deadplant]

I have to admit that I do have some small hope that Obama will give us one more chance to fix this country using the ballot box.

If after 4 years of Obama the justice system is still unable to prosecute violations of the law when they are carried out by government agencies then I will officially give up on the first three boxes.

Re:What was that again?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's soap, ballot, and ammo actually.

Welcome...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real world has now officially outed itself as the movie "Brazil!"

Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[greenslashpurple]

And an independent media (e.g. James Risen at the New York Times) to publish some lists of people who have been illegally wire-tapped. Or maybe some technician who works for a major communications network can upload the list of names/numbers they've been tasked to set up monitors on.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[jfengel]

The list you're seeking may not exist. The smoking gun would be some liberal or Democratic organization whose phones were tapped for purely political reasons.

It's entirely possible that it has never happened. The decision is disturbing because it _enables_ the abuse of power, without actually indicating that the abuse of power has in fact occurred.

Supporters of the warrantless wiretap are basically trusting that it won't occur, and that all warrantless wiretaps are used against valid terrorist targets. The ACLU's claim is that (a) it's illegal anyway, even if used against actual terrorists, and (b) the checks-and-balances are eliminated, making abuses likely simply because they're possible, even if they haven't happened.

Justice Roberts has said that he'd rather use the Supreme Court to hear actual cases, rather than hypothetical ones. That makes the ACLU livid, since it can easily be too late by the time an actual abuse has occurred. Roberts says his interpretation of the Constitution ties his hands: no harm means no foul.

Which means that we're back to relying on our faith in individual agents of the US government to tell us if an actual abuse occurs, which is what the checks-and-balances (and the FISA court in particular, in this case) were supposed to prevent.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

There already was one (or maybe it was just an incompetent agent, malice vs incompetence and all that jazz), the ACLU just backed the wrong horse in this race.

This guy got his own transcript in the mail. So there's at least one person out there that can prove that they do, in fact, have standing to sue.

Of course, as soon as they sued, the government took the transcript back and won't let anyone look at it. How long until the government uses that exact same tactic to start arresting citizens it doesn't like for completely made up crimes? "Well, we have proof that you did these terrible, terrible illegal things but nobody is allowed to see the evidence that these things happened or that you did it, the jury will just have to take our word for it."

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[Phroggy]

I think you've missed what the grandparent post was trying to suggest: the government says you can't sue them for wiretapping your phone because you don't know they actually did it, because they won't tell you. That's what this decision upholds. But if someone leaks a list, and you're on it, then you know they really did wiretap you, so now you can sue them for doing it.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

They just spy on everyone nowadays. No doubt they save every message including certain keywords for X length of time or whatever.

I'm pretty sure they're doing mass keyword mining, though. When you add all the talk about terrorist "chatter" to the massive internet taps, it's not hard to imagine that one of the few things they can do with that much unsorted data is a bit of statistical sampling.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[jfengel]

Right, but that assumes that such a list exists. There may not actually be such a list, or it may be that the only people on it are non-citizens without the standing to sue.

There may not actually be anybody with the standing to sue, yet. The Bush administration is essentially telling us that there won't ever actually be one, because they're only wiretapping bad guys. The ACLU wants to know how they can know that's true, and they're especially suspicious because the bar to get a warrant isn't terribly high.

If a law permits abuse, but it isn't actually ever abused, is it still unconstitutional? The Court appears to be saying "no".

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[andruk]

I think I understand your post (and agree with it), so this is not a criticism against you.

It seems to me that a government worker should not have to violate a very controversial law to expose the people who's rights have been violated. This is exactly what the government is supposed to NOT do, the whole check and balances thing, etc.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[Nimey]

And if there is a list, the judge may throw it out when he gets the National Security get-out-of-jail-free card.

Free America.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[fangorious]

some technician who works for a major communications network can upload the list of names/numbers they've been tasked to set up monitors on.

The original AT&T engineer who blew the whistle already testified that this system doesn't have any capacity to single out communications streams. The lines are physically routed, en masse, into a secret room and everything going over those lines is subject to NSA surveillance.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[sumdumass]

That government worker isn't in a position to know when someone's rights have been violated. You see, he isn't a judge or a person who has been offended. He is simply a government worker tasked with a job that he is specifically trained to do.

Maybe your argument would make more senses if the government works was trained on rights violations too, but even then, the low level workers hardly see the warrants or know what the person is accused of. They are instructed to monitor something, and report on it. So in a lot of cases, even if he did have training on rights violations, he still wouldn't be in a position to make the call.

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[Phroggy]

Of course, the argument could be made that a basic education about people's rights should be a part of any high school education...

Re:Seems we need a wistle-blower at the NSA

[sumdumass]

I could agree with that with a few reservations. One would be that I think you would need more then a basic education on it. The second would be the Causality effect where if it wasn't specifically addressed, some people won't be able to see that it exists.

Have you ever watched those cop shows? The ones called COPs or whatever that show dash cam videos and stuff of real arrests and ride along with patrol officers. I saw those for the fist time in the 80's and told my friend that I though it was just propaganda to make you think you don't have any rights. Then I found that they handcuff about ever black person pulled over. Tehy beat in doors without warnings, they yanked a guy over for tinted windows and somehow found probable cause to search the trunk of the car only to find 2 kilos of coke. I have seen them just up and harass people, demanding IDs, forcing them to the ground to hand cuff them for questioning and so on. Well, to make a long story short, I got in an argument about a year of so ago with the same guy who now thinks the cops can search your car anytime they pull you over for anything.

We were riding and I got pulled over for a tail light that actually burnt our while the cop was driving behind me. He (the cop) asked if I had anything illegal in the car, I told him no, He wrote me a warning then asked if he could search the car, and I said no. This really freaked my friend out. The cops asked why he couldn't search it, I told him because I said no. He gave me some shit for a couple of minute and I finally told him, "Look, if you had a reason other then to nibshit, you would have already searched the car without asking me. I don't want you nib-shitting for the sake of nib-shitting." He told me to be careful and get the light fixed. This is when the argument with my friend kicked in and even though I just told the cop no, and he didn't search the vehicle, he still insists that the cop had the right to do it.

So it is really easy to convince people they don't have the right they should have. Or at least it seems that way. The cop wouldn't have found anything if he did search (unless he put it there) but I would be really weary of a government organization telling us what rights we have on such an informal level like a school.

Too many Yoda references

[spun]

The Slashdot posters make.

Olden Times

[Sanat]

It is interesting to see what the Supreme Court has ruled upon or refused to advise upon from the past... whether the subject was slavery or other free rights... they constantly get it wrong. Example:

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

props to PBS

This is the same Catch-22...

Re:Olden Times

[Thondermonst]

Well, we all know how they got rid of the Catch-22 back then...

Re:Olden Times

[Anonymous Coward]

props to PBS

Is PBS Still Necessary?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/arts/television/17mcgr.html?_r=1&ref=television&oref=slogin

Re:Olden Times

[gardyloo]

Is the NY Times still necessary? /snark

Re:Olden Times

[Eskarel]

They're not getting it wrong, they're refusing to make a decision. It's a cop out, plain and simple, as was Dred Scott(pretty much exactly the same copout actually he wasn't a person/citizen so he couldn't sue to determine whether he was a person/citizen or not).

The supreme court knows that making this decision has major consequences regardless of which way they decided. If they shut down the wiretaps and there's another terrorist attack they could be blamed, and they'd basically be deciding that most of the current administration have commited criminal acts. If they decide in favour of the wiretaps then they open up pandora's box, and basically destroy the idea of privacy in America forever.

They're hoping that a change in admistration will make the problem go away so they don't have to make the decision. This isn't a new thing, it isn't a "political" thing it's an issue of general human cowardice.

The folks who are currently being wiretapped will get screwed(as did Dred Scott), but that's not new either.

Ideally they'd come out and say "this is unconstitutional" and stop all of it, but issues regarding implicit rights like privacy(and for that matter even explicit rights like free speech) can be very divisive, and the court would much rather not be involved at all.

Given that in the current political climate the court could quite easily decide in favour of wire tapping and basically make the current realities a permanent fixture, I'm perfectly happy for them to not decide at the moment.

Re:Olden Times

[Anonymous Coward]

props to PBS

Note to teenagers and aging adolescents; this is when the word "props" has gone out of style!

If you're ever unsure of the hipness of a word do a search on Slashdot for concrete evidence!

Later dogs! ; )

Re:Olden Times

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a little point of interest to this post... as there is a town named after this guy near me.

His name is not pronounced "Tanny" but rather "Tawny"...

Re:Olden Times

[HellYeahAutomaton]

At the time, the slaves weren't men -- they were property; as were wives and livestock.

Didn't they have a person who was tapped?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't there one guy who was "accidentally" mailed the transcript of one of his own phone calls, only to have the FBI show up a couple of days later to take it back and tell him to forget that it happened?

U.S. government: Lots of catches

[Futurepower(R)]

Catch-22: The U.S. government is too corrupt to investigate corruption.

Catch-23: Oil and weapons investors Cheney and Bush want the price of oil and weapons to rise, so Iraqis must die.

Cheney and Bush have killed more Americans than the terrorists, and far more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[bendodge]

Cheney and Bush have killed more Americans than the terrorists, and far more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein. I'd like some hard, cited statistics on that. It's true that the Bush administration has done some bad things, but I think you're just postulating here.

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[tgatliff]

So why again does Bush and Cheney want the price of oil to rise? Last time I checked they no longer own any oil assets and would not personally profit for a rise or fall in oil... If they did, no doubt Congress would scream this fact for all to hear.....

Also, the Oil futures market is much larger than anything going on in Iraq. Oil is rising not because of anything Bush or Cheney or the US is doing, but rather because you have over 2 billion people slowing rising in the middle class in Asia. Not to mention that "easy" oil is getting increasing more difficult to find. The good side is that alternate energy sources are finally getting a chance to prosper and we should be in the next decade finally be able to break our dependence on middle eastern oil sources..

Finally, just for the record I am certainly no fan of Bush, but I also dislike thoughtless propoganda statements with no logical backing...

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[Breakfast Pants]

I don't agree that we killed more Iraqis than Saddam (not even close), but Bush has definitely killed more Americans in his term than terrorists have (referring to our troop casualties).

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[localman]

I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post, but factually I don't believe the Bush/Cheney war has surpassed Saddam's death toll yet. Most famously he massacred around 100,000 Kurds between 1986 and 1989. He did plenty of other awful things too. The Iraqi body count has the war approaching 90,000.

Of course, both of these numbers are absolutely abominable, and this war is not about those killings (the US was buddies with him back then), so it's not like one is the cost of stopping the other. Still, it's worth noting that Saddam was a bad, bad man.

Cheers

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[Opportunist]

Because oil is becoming a scarce commodity. More importantly, the US have a lot of it, control even more of it (directly or indirectly) and one of the biggest growing oil users in the world is China.

Now imagine cheap oil being available on the open market. China would quickly and easily guzzle it up, increasing its output and power on the global market even faster than they already do. When you can offer cheap(er) oil to your own (i.e. US based) companies, and foreign companies have to spend more for their oil, you (your industry) would have an advantage.

So, in a way, Bush does the "right" thing for the US industry by trying to push the oil price into prohibitive heights. Currently, the US does have a sizable technologic advantage over China, and the US can far more easily switch to different sources for energy. China is closing that gap quite quickly, and if the US waited longer, they, too, could shift their power needs to other sources far more easily.

If you have to wage an economic war, start with the resources. It's far more efficient than trying to beat your competitor at the end of the chain.

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[Chris Burke]

So why again does Bush and Cheney want the price of oil to rise? Last time I checked they no longer own any oil assets and would not personally profit for a rise or fall in oil...

Last I checked they still have plenty of friends in the oil industry, and may want extremely cushy and well paying jobs in a ridiculously profitable industry after they're done running the country. Of course Cheney's Halliburton stock option sales all go to charity, so there's no direct personal conflict of interest. Thus there's no motivation whatsoever and all those no-bid contracts were perfectly fair? Yeah right, making huge bank for all their oil and defense contractor friends is a huge motivation, and one they themselves will ultimately reap the benefit from.

How much you want to bet Cheney ends up back on the Board of Directors for any number of companies who directly profited from the war in Iraq?


Also, the Oil futures market is much larger than anything going on in Iraq. Oil is rising not because of anything Bush or Cheney or the US is doing, but rather because you have over 2 billion people slowing rising in the middle class in Asia.

Uh yeah I'm pretty sure "Middle East insecurity" has a major impact on the futures market, what with the whole thing being speculation on the future (both near and long term) supply, and Middle East sources still being a huge portion of that supply. Prices jumped hugely after 9/11, again after the invasion of Iraq. Yes there has been an otherwise oscillating but upward trend due to general increasing consumption and lessening of reserves, and yes the market is much larger than just Iraq. To conclude that therefore nothing Bush or Cheney has done has affected the price of oil is completely illogical.

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it wasn't the bad guys with guns or IED's that killed Americans. It was Bush and Cheney.

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[symbolic]

Last I checked they still have plenty of friends in the oil industry, and may want extremely cushy and well paying jobs in a ridiculously profitable industry after they're done running the country.

I believe it's spelled ruining.

Re:U.S. government: Lots of catches

[Chris Burke]

Nice one. :)

No problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing that a little Kevin Mitnick-style social engineering can't solve.

Before the Law

[paulthomas]

Recommended reading: Kafka's Before The Law Between this and secret laws for security checkpoints at airports, Kafka's absurd vignette is looking looking unsettlingly normal.

Re:Before the Law

[Ethanol-fueled]

Or, more completely, Kafka's The Trial which contains that parable.

Only 95% onerous

[Dachannien]

When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions. In such a case, if (or, should I say, when) the government's wiretapping is found to be illegal, the evidence would be suppressed, and if the government's case was otherwise weak, the charges could be dismissed. If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue.

Of course, it's still 95% onerous, because there are still people reviewing the wiretap data (recordings, records, etc.) and those people are privy to otherwise private conversations.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming, of course that the matter ever came before a public court. Depending how paranoid you are feeling, any of the following could occur:

1. The evidence could be presented before a closed court, with the record sealed. The judge and/or defense may ignore the scource of the evidence.
2. The evidence could be presented in more of a "tribunal" setting.
3. The "accused" could just be shipped off to Guantanamo or some secret prison in Europe for "questioning".

Frankly, all of these are believable, given news in the last few years.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[gillbates]

The problem is that invading one's privacy, even if only a suspected invasion, is damaging to the individual.

How is this any different from the police coming to visit you every night, and sticking around until you go to bed? When it comes down to it, you'd be hard pressed to show any actual damages from such behavior, yet the thought of this is unsettling to even the most radical neo-cons.

The problem is that freedom, even if it does not have a monetary equivalent, still has tremendous value. The government listening in on your conversations is little different from them actually trespassing on your property. Neither have imposed a monetary cost on you, but they have infringed on the most basic human freedom, the freedom of thought and conscience. In a likewise manner, if people suspect that their conversations are monitored, they will not express their most intimate thoughts, for fear that they may used against them. Worse, such restrictions on human freedom stifle the relationships we have with others.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, hello??!?! Secret courts? OH, right, after this I'm sure we'll be tried in a fair and open manner....

Re:Only 95% onerous

[vux984]

The point of illegal evidence gathering isn't to use in court where it might be found illegal. Its to use it to find suspects upon which to perform legal evidence gathering.

Phase 1. I illegally monitor and scan all conversations in the us for a keyphrase, and shortlist everyone who uses it.
Phase 2. I then send out someone to either find or trump up some legitimate evidence.
Phase 3. I get a warrant, gather enough evidence to make a case, and then charge you.

The 'illegal evidence gathering' in phase 1 would only crop up if you were to ask, "why was he even a suspect in the first case"... but they'll handwave that away as part of the 'routine and legal' police work done in phase 2. As for why the police happened to go through your garbage in phase 2, it was part of another investigation in the area, or blind luck when an officer backed his car into your trash can and knocked it over, and besides... garbage you put out at the street to be collected is no longer private property...

At the end of the day you'll never know you were put on a suspect list in phase 1 as a result of illegal evidence gathering.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[IIH]

When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions.

Tried? Who said anything about a trial?. From past actions, if they thought they had reason to act against someone due to these wiretaps, the person in question would be declared an enemy combatant, kept in custody without legal access, and if even was innocent, be forced to take a plea bargain which included a stipulation not to sue for the illegal wiretaps.

If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue

If a person isn't affected, they can't sue. If the person is affected, they'll be arrested/detained so they lose the right to sue. If that's not an accurate example of a catch 22, I don't know what is.

Bonus points: spot problems in the following "logic":

• Law says: terrorists can be monitored at any time
• Law says: that people can be monitored unless they object
• Law says: people who object are suspicious and must be monitored

In a sheep world, how many of the above would be objected to? Even though, as a whole, it means that everyone gets monitored, but the sheep think it's only used against the "bad people"

Re:Only 95% onerous

[Dachannien]

Well, the difference between the police hanging out in your house and the feds tapping your phone is that in the latter case, you don't know about it.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Minor problem. The evidence obtained in this manner won't be used in your trial. They will use the otherwise legal products of the information gained from the illegal wiretaps, but they will not explain that part. How could they? The illegal wiretaps are classified.

No sign of illegal evidence, so nothing to contest. Problem solved. Just march on into your cell, ex-citizen.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[roystgnr]

a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions

What makes anyone think that illegal wiretapping is about giving people fair trials? They're not even concerned with convicting suspected terrorists, and the fact that these wiretaps are too dubious to deserve even FISA warrants should make it clear that terrorists aren't the target.

FISA was created after Nixon's attempts to use espionage for political gain. If Bush is doing the same thing then the illegally obtained results won't be seen by judges. Anything incriminating will be leaked to the media or used to anonymously blackmail the target; anything innocent will be exploited by campaign strategists. Even if the most damaging use of an unwarranted wiretap's results is a prosecution, it won't be done by introducing unconstitutionally obtained evidence in court. They'll use "anonymous tips" to launder the results to get seemingly-legit evidence instead. The "fruit of the poisoned tree" rule won't help when the connection between the evidence and it's original source has been hidden from sight.

Re:Only 95% onerous

[fotbr]

Also, you don't have to let the police in.

The Argument Sketch

[MillionthMonkey]

Well?
Well what?
You're listening to my phone calls and it's not a secret.
I told you, you're not allowed to sue me unless you know my secret.
But I do!
No you don't.
I DO!
No you don't.
Look, I don't want you spying on me.
Well, that's a secret.
Aha. If it's a secret, I must be a terrorist, so it's not a secret anymore! I got you!
No you haven't.
Yes I have. If it's an official government secret that you're spying on me, I must be a terrorist.
Not necessarily. I could be listening to your phone calls in my spare time.

Re:The Argument Sketch

[Zymergy]

Anyone else see the Monty Python potential from this?
I keep thinking there is some way to honor the classic Michael Palin and John Cleese 'Dead Parrot Sketch' out of this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTSAFcLXqYY

Re:The Argument Sketch

[g1zmo]

Hmmm, I see where you're going with this. Something like this, perhaps?

Re:The Argument Sketch

[Zymergy]

Thank You. Ah yes, I wanted room 12A, Just along the corridor...

Where's Black Sabbath when you need them?

[FurryOne]

Maybe we should change the national anthem of America to Black Sabbath's "War Pigs". It would certainly be more in line with the last 8 years of this farce of a government. Oh, wait... was that the Constitution floating by in the sewer?

Re:Where's Black Sabbath when you need them?

[BlackSabbath]

You rang?

The lack of transparency is really disturbing...

[gillbates]

The fact that the government is let off the hook because the victims can't legally show harm - that is, they are prevented from actually knowing if their privacy is invaded - is quite disturbing. A child pornographer could use the same argument; that because his children (err, victims...) aren't old enough to understand the harm done to them, that they have no grounds for objecting to their pictures being taken.

I think, though, that there's a double standard when it comes to government. Unlike "terrorists" - which are presumed guilty except when there exists incontrovertible exculpatory evidece - the government is presumed innocent, and its evidence and intentions beyond reproach, except when the accused manage, by some legal loophole, to show otherwise.

Justice at the federal level has completely changed:

• Instead of being presumed innocent, the accused are presumed guilty, and not even tried, except in cases where their lawyers manage to find some way around the executive branch.
• Even when the accused do get to trial, they are tried in secret courts, where they are not allowed to see the evidence against them, if they are allowed to attend the trial at all.

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Indeed, all patriotic Americans need to ask themselves this question of the government, particularly the executive branch. If indeed, they aren't doing anything wrong, why must they keep everything so secret - even from Congress and the Courts? Isn't it more likely that they are using the secrecy to cover up activities that most Americans would consider wrong?

Most worrisome is the fact that we have gone from an open society which feared nothing ("The only thing we have to fear is fear itself...") to a society where everyone is suspect and fear of what one might do is sufficient to deny anyone and everyone their rights under the law. The justice system has been transformed from an open and transparent process which followed the principles of fairness to a capricious and arbitrary exercise of power.

Bah

[Puffy Director Pants]

We need a Congressional hearing plain and simple. The US Congress doesn't have to worry about standing, it's their job to be concerned about the business of the gov't. Too bad they're so lazy.

Re:Bah

[Grandiloquence]

"Lazy" is one possible explanation. "In cahoots" is the other. I know which one seems more plausible to me...

Re:Bah

[susano_otter]

I think you meant to say "too bad I'm so lazy".

There are plenty of people out there who care deeply about being able to influence their elected representatives. They are willing to put much more effort into influencing their representatives than you are. And so when it comes time for your representatives to represent, they choose to represent those people who have worked the hardest to make their voices heard, their desires known, and their influence felt. Which is exactly as it should be.

Actually, I apologize for implying that you're lazy. It's not that you're lazy at all. You just have different priorities than some of your fellow citizens. And there's nothing wrong with that. You don't want to spend a lot of time becoming a captain of industry, or a prominent academic, or a relentless lobbyist, or an outspoken activist and campaigner. You certainly don't want to put in the time and effort necessary to run for office yourself, let alone win that office. You'd rather do other things with your resources. And that's fine. Just, you know, if that's how you want to live your life, maybe you should consider shutting the fuck up when other people decide to spend their lives having a say in how their country is run.

Re:Bah

[Puffy Director Pants]

How do you know a single thing I've ever done from a single comment on Slashdot? Seems a bit quick to judge there.

Re:Bah

[susano_otter]

Obviously if you were putting a lot of effort into competing with your fellow citizens to influence your representatives, and succeeding in that endeavor, you wouldn't be complaining that they're not representing your desires.

I guess you could be out there every day, busting your ass to make your voice heard above and beyond the vote you cast in the last ballot, and just not succeeding like some others out there. Competition for political influence is pretty stiff, after all... Is that the case?

The Rule of Law

[Tom]

...is over in the US. One basic principle of it is that the law applies to everyone equally, that nobody is "above the law". There can be exceptions and special priviledges as long as they are written into the laws. So in most countries MPs are exempt from prosecution, for good reasons, and that's ok because it's part of the process.

In the US, the rule of law has been abandoned. You are back to the rule of power: Everyone does whatever he can get away with. Your so-called president leading the way.

Re:The Rule of Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Your so-called president leading the way.

I've been calling him the Resident, ever since Selection 2000 ;)

Plus ca change...

[Deadstick]

The problem was a Catch-22: they lack legal 'standing' to sue over it because they can't prove that they were suspected terrorists, but neither can they find out who was actually suspected, because this is a matter of national security.

...plus c'est la meme chose. The French used that same crap on Alfred Dreyfus in 1894.

rj

Question of standing

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has standing?

It seems to me, if the government is violating its charter (the Constitution) and usurping powers not granted to it by the people, then any and all citizens have standing to sue.

Re:Question of standing

[Mesa MIke]

Yeah, but apparently you gotta prove the government is violating your constitutional rights.
That's the sticky part.

Re:Question of standing

[Yaur]

From what I recall of the ACLU compliant they asserted that there had been harm due to the mere existence of the program, not because any one in particular was wiretapped. Apparently some of the people who came to the ACLU seeking legal counsel would not speak freely over the telephone and the ACLU and/or their clients had to absorb travel cost that would not have been necessary if the government wasn't illegally spying on people. Certainly from personal experience I know plenty of people (who are not generally paranoid) who have become increasingly guarded in their speech over the phone... I am not talking about anything sketchy but legitimate criticisms of Bush, Iraq, etc. So I find it very easy to believe that the ACLU's clients are doing the same.

Fishing season over

[Kenrod]

This is great news. The federal courts shouldn't be used as a fishing hole for every citizen who imagines they've been spied on or desires to expose state secrets. Our enemies want to destroy our way of life, let's not hand them the knife and stretch our throats.

Re:Fishing season over

[Grandiloquence]

Yeah, we're perfectly capable of doing it ourselves, thank you very much. We don' need no furrn' scumbags putting honest, hardworking American scumbags out of work!

Re:Fishing season over

[DeadCatX2]

This is definitely a fishing expedition. After all, our government would never break the law or torture innocent people and then try to avoid any accountability.

Re:Fishing season over

[faraway]

Our enemies want to destroy our way of life, let's not hand them the knife and stretch our throats. I think the point is, we're doing an excellent job destroying our way of life ourselves. This case is the perfect example of the erosion of the American morals and principles upon which the country was founded. Congratulations. Terrorists:1,Corporations:1,Regular People/Freedom:0. The US has not had and does not have a terrorism problem. Israel has a terrorism problem. Iraq, now, has a terrorism problem.

The US is all flowers and puppies. And corporations.

Please welcome our new corporate dictatorship. I for one am glad I have dual US/EU citizenship. You'll enjoy WALMART, I'll enjoy a continent devoid of those who created the mess the US is in in the first place.

Regards.

Re:Fishing season over

[oldhack]

Our enemies want to destroy our way of life, let's not hand them the knife and stretch our throats.

This demonstrates that our enemy *HAVE* destroyed our way of life, you numbskull.

Re:Fishing season over

[Opportunist]

What enemy? Some terrorists who landed a single (note, for the record, ONE) blow to the US that shook the whole country in its foundations? Are you kidding? Talk to anyone from Israel or Northern Ireland and they will point and laugh at you. That's your enemy? I'm more scared of kids with ink in their water pistols.

What way of life? Fear- and scaremongering? You want to protect that? Because that's what the US are about today. The US used to be the epitome of freedom. Of liberty. The place to be on this planet if you are a freedom loving person who wants the sky only as his limit. This changed a lot, I can tell you. The US changed from that good Uncle Sam that protects us from the dreaded communists, the good guy we support and hold in high esteem, who we would fight and die for if need be, because we know that he would do the same for us, into some old bastard that would sell us our own blood if we let him, and if we don't, he'll just come and squeeze us 'til we hand it over for free.

The only thing that is worth living is freedom. Freedom, though, requires trust into your government, and a government that does not trust its people does not deserve the trust of the people. Because the only right to exist for a government is to serve the people that carry it. If it does not do this, it is obsolete and needs to be replaced by one that does.

IIRC, that's what your founding fathers did. Maybe this needs to be repeated from time to time, so people don't get fat and lazy.

Re:Fishing season over

[evil_aar0n]

Absolutely! Instead, let's all march ourselves quietly and peacefully to the nearest detention centers, because, as good citizens, it's our duty to acquiesce to the needs of the government, and, ultimately, since there's no way they can protect our freedom while allowing us to run free, we should lock ourselves up. It's for our own good, comrade. I'm sure you understand. You don't want freedom, anyway. It's too dangerous.

Re:Fishing season over

[evil_aar0n]

I agree with much of this, except the "trust in government" part. NEVER trust the government. That leads to complacency. Complacency leads to a few people in power rigging the system for their benefit, while screwing everyone else. Basically, where we are, today, thanks, in large part, to the Republicans. Though the spineless Democrats didn't help much.

We, as truly "good citizens," must be ever vigilant and on the watch against the encroachment of government. Trust your friends, if you can; trust your spouse, hopefully; trust your dog - but not the cat, the little bastard - but never _ever_ trust your government.

Re:Fishing season over

[Opportunist]

There are times when you can actually trust your government. You have to, to some extent, or things are ugly. What IS needed, and I agree in this, is that any kind of power needs something that keeps it in check, controls it and acts as a supervisor.

When this system fails, and right now it's anything but working, it is time to distrust it.

When people have faith in their government, the country prospers. When they don't, the economy takes a dive. We can easily see that, take your country, whatever it may be. When was a time of prosperity, and when was a time of stagnation? People who believe in their country (and thus their government) will go out of their way to work for their country and uphold the idea of Kennedy's speech of "don't ask what your country can do for you". When people don't trust their country to have their best interests in their mind, people will not look out for their country but only for themselves. And this in turn is bad for anyone involved, but still better than being a fool.

But trust is not something given freely. Trust is to be earned. And, bluntly, this government has done anything but even tried to earn my trust. So it's time to look out for myself and act towards the government like they act towards me.

Evidence that Slashdot has become self-aware

[Goobermunch]

This was the quote at the bottom of the page as I read this article:

"paranoia, n.: A healthy understanding of the way the universe works."

--AC

Not quite

[el_munkie]

...did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them?

The whole point of the lifetime appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is that they wouldn't have to be beholden to whichever powers appointed them. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas could have a change of heart and become flag-burning, dope-smoking, abortion-promoting hippies, and there's really nothing that could be done to punish them. I think they can be impeached by Congress, but that isn't really common.

Re:Not quite

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

Which is pretty much happened with Stevens (Ford), Kennedy (Reagan/but only to a lesser extent, more of a swing vote than a pure liberal vote) and Souter (Bush 41). Of the nine justices, 4 are considered conservative(Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito), 4 are considered liberal(Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) and 1 (Kennedy) is the tossup. Seven of them were appointed by Republicans (Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) and only two by Democrats (Ginsburg and Breyer).

Re:Not quite

[The One and Only]

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas could have a change of heart and become flag-burning, dope-smoking, abortion-promoting hippies, and there's really nothing that could be done to punish them.

Holy mother of fuck. I think you just came up with the best new animated comedy of 2008.

WRONG!

[Tanman]

No, this is 100% Fed-Certified Grade-A bullshit. Why? Because this is a green light for the crooks in power to continue doing this kind of thing. And what kind of trial do you think you will get with the evidence collected?

Guess what, you won't be tried. Ever. You will be held so that they can illegally solicit more evidence from you through nefarius means such extradition out-of-country, or just a secret location somewhere in Washington. Did I mention that the illegal solicitation of further evidence means you will be chained up in a dungeon for 10-15 years with no legal recourse whatsoever being exposed to God-knows-what kinds of "interrogation techniques?"

Re:WRONG!

[Dachannien]

That works for terrorists captured in foreign lands, but not for (most) US citizens. Think of all the people who would notice your absence if you were whisked away to a secret prison. There would be a police investigation of your disappearance, journalists picking up the story, tons of questions asked, etc. How can they expect to keep your disappearance a secret when there are so many people asking reasonable and important questions?

Re:WRONG!

[metachimp]

It happened to Jose Padilla, U.S. citizen.
I don't think you realize what happens when the president declares you an enemy combatant in this manner. It would be illegal for the local police to investigate. It would be illegal for your family or friends to ask about what happened to you, and illegal for anyone to tell them. All your assets would be frozen, so you cannot hire a lawyer, but that doesn't matter, because it is illegal for anyone to work on your behalf. Read these things, it's all there.

All this on the President's say-so, and his say-so alone.

Re:WRONG!

[sumdumass]

Well, lets get the context straight.

Jose Padilla was originally arrested by normal means in may of 2002 and held until june of the same year. He was accused of aiding a terrorist and initially held in full plain view until he was named an enemy combatant and moved to club Gitmo. He wasn't going about his business and all the sudden disappeared. Everyone who knew him, knew what was going on.

In 2006, he finally faced trial for his conspiracy charges and was convicted on all of them. Now this so call conspiracy charge and witness ordeal stemmed from the 9/11 attacks so he was far from innocent. He got 17 years and a couple months if I remember correctly.

Now, I'm not arguing with what you said, I just felt it should be known that this guy wasn't exactly mr innocent whisked away under the cover of night as implied.

Re:WRONG!

[metachimp]

17 years is a long time for a guy who never actually *did* anything. He talked to some people, he filled out a form. That was it. So I'd say he was far from guilty.

The main reason they declared him an enemy combatant is because they couldn't get him on anything. It used to be that in the U.S., you had to do more than want to commit a crime to get even 24 hours in jail. Now, as Padilla's case proves, we have thought crimes.

Re:WRONG!

[sumdumass]

What do you mean they couldn't get him on anything or that he never actually did anything, he was convicted in a federal court of law just the same as anyone else who would commit a crime.

The only difference here is that he spend 4 years in detainment first so as to not tip off other conspirators of what the government does and doesn't know from his captivity and so he could be questioned.

And no, it isn't thought crimes, although we do have them, hate crimes are thought crimes. But conspiracy means you took part or helped in planning or execution of a crime even though you didn't actually break a law in the process of the crime or the crime failed to take place for whatever reason. The court says Padilla did that. The evidence, whether you see it as simply talking to someone or simply signing a piece of paper, shows that he conspired to allow 9/11 to happen. And no, this isn't something new and trumped up since Bush has been in office. We have had conspiracy charges for quite a long time, they were used on Mafia members and money launderers and a host of other crimes including murders, espionage and more.

Only a few of the charges that could have been levied against him were.

Think about your audience when spouting such tripe. You are at a site with Geeks who can verify your claims. It may work differently in the Bash Bush, or Al Qeada is cool sites, but not here. Padilla isn't exactly innocent here.

Re:WRONG!

[metachimp]

Padilla's charges were in no way related to 9/11. Please refer to the indictment and verdict. Nothing in the complaint or indictment says anything about 9/11.

You should familiarize yourself with the case under discussion before calling someone else's post 'tripe'.

It says that Padilla participated in a conspiracy to kidnap people, and kill U.S. citizens and foreign nationals somewhere, somehow. Whether or not any of the plans could or were going to happen is what is in question. Padilla was initially trotted out as the poster boy for the Justice Department's efforts against terrorism. When it became clear that they busted some schlub who was probably not capable of holding up a 7-11, let alone plan a mass murder, they had to make something stick, lest they look ineffective.

Yes, I am familiar with criminal conspiracy, and I also know that it is used by prosecutors for a variety of reasons, some of them legit, others not so much. The threat of prosecution for conspiracy is often used to elicit testimony against the target of another investigation. Conspiracy is also used when a prosecutor can't get enough evidence to convict on a more direct charge. Sometimes this is all they have to prosecute a true criminal. It's also used as a face-saving technique by prosecutors in high-profile cases that turn out to be less than originally hyped.

I use the term 'thought crime' advisedly. Until quite recently, it was not a crime to simply *want* to commit a crime. It's not, or was not, illegal to want to rob a bank, or even plan to rob a bank, as long as you don't actually rob a bank. I'm sure that at some point in your life, you have wanted to strike another person. As long as you do not act on this, you have not committed a crime. If I get together with my buddies, and plan out a bank heist, that is not illegal or a conspiracy unless we actually do it, or get caught in the act of doing it. Padilla traveled abroad, expressed a desire to carry out some kind of attack, and may have planned something. The guy is also not very bright, and was told by a local cleric to master English before attempting to learn Arabic. If they had more concrete evidence that these guys were planning something, believe me, it would have appeared in that indictment. It does not, so I can only conclude that what's in the indictment was all they had. After 4 years in solitary confinement, that's all they got? Pretty thin.

Your example of 'hate crimes' as 'thought crimes' baffles me. Why is it inappropriate to consider the motivations of the perpetrator of a crime? You know, we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and other variants that consider the motivation of someone who kills another, but committing a crime motivated by bigotry is a 'thought crime'? Is that a thought crime in the same sense as the difference between murder 1 and murder 2? There is an argument to be made that some of these could be 'aggravated', hence obviating the need for hate crimes statutes, but do we not regard bigotry as an especially odious motivation for crime? Smashing a store window as an act of simple vandalism and smashing a store window and spray-painting 'Kristallnacht' on the storefront are two levels of crime, are they not?

Re:WRONG!

[sumdumass]

Padilla's charges were in no way related to 9/11. Please refer to the indictment and verdict. Nothing in the complaint or indictment says anything about 9/11.

Yea, I confused what he was charged with, with comments he made on the phone calling the 9/11 terrorist heroes. The Government changed the charges from conspiring to make a dirty bomb among other things and didn't pursuit all of them.

You should familiarize yourself with the case under discussion before calling someone else's post 'tripe'.

I'm quite familiar with his case thank you. And the tripe that was the other post was the poster's "Whoas me, he is innocent and screwed without a chance to defend himself because he didn't get sue process". Even conflating the charge doesn't change the fact that he was tried and convicted for a law that has been in place for quite some time in a court of law that any normal person would have been tried with. He wasn't denied anything pertinent to his defense and he wasn't innocent.

It says that Padilla participated in a conspiracy to kidnap people, and kill U.S. citizens and foreign nationals somewhere, somehow. Whether or not any of the plans could or were going to happen is what is in question. Padilla was initially trotted out as the poster boy for the Justice Department's efforts against terrorism. When it became clear that they busted some schlub who was probably not capable of holding up a 7-11, let alone plan a mass murder, they had to make something stick, lest they look ineffective.

Umm, no. He was charged with so many other things initially mostly because of his ties to Adham Hassoun who has been charged with a lot more issues. Evidently, recording were made between the two and others talking about funding organizations close to Bin laden's people and sending people to help his struggle. But you can't dispute the signed document found in Afghanistan with his fingerprints still on them from when he attended an Al Qeada training camp.

I use the term 'thought crime' advisedly. Until quite recently, it was not a crime to simply *want* to commit a crime. It's not, or was not, illegal to want to rob a bank, or even plan to rob a bank, as long as you don't actually rob a bank. I'm sure that at some point in your life, you have wanted to strike another person. As long as you do not act on this, you have not committed a crime. If I get together with my buddies, and plan out a bank heist, that is not illegal or a conspiracy unless we actually do it, or get caught in the act of doing it. Padilla traveled abroad, expressed a desire to carry out some kind of attack, and may have planned something. The guy is also not very bright, and was told by a local cleric to master English before attempting to learn Arabic. If they had more concrete evidence that these guys were planning something, believe me, it would have appeared in that indictment. It does not, so I can only conclude that what's in the indictment was all they had. After 4 years in solitary confinement, that's all they got? Pretty thin.

He didn't simply think about committing a crime. He participated in actions to make that crime possible. The difference is night and day on the perception of it which is the only reason I replied i the first place.

And your right, it isn't illegal to think about robbing a bank. But it always has been illegal, at least in your lifetime, to put those plans on paper, start gathering the materials or helping someone else put those plans in motion. In other words, It always has been illegal for you to get your buddies together to plan out a bank hiest when there is a likelihood that you or your buddies will follow through on it. That is what Conspiracy means. He wasn't convicted of thinking about something illegal, he was convicted because he took action to make it a reality or possibility.

If I thought about taking a swing at someone, I'm fine un

Re:WRONG!

[metachimp]

And in case your not familiar with that, it is where a minority or a person with some protected quality is able to use that status as a bonus to their qualifications and take jobs or positions they aren't technically qualified for or the most qualified person for the job/position/whatever.

Don't patronize me. I know what a quota is, and what you describe here isn't one. You are describing a preference program of some kind. A quota says that we must have x% of one type, y% of another, and so on. Programs designed in this way are unlawful, and have been for some time.

I think you are also being disingenuous when you describe such preference programs as preferring someone who is not qualified over someone who is. The more likely reality is that the preference program takes two qualified candidates and uses such preferences to give one candidate more weight. Whether you agree with this approach or not, it doesn't matter. The 'bonus' does not apply to the qualification, it applies to the candidate. It is not a perfect system by any means.

Never attribute to malice that which can be accounted for by stupidity.

I suppose that anyone who gets passed over for a promotion feels crappy about it, and perhaps they do feel that someone else got the job, or got accepted to that degree program solely because of their gender or ethnicity. Maybe they're right. Or, and I think this is the more likely scenario, maybe they got passed over because they have a shitty attitude and a chip on their shoulder and whine about other people getting what is 'rightfully' theirs. Nothing kills a career faster than a sense of entitlement, and everyone hates a prima donna. Those people are what is usually called, in case you don't know, a pain in the ass, which is probably the real reason they didn't get promoted in the first place.

So yeah, back from veering off-topic, I thought Padilla is serving way too heavy a sentence, and considering the evidence that he is now insane because of his treatment as a guest of the state, he's serving that overly harsh sentence in the wrong place.

With respect to intelligence and sources, federal courts are well-equipped to consider evidence furnished by sources that must remain secret. There are numerous cases where sensitive national security issues are part of the case, and that evidence was admitted in ways that protected the sources. I highly doubt that they airballed Padilla et. al. to protect intelligence assets in place. So I just don't buy that argument. The guy was a small fish at best, and evidently not the brightest guy, either, and he had a tendency to shoot his mouth off, to boot. Just because you attend a training camp in the Afghan hinterland, that doesn't mean much. By all accounts, he washed out, which means he didn't make the cut.

Re:WRONG!

[sumdumass]

Don't patronize me. I know what a quota is, and what you describe here isn't one. You are describing a preference program of some kind. A quota says that we must have x% of one type, y% of another, and so on. Programs designed in this way are unlawful, and have been for some time.

Are you sure it is illegal? and has been for a long time? I remember the university of Michigan being sued for having a program like that. First, they stopped admitting one race until enough of another was full enough, then they started giving extra points in the application if your gender or race was something special. And they used this point system to decide admission to some classes and even school.

I think you are also being disingenuous when you describe such preference programs as preferring someone who is not qualified over someone who is. The more likely reality is that the preference program takes two qualified candidates and uses such preferences to give one candidate more weight. Whether you agree with this approach or not, it doesn't matter. The 'bonus' does not apply to the qualification, it applies to the candidate. It is not a perfect system by any means.

Lol.. really, so if you have two people of equal talent and hire a black person based on the color of their skin, you didn't just give him extra qualifications? But anyways, I wasn't talking to the fairness of it or every aspect of it, I was talking to the destructive nature of it. And yes, there have been times when under qualified people have been promoted because of their race. Of course those are the ones you hear about because very few people talk about the "fair" promotions, just the controversial ones. But almost every company that used preferences has stories like this floating around. I was on an interview once and I asked the secretary if they promoted from within, without knowing me from any complete stranger walking down the street, she reply with "only if your black" and then made a comment about the affirmative action hires and told me I didn't stand a good chance at getting the job because they had three minorities quite and that what the positions interviewed over was for. I got hired at another place before they even called back. And i did get a second interview call. But you don't get people that jaded if they don't think something unfair isn't happening.

I suppose that anyone who gets passed over for a promotion feels crappy about it, and perhaps they do feel that someone else got the job, or got accepted to that degree program solely because of their gender or ethnicity. Maybe they're right. Or, and I think this is the more likely scenario, maybe they got passed over because they have a shitty attitude and a chip on their shoulder and whine about other people getting what is 'rightfully' theirs. Nothing kills a career faster than a sense of entitlement, and everyone hates a prima donna. Those people are what is usually called, in case you don't know, a pain in the ass, which is probably the real reason they didn't get promoted in the first place.

I'm sure it is a mix of both. I don't think either one of us can make absolute statements about it. Just statements concerning our experience and opinions.

So yeah, back from veering off-topic, I thought Padilla is serving way too heavy a sentence, and considering the evidence that he is now insane because of his treatment as a guest of the state, he's serving that overly harsh sentence in the wrong place.

Well, 17 year compared to 30 that the government was pushing for. I don't know. As far as his sanity is, I don't consider what was supposedly done to him to be torture. There is the issue of PCP and LSD which I don't know how to take that, I never wanted to spill my guts when I took the stuff. Well on PCP once, I thought I could push my car to the store to buy beer and not get a DUI because I wasn't "operating it". I didn't' make

indeed

[Teflon_Jeff]

While I wish the Supreme Court would have heard the case, they are right in their decision. Unlike every other branch of government, they seem to be playing by the rules, even if they don't like them.

So what were the damages done?

[haakondahl]

What damage is alleged to have been done if "...no one knows or can know whether they were illegally spied upon"?

What if I want to go through the files of a certain investigation down at the Police Department, just because I want to know whether I have been named by anybody, in any capacity? Me, me, me--that's what I keep hearing about on Slashdot. Nevermind all of the people trying to do their jobs and protect us all. Keep me safe, just don't bring *me* into it.

Children.

Get it out in the open!

[supercrisp]

Let's get those skeletons out of the closet. I'll start. I masturbate. I have soiled myself on occasion. And I frequently inhaled in the presence of pot. I drank before I was 21, and I often exceed the speed limit. I regularly roll through a stop sign near my house. And I am greedy when it comes to sweets. Now they've got nothing on me. See how good it makes you..... Wait a minute, someone's at the door, brb.

Hmmm...

[haakondahl]

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes: "...no one knows or can know whether they were illegally spied upon."

Supreme Court writes: "We don't believe in imaginary problems."

ACLU just fishing to make some money.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same group whom Supports NAMBLA and Neo-Nazi groups. Sounds to me like they are fishing the government so they can get some more money from the court cases.

Perfect work-avoidance scheme

[Futurepower(R)]

My understanding is that the U.S. Supreme Court hears only about 50 of the 5,000 cases that people try to bring before it.

That's a perfect work-avoidance scheme: "We just do as much work as we want to do."

If a case gets all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, that indicates SOMETHING is broken. However, faults in the law generally cannot be fixed because of a conflict of interest. A large part of what lawyers do is work generated by faults in the law. They don't want most of their work taken away from them. United States Supreme Court justices are lawyers, and they think like lawyers to a large extent, and they have allowed themselves to become comfortable with the faults in the law. It's all a huge work-avoidance operation.

Re:Perfect work-avoidance scheme

[AuMatar]

If SCOTUS were to work 8 hours a day, every day, and had to listen to all 5000 cases each case would get less than 2 hours for hearing deliberation, and a decision. There's just not enough time. The Supreme Court accepts only those cases where there's

*A chance of overturning a lower court and
*A question of law to be considered

The cases falling into the second category usually require deep thinking- they aren't simple problems, and any decision made will have ramifications. In other words, they listen to only the most important cases, and try to take the time to get them right. Its not work avoidance, its them doing their job correctly.

And then they could post it on Wikileaks...

[PRMan]

Oh, wait...

These people are the NSA's real targets!

[Doug52392]

I find it VERY hard to believe that the government actually thinks that terrorists would be dumb enough to still use a medium of communication they KNOW the NSA is listening in on. So that leaves the logical question: Who REALLY are the targets of the warrantless wiretapping program?

The answer is simple: civil rights advocates, right wing conspiracy theorists, and computer geeks. The NSA want to listen in to IRC chats, instant messages, and blogs of people who oppose the governments sick and twisted practices, and stand up for their rights. Now anyone who commented on this post could be arrested under the USA PATRIOT Act...

What next? A government controlled Internet?

Re:These people are the NSA's real targets!

[Tetra]

The real problem, of course, is the relationship map they've built. The one where they can drill down into any individual and see all of their communications - and geospacial positions with time - with lines that spiderweb out to other individuals. Querying to modify the map by position/time/degrees of separation/posts/political leanings/etc. Combined with financial records and literally all government owned databases from library records to parking tickets to every bit security cam footage they can gather. They are protecting themselves and their criminally terrorist bretheren from you - not protecting you. Let's not forget Loose Change.

What's happened, and the reason this is continuing unabated, without any real judicial and congressional outrage is because of the data that has been gathered on those who should be fighting to stop it. They have been quietly apprised of that data, and to fight these thugs would be suicide.

Essentially, we're fucked. My America is dead.

T

Re:These people are the NSA's real targets!

[nuzak]

> Let's not forget Loose Change.

Definitely let's not forget the viewer's guide as well. You conspiracy wackjobs are allies neither I nor the ACLU want or need in our particular fights.

I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[Bryansix]

Oh wait, it's not? Darn.

Re:I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[Opportunist]

Not yet.

Hey, give it time, they just started doing it. It takes a while to construct a law that makes the illegal stuff a government does legal. Expect something once someone found a way to sue without them having a way to stop it with some "security reasons" anymore. You can rest assured that then you'll quickly see a law being constructed and, if need be, lifted into an amendment that makes sure that all warrantless wiretapping, former and henceforth, shall be legal if "national security" calls for it.

And if everything else fails and this won't fly, we'll just see some general amnesty being issued because it would be far, far too much hassle to unravel all those threads and it would of course threaten the "national security" if we just opened all those warrantless wiretapping cases for public viewing. Some pawn is fired (or, if he's halfway smart, takes the blame and some sizable check), and that's the end of this chapter.

Re:I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[susano_otter]

Well, technically the President does have broad powers to wage war as he sees fit.

What gets me about Slashdot is that it's full of people who have a giant fucking hardon for the Internet and "information wants to be free" and how all this technology changes everything and shifts paradigms and makes collaboration easier and technology transfer faster and all that good stuff, but are willfully ignorant about the major changes to the nature and scope of warfare and the battlefields on which it will be fought.

You can't have an Information Age without Information Warfare. You can't run around celebrating how the Internet makes borders obsolete without acknowledging that BORDERS ARE FUCKING OBSOLETE. You have a web-enabled cell phone? Congratulations! You're now a citizen of the world! And that means you enter the battlefield every time you make a call. Get used to it. It's the price you pay for Youtube and Blogger and Google and Wikipedia and Skype and Slashdot and Pirate Bay and all the rest of it. From here on, every smarty man and clever monkey is going to be waging war in your playground, and you whining about how they should all go back to 1950 and leave 2008 to you isn't going to make any difference at all.

Re:I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[ShedPlant]

The President does [i]not[/i] have the power to wage war. Presidents have usurped this power from Congress since 1945.
Information wants to be free? Yes it does. But what does that matter when We The People aren't free from arbitrary exercise of power by our own government?
The USA has become the Evil Empire it fought in 1776. Worse, perhaps.

Re:I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[MadMidnightBomber]

Well, technically the President does have broad powers to wage war as he sees fit.

Good point, with just two minor drawbacks. The United States is NOT AT FUCKING WAR and the United States is NOT FUCKING AT WAR. Now, I realise these are both the same drawback really but it's such a big one I thought I'd mention it twice.

Re:I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[susano_otter]

The President does [i]not[/i] have the power to wage war. Presidents have usurped this power from Congress since 1945.

You might want to take that up with the Supreme Court.

Information wants to be free? Yes it does. But what does that matter when We The People aren't free from arbitrary exercise of power by our own government?

You can't have government without risking arbitrary exercise of power by government. Personally, I'd love to have a much smaller government with a much smaller amount of authority and power. But I'd still be in favor of that government waging information warfare to the uttermost limit against any and all enemies big or small who seek to use information systems as a military asset. I guess the other option is that you guarantee to carry out the battle for information systems on my behalf. But I'm already paying the government to do that, and I don't see the point in paying twice.

The USA has become the Evil Empire it fought in 1776. Worse, perhaps.

If that's what you need to tell yourself, to justify... well, to justify what, exactly? What are you actually doing to battle an Empire more evil than the British Empire of 1776. That empire was so evil that people were willing to leave their homes and take up arms and put their lives on the line to fight it. Fuck, this Empire is so evil that people are willing to leave their homes and take up arms and put their lives on the line to fight it.

Are you one of those people? Are you telling yourself that America is The Evilest Empire ever to justify your violent opposition to its regime? Are you using this rhetoric to justify your campaign of information warfare against this regime? I bet that--your revolutionary rhetoric notwithstanding--this regime that you fear so much, that you profit so much from, has nothing to fear from you, because you're too much a fool and a coward to give up any of your comfort and safety, to actually strike a blow against that regime.

You love the fantasy of revolution. You relish the idea of other people, in other places, striking a blow against the Great Satan. But you would never actually do that. You'll go as far as complaining in public about how your government stifles dissent, blissfully unaware of the irony. And that's about it, am I right?

Re:I forgot that spying is in the constitution

[susano_otter]

You missed my point entirely. Wars are different now. If you're trying to say that Congress hasn't declared war on anybody lately, then you'll get no argument from me. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a war going on, and that there aren't battles to be fought on battlefields that didn't even exist fifty years ago.

Excellent post

[roystgnr]

I'm sure it was even better in the original German.

Put up or shut it

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you don't like it, do something about it. Otherwise, go back to your plasma and your wheaties and shut the fuck up.

Good thing TSP no longer exists

[daveschroeder]

The only problem with the submission?

TSP no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.

ALL surveillance was happening under the guise of the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight; the changes explicitly allowed such collection on US soil as long as the target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person physically outside of the United States, regardless of the other end of the conversation. The change was absolutely done to make such surveillance easy.

Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and ALL surveillance must again happen only via FISA.

There is no TSP or any warrantless surveillance program. What a horrible summary.

Of course, I'm sure a bunch of people will respond, "Oh, sure, there is no warrantless surveillance...THAT WE KNOW OF." Oh, how convenient: arguing about something that we can't prove one way or another? Please, let's keep the discussion in the realm of known facts, namely, that TSP no longer exists. The article even says as much. Did the submitter not even RTFA?

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, sure, there is no warrantless surveillance...THAT WE KNOW OF."

One would be a fool not to suspect exactly that, since the who program was a secret in the first place. The whole problem here is the President making up new illegal "powers" for himself and keeping them secret. You simply cannot enter this discussion with the assumption that there's no problem, because TSP itself is the proof that there is a problem.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[misanthrope101]

Of course, I'm sure a bunch of people will respond, "Oh, sure, there is no warrantless surveillance...THAT WE KNOW OF." Oh, how convenient: arguing about something that we can't prove one way or another? Please, let's keep the discussion in the realm of known facts, namely, that TSP no longer exists.

Let's try two more commonsense questions. In light of the fact that we prosecuted people in the past for war-crimes after they waterboarded people, is waterboarding torture? Does the US government waterboard people? Simple questions, to which we can't seem to get answers.

Even to stick with the eavesdropping--ask the President (or VP, or really anyone up there) whether the US government wiretaps US citizens without a warrant. Do you think you'd get a straight answer? Or do you think they'd say "all activities are strictly within the law," which is an evasion.

We can't even get answers, yet we aren't allowed to worry? It isn't paranoia if it's real.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[sumdumass]

Well, as far as anyone can tell, at least as far as I have been able to tell in the last year or so of looking, there has only been one prosecution for water boarding and that was when the guy did it for no important reason other then abusing the prisoner. There was an instance before that, I think the Spanish American war where a soldier was disciplined by a loss in rank but that wasn't a prosecution.

Even to stick with the eavesdropping--ask the President (or VP, or really anyone up there) whether the US government wiretaps US citizens without a warrant. Do you think you'd get a straight answer? Or do you think they'd say "all activities are strictly within the law," which is an evasion.

IF they consider it an issue of national security, then why would they tell you? I mean it would take an idiot to disclose a secrete program that you think is keeping the country safe. It would take an even bigger idiot to think that this is somehow odd. You don't tell the enemy (whether he exists or not) how you plan on capturing him and defeating his plans to harm you. That would be like telling them we can hear your radio communications and have broken your codes. They are surely going to use it to feed misinformation and change their operations to not be detected in the future. And even if you do suspect the program and think the enemy does too, it still doesn't mean that you validate the leak so future leaks would have more creditability.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[Mr. Slippery]

TSP no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.

Irrelevant. "I know I shot that guy last year, your honor, but I haven't shot anyone since then, so let's just forget the whole thing."

In a sane country, we would be able to have the court cases to figure out what happened, which laws were broken, and which Bush administration officials should be jailed for it and for how long.

But as the ACLU pointed out, here in Bizzaro America the Bush administration could easily restart their snooping, since they voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping and have not been smacked by the courts.

the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight...

Sorry, but the government doesn't get to do an end run around the Constitution by calling its surveillance "foreign intelligence collection". I don't lose my rights when I talk to someone outside the country - and more importantly, the Fourth Amendment states a "right of the people", not a right of citizens. Even a foreigner has right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and "against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and ALL surveillance must again happen only via FISA.

So now we're right back where we started when the administration started its criminal eavesdropping.

There is no TSP or any warrantless surveillance program.

You really should read the articles you link to. Your Washington Times story notes, "existing warrantless surveillance begun under the temporary laws could continue for up to a year."

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[misanthrope101]

There are a few more cases than just one. There are legal precedents that set the standard, so we already have the answer. It doesn't stop being illegal just because you're doing it all of a sudden. If it was torture last week and you start doing it on Saturday, it's still torture. That's obvious, and we wouldn't be wondering about whether or not it was torture if we hadn't started doing it. The pussyfooting we're doing now is just so we can rationalize to ourselve why we aren't arresting people for doing things that are clearly illegal, wrong, and repugnant to common human decency.

Yes, they have a very good reason to keep it secret--it's illegal, and they'd go to jail if it was openly admitted they were doing it. If people had to face what their govt was doing, they'd be guilted into asking for action. Why do you think Bush demanded amnesty/immunity for interrogators? You don't talk about amnesty or immunity for something you know to be legal. The national security argument doesn't make torture okay. Saddam no doubt thought it was vital to his national security to gas the Kurds.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[Anonymous Coward]

"In a sane country, we would be able to have the court cases to figure out what happened, which laws were broken, and which Bush administration officials should be jailed for it and for how long. "

I'm pretty sure there was a court decision...

Which kind of moots your rant.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[sumdumass]

here are a few more cases than just one. There are legal precedents that set the standard, so we already have the answer. It doesn't stop being illegal just because you're doing it all of a sudden. If it was torture last week and you start doing it on Saturday, it's still torture. That's obvious, and we wouldn't be wondering about whether or not it was torture if we hadn't started doing it. The pussyfooting we're doing now is just so we can rationalize to ourselve why we aren't arresting people for doing things that are clearly illegal, wrong, and repugnant to common human decency.

Those cases the article mentions doesn't place the entire context into perspective. And I agree, it doesn't stop being illegal but, there is nothing indicating that the context is the same. You see, even with the one case of a prosecution of a US serviceman, it wasn't for the water boarding in and of itself, it was because he was doing it for fun without profit. Nothing addresses that in your link. For all we know the Japanese who were prosecuted were doing it in the same light, for fun without profit. This would/could leave the door open to men who were water boarded for interrogation purposed when there was a strong reason hich would be consistant with what appears to have happened.

Don't look at it like X happened and because X has been prosecuted against before it should be now. It is really a situation where X happened with Y and Z modifiers and differences in either Y or Z would dictate the prosecution or not. Take murder for instance, it is generally illegal and defined as killing or taking the life of another person. Now notice that we have laws dealing with it that are ranging from minor misdemeanors to capitol offenses depending on "other variables" associated with the case. In self defense, it is sometime accepted that you can commit the equivalent of murder and not be punished at all. So when ranting about a legal argument, take it into context.

Yes, they have a very good reason to keep it secret--it's illegal, and they'd go to jail if it was openly admitted they were doing it. If people had to face what their govt was doing, they'd be guilted into asking for action. Why do you think Bush demanded amnesty/immunity for interrogators? You don't talk about amnesty or immunity for something you know to be legal. The national security argument doesn't make torture okay. Saddam no doubt thought it was vital to his national security to gas the Kurds.

Well, no. You think it is illegal-- that doesn't mean it is so. And also no, it doesn't mean they would goto jail if it was illegal. As I touched on before, in some cases, it can be valid to break laws in order to save a life.

And yes, you do talk about amnesty and immunity for something you know to be legal. This is because you don't want those people subject to the endless barrage of lawsuits and character assassinations that will come from bashers who are more pissed at Bush having a connection to it then the act itself.

And no, it wasn't vital to Saddam to gas the kurds. He could have arrested, detained, tried and punished them even if it meant death for them in the long run. If that would have happened, it would have been an entirely different situation. So again, I know it seems hard for you, but keep things into the context and perspective they really are in. Otherwise, you appear like a babbling fool.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[misanthrope101]

Torture has long been known to produce bad intel. Take a power drill to my knee and I'll detail my nefarious plans to bomb Switzerland, Jupiter, or really anything you want to hear. Names? I got plenty of them. As long as you never need to present evidence at trial and have it cross-examined, my hearsay "evidence" will be all you need. That's pretty much the model we've used thus far, from what I can tell.

If someone objects to torture, please don't dismiss their arguments by thinking it's about Bush. Is it really impossible to even fathom a principled argument here? McCain said waterboarding is torture--is he a Bush hater? The JAGs for the US Army have said that waterboarding is torture--are they Bush haters? You can't dismiss every objection and criticism by saying "you just don't like Bush, do you?" If you don't get that people can object to torture on moral grounds, then your moral compass has been replaced by a political one. Replace the name "Bush" with "Bill Clinton" and still see if you think torture is okay. If it came to light that we were waterboarding dozens of people under Clinton, would that bother you?

Should local cops be able to waterboard subjects, if they can say that they think it might save a life? Who do you want to empower with this option? The local sherriff in a town of 2.5K? He might get valuable info on a local murder--you won't know until you give him free rein. Torture is the ultimate slippery slope. Once the end justifies the means, and the end is a nebulous "saving lives" in hazy scenarios that may or may not be real, you get people tortured to death, along with fake death certificates and the whole thing. It isn't what a civilized society does.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm pretty sure there was a court decision...

The decision was that there would be no case, on the basis that only people who could prove that they'd been spied on had standing to bring a case to prove that they'd been spied on.

Re:Good thing TSP no longer exists

[sumdumass]

Torture has long been known to produce bad intel. Take a power drill to my knee and I'll detail my nefarious plans to bomb Switzerland, Jupiter, or really anything you want to hear. Names? I got plenty of them. As long as you never need to present evidence at trial and have it cross-examined, my hearsay "evidence" will be all you need. That's pretty much the model we've used thus far, from what I can tell.

I didn't say it was a good idea or productive. But your idea to admiting to anything is a bit presumptuous. You see, there is a reason why they would be held in the first place. If I was asking you about X and you started feeding me random unrelated information, I could tell and then call you on something. It isn't like the people asking the questions are stupid or anything. Simply pulling a edwards or whoever it was that claimed to talk to the dead and doing a modified cold reading could collaborate or not anything you claimed. The idea behind torture isn't to get you to say anything, it is to get you to say something without lying. True, if you were the only one being questioned, I couldn't do this. But If i had 500 other people unknowingly giving me information and validating your story, you would eventually tell me the truth.

Again, I'm not saying it is a good idea or productive to torture someone.

If someone objects to torture, please don't dismiss their arguments by thinking it's about Bush. Is it really impossible to even fathom a principled argument here? McCain said waterboarding is torture--is he a Bush hater? The JAGs for the US Army have said that waterboarding is torture--are they Bush haters? You can't dismiss every objection and criticism by saying "you just don't like Bush, do you?" If you don't get that people can object to torture on moral grounds, then your moral compass has been replaced by a political one. Replace the name "Bush" with "Bill Clinton" and still see if you think torture is okay. If it came to light that we were waterboarding dozens of people under Clinton, would that bother you?

Lol.. First, McCain will say anything if he thinks it will keep the press interested in him. He was also exposed to torture for the sake of torture and to manipulate his actions. That really isn't the same thing going on here and is probably why even Bush has said we don't torture people and that why waterboarding can be torture, we haven't tortured prople.

Secondly, I didn't dismiss him (the gp or anyone else)as a Bush Basher simply because he doesn't believe in torture. I dismissed a type of person who has demonstrated their hate who is also the most likely to file endless lawsiuts and waist government money when there isn't a need to. It has nothing to do with my political compass or moral compass. And yes, I supported Clinton too on a number of things. However, I'm not about to give him a pass on the things he actually did do just like I'm not giving Bush a pass. To compare the ideology in question, it would be like a bunch of republicans endlessly suing Clinton and his staffers because they knew he lies to a court of law. I would be dismissing them as Clinton bashers too.

Should local cops be able to waterboard subjects, if they can say that they think it might save a life? Who do you want to empower with this option? The local sherriff in a town of 2.5K? He might get valuable info on a local murder--you won't know until you give him free rein. Torture is the ultimate slippery slope. Once the end justifies the means, and the end is a nebulous "saving lives" in hazy scenarios that may or may not be real, you get people tortured to death, along with fake death certificates and the whole thing. It isn't what a civilized society does.

Well, seeing how I have never said I supported torture, I'm not entirely sure why you asking me to validate it. My entire point wasn't that torture is ok or cool. It was that each circumstance has mitigating factors that may o

who has been staffing the courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, but our current alcoholic draft dodger deserter has been appointing loyal cretins to load the Justice system with corrupt morons. Surely you remember when he tried to get some ignorant sycophant put onto the Supreme Court because she sent him sweet cards in the mail?

And there was great rejoicing

[yidgeek]

Finally i can go to sleep knowing that the people who are out to kill us have a harder time communicating.

Re:And there was great rejoicing

[Opportunist]

Nah, they can still communicate freely. Only after the suicide bombers blow themselves up in the subway you're sitting in, it's easier to catch them.

Hmm... I guess some halfway decent strainer would have accomplished the same...

TSP has been gone for over a year

[daveschroeder]

The Terrorist Surveillance Program has not existed for over a year, since 17 January 2007. All foreign intelligence collection in the meantime has occurred under the guise of FISA and the temporary and recently-sunset FISA modifications provided by the Protect America Act. With the expiry of the Protect America Act, ALL foreign SIGINT collection reverts to the 30-year old FISA rules.

If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, as simply asserting that one must exist doesn't quite cut it. Remember how TSP came to light: leaks to the New York Times. The government simply cannot keep such controversial programs secret. There is no evidence of any current, ongoing "warrantless" surveillance.

The other important thing to remember is that foreign intelligence collection never requires a warrant or court oversight of any kind; the FISA modifications were designed to enable easy foreign intelligence collection via assets on US soil or traffic that may travel physically through the United States. It does not matter in the least if the other end of the conversation is a US person on US soil, as long as they are not the target of such collection.

Such collection is always legal and allowable without a warrant if the collection occurs outside of the United States and the US person is not the target of such surveillance. Special and very extensive measures are undertaken to conceal the identity of US persons in such collection.

The main difference with what became known as TSP, and refined in the Protect America Act, was the provision to enable such collection via means to which we have easy and routine access; namely, the massive amounts of communication traffic flowing through equipment under US control. Whether or not you may agree with that is a different issue entirely. The purpose was never to target US citizens without a warrant. The purpose was to collect foreign intelligence via US assets. Currently (after PAA expiration), if traffic travels through the United States, even if BOTH ends are non-US persons physically outside of the United States, the Intelligence Community is prohibited from collection without a warrant. That's the "Intel Gap" we wanted to close.

Re:TSP has been gone for over a year

[Nursie]

Do you approve of the legal and allowable status of surveillance outside the US?

'cos you know we brits do it to and then swap notes, right?

Ain't it a great world?

Re:TSP has been gone for over a year

[Opportunist]

Oh, that changes everything. So it's just foreign and industrial espionage.

Ok, then everything's fine and dandy.

Re:TSP has been gone for over a year

[daveschroeder]

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand make up the "UKUSA Community", have been sharing intelligence in this landmark and longstanding alliance since World War II. The purpose is intelligence cooperation amongst Anglophone allies, not to do end-runs around respective nations' restrictions on spying on their own citizens. That is prohibited, regardless of the source of the intelligence. Whether or not one actually trusts their intelligence apparatus is a different matter entirely.

Re:TSP has been gone for over a year

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy. Someone hasn't been paying attention:

If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it.

OBVIOUSLY we do not have evidence for that. However, based on past experience of abuse of wiretapping powers, we can reasonably assume it hasn't suddenly disappeared. You're basically saying it can't happen anymore because now it's illegal - well it was pretty much illegal before, wasn't it, and they did it then too! We're talking about people who don't obey the rules - they didn't obey the old ones, and there's no reason to expect they've suddenly become scrupulously diligent about following the new ones.

And yes, the burden of proof is on you, as simply asserting that one must exist doesn't quite cut it.

No, the burden of proof is on YOU. They have already demonstrated their willingness to flout the law, whatever it happens to be. They've done that, lied about it, covered it up as much as possible. With such a rich history of bad faith abuse, we have no reason to believe that anything has changed. Just like Microsoft.

Remember how TSP came to light: leaks to the New York Times. The government simply cannot keep such controversial programs secret. There is no evidence of any current, ongoing "warrantless" surveillance.

Are you for real? Why don't you read back what you just wrote? We only knew about the previous program because of *leaks*! And now you say any current program doesn't exist because no more leaks have emerged? Huh?! Maybe they fired that one honest employee who leaked the data in the first place!

I don't understand how you can be so naiive and eager to believe the "party line". Look at the (very) recent history of this matter. You'd do well to be a little less automatically trusting and a little more suspicious of those with such opaque and unaccountable powers, the obvious desire to use them, and a long history of lies and deception.

Re:TSP has been gone for over a year

[ultraslacker]

reverts to the 30-year old FISA rules. How many times has FISA been amended? The argument that FISA was cumbersome hasn't held up in court, but you are trotting it out here? What about 2001, come on, that had to have meant something for FISA.

It does not matter in the least if the other end of the conversation is a US person on US soil, as long as they are not the target of such collection. For domestic international interception it does matter.

Such collection is always legal and allowable without a warrant if the collection occurs outside of the United States and the US person is not the target of such surveillance. Special and very extensive measures are undertaken to conceal the identity of US persons in such collection. The collection itself is unconstitutional. See lower court rulings, Taylor's or Gilman's. The NSA program was ruled illegal in both.

If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it. There's plenty of evidence that it existed at one time, and the intent in the lawsuit is not to just stop a crime that may be ongoing, but to learn the extent of that crime, after the fact.

That's the "Intel Gap" we wanted to close. What you mean "We", Kemo Sabe?

Re:TSP has been gone for over a year

[Anonymous Coward]

I would only add some interesting points that FISA critic, Andrew C. McCarthy has recently made. 1) That the CIA and the NSA must now seek probable-cause judicial warrants through FISA before surveillance of any *new* terrorist in foreign lands. The absurdity is that these are foreigners in foreign lands who do not have *any* privacy protections under American law. 2) That the FISA court rulings are *secret*. So, if a judge gets national security wrong, we have no one to remove from office. Even the judge and the text of the decision remains secret. Americans will be unable to review them. 3) That "There are more democratic ways (such as congressional oversight) to ensure that the executive does not abuse surveillance power. Expanding the judicial role is a mistake." 4) Finally, that FISA should be "technology neutral", otherwise it risks becoming obsolete. Which, according to McCarthy, is what's wrong with FISA in the first place.

Trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they made sure that suspected terrorists, even those who were American citizens, were never allowed real trials? I thought that was the entire point of the Military Commissions Act.

Which is pretty damn sad when you think about it.

Simple way out of catch-22

[sigmabody]

There's a pretty simple way out of the catch, although it would be hard to do and potentially open pandora's box: have Congress pass a law which allows legal challenges to the Constitutionality of laws and actions without having to show actual damages. The only reason it's a problem now is because of the technicalities of the laws, which could easily be remedied.

On the other hand, good luck in getting Congress to do something as blatantly beneficial for the country as that...

Re:Simple way out of catch-22

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatis one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on slashdot, and that's saying a lot considering the fools around here.

Orwell meet Kafka

[xmedar]

I would suggest all Americans now get a Cryptophone and use PGP as standard.

Tags

[belg4mit]

Why can't we see all tags for articles? I want to see how many other people were tempted to label this "stophittingyourself"

Re:Tags

[Nimey]

And the mental midgets who keep tagging "suddenoutbreakofcommonsense" & the other trite tags. What was the point of tags again?

Holding stock options IS a "financial interest".

[Futurepower(R)]

"So why again does Bush and Cheney want the price of oil to rise?"

See these stories, for example:

Cheney's Halliburton Options Up 3,281% Last Year

Cheney: "I cut all ties to Halliburton years ago." Congressional Research Service: "Cheney made $8,000,000 from Haliburton while in office."

Quote from one of the comments in that story: "The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office DOES constitute a "financial interest" whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest." [My emphasis]

Also, in general Cheney and Bush have shown that they don't believe any rules apply to them. So, there may be hidden bank accounts in Dubai, for example, which is where the head office of Halliburton is located now.

The system is broken, and no one fixes it.

[Futurepower(R)]

"The cases falling into the second category usually require deep thinking -- they aren't simple problems..."

That's exactly right. However, most of the problems are created by laws that aren't clear, or have edge cases the lawmakers didn't consider.

Hearing only 1% of the cases is evidence that something is broken. The people the law is designed to protect are not satisfied. The justices of the Supreme Court serve their own intellectual interests more than they serve the interests of their customers.

The system is broken, and when it is broken, no one fixes it. Irresponsibly ignoring the fact that the something is very wrong is the behavior of children, not adults. The U.S. legal system needs adult supervision.

The Tree of Liberty

[Nimey]

The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, as Thos. Jefferson told us.

This tree looks distinctly drought-stricken.

Re:The Tree of Liberty

[The One and Only]

Thomas Jefferson would find himself on the no-fly-list today.

Re:The Tree of Liberty

[darkmeridian]

Yeah, lead the way buddy. I'll be too busy watching American Idol tonight.

U.S. government killed more in every category.

[Futurepower(R)]

Whoever destroyed the World Trade Center killed 3,000 Americans. The decision of Cheney and Bush to have a war with Iraq has killed more" Americans than that.

See these stories, for example:

Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis: Survey.

The number is rapidly rising. In October 2006 the number of Iraqis killed was estimated to be 655,000.

The highest estimate of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein was 1 million, so the U.S. government has killed more than Saddam. See, for example, Survey: Saddam killed 61,000 in Baghdad.

Re:U.S. government killed more in every category.

[bendodge]

Are US soldiers shooting them, or are they getting killed by Muslims?

Iraq Body Count uses a different method.

[Futurepower(R)]

See my comment above: U.S. government killed more in every category.

I have respect for what Iraq Body Count is doing, but their methods do not count all those killed.

AKhmed should be able to plot in private!

[Mr.Ballmer]

Listening in is a violation of his rights! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/

Book for you

[SonicSpike]

You should read the book "Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution". It's a fascinating read on the very subject you are discussing.

You are too trusting

[cc_pirate]

What they will do is if they find something, they will sick FBI or CIA agents on you and use traditional law enforcement powers to find out again what they already know, but this time legally. They basically had no probable cause, but used illegal means to find one.

If someone asks why they focused on you, they can always say they got an "anonymous" tip.

Basically, you're screwed.

Say good bye to our little Republic experiment... Ben never thought it would last this long anyway...

Re:The lack of transparency is really disturbing..

[noidentity]

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Indeed, all patriotic Americans need to ask themselves this question of the government, particularly the executive branch. If indeed, they aren't doing anything wrong, why must they keep everything so secret - even from Congress and the Courts?

Just wanted to point out that the quote is good to apply to non-persons, like governments, which have no need for privacy in general, unlike humans. People who work in these organizations do so voluntarily, and they have private lives outside of work.

You had time to make a false assumption

[siesindallerscheisse]

"But then you'll get the argument that the Declaration of Independence is an historical document, and has no legal force like the Constitution."

And they'd be right.

"Those will be the same people who tell you that because some individual right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or Amendments, you don't have it."

I vehemently disagree with this statement.

It seems you were wrong.

No, you completely, missed the point

[siesindallerscheisse]

Again, YOU fail at understanding my original point. If you're arguing RIGHTS, your argument is FAR better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution rather than ambiguous feel good statements from the Declaration of Independence.

You completely missed the point in your rush to insult me.

Re:No, you completely, missed the point

[plague3106]

I understand your point, its just garbage. Sorry if you feel insulted, but that's the truth.

I can go to court and say "you broke my arm." It may be true, but it makes a huge difference if you just ran out of nowhere and broke my arm or I attacked you first and you were defending yourself. Context is important when interperating things.

How many jokes are in Shakespear that you miss because you don't know the full context of life in his time? Any good English teacher will be able to point out what was comedy in his time and we don't really get the meaning.

Your argument is based on an obvious fallacy

[siesindallerscheisse]

"that things ONLY the Constitution matters,"

Please show me where I said that.

Read my reply to your other post so you can understand why you failed to reply to my argument and instead fabricated one of your own to rail against.

My point was, an argument about rights is more effectively (not EXCLUSIVELY, BUT MORE EFFECTIVELY) supported by quoting the Constitution, NOT the Declaration of Independence.

You pulled "ONLY the Constitution matters" out of your ass, I never made that claim nor any even resembling it.

Re:Your argument is based on an obvious fallacy

[plague3106]

"The Declaration of Independence is nice, but that's not a legally biding statement. Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead"

You pretty much dismiss the Declaration of Independence out of hand. If you're not willing to include the Declaration, why would I think you're willing to include the arguments of classical liberalism upon which BOTH documents are based?

It would seem to me arguments about rights are most effective based on that philosophy, since that's the thinking which is supposed to be ensrined in the Constitution. After all, if you don't buy into classical liberalism, I fail to see why you'd honor anything in the Constitution.

Due Process

[Anonymous Coward]

I could point out that the ACLU's challenge is about behavior before the expiration of the Protect America Act, so its expiration is irrelevant. I could proceed to pick apart the weak assumptions in your argument. But I don't need to do any of that because you have studiously ignored the real issue here.

It really doesn't matter what rhetoric you can use to justify domestic spying programs. As this is a nation of laws, it should be decided according to law. (I recall a Bush admin official claiming that they can spy on anyone at anytime because Bush is the commander-in-chief. You'll forgive me if I'm not convinced by that sort of reasoning.) That's the issue you need to be addressing. When an abuse actually takes place, what legal due process can ordinary folks use to (1) discover the extent of the abuse, (2) receive compensation for damages, and (3) bring to justice those responsible?

Are you a shill, or just not paying attention?

[_.- thimk! -._]

Either way, you're simply wrong. (You seem to like bold.) If you want to stick to facts, let's review a few.

The Illegal Warrantless Surveillance program, or "The Surveillance Program", TSP, as you so quaintly call it, was in full swing for several years before the "Protect America Act" (your own reference) was even introduced (in early August 2007). Said "Act" was a long belated attempt to retroactively clothe the illegal program the President attempted to pretend he had the authority to authorize, and he was called out on it. He does not have any such authority, and never has. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is VERY explicit about what authority the president has, even in a time of war, and "TSP", is way over the line.

As much as you seem to want to believe, simply renaming a program doesn't make it go away.

Renaming things is a favorite tactic of this administration to keep doing the same things they're told again and again they aren't allowed to do. The long, sordid history of Total Information Awareness is a good example of what I mean, and given the Administration's track record on this, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was directly related to "TSP", just one more head of the hydra they've created.

MODS: WTF? Why is the PP modded "Troll"?

[zooblethorpe]

Seriously folks, the parent's post here is "Informative" if anything. The only possible reason to mod it "Troll" is if the modders themselves are acting trollish and seeking to repress something they disagree with.

Futurepower(r) is quoting the Congressional Research Service for all love, people! This is part of the blooming Congress! How is it even remotely trollish to quote the findings of a body of the legislative branch of the US government? As noted on Wikipedia, "Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues" (emphasis mine). Hello mods, the cluephone is ringing and y'all done flaked out...

Color me disappointed.

The ACLU is a terrorist organization

[InsaneProcessor]

They terrorize our court system and soak the general public for millions of dollars in the process.
I have no use for them.

I asked you to support your accusation

[siesindallerscheisse]

"Please show me where I said that."

You have yet to do what I asked.

You claimed I made an argument, and have as yet, failed to support your claim, or give any evidence that I claimed "ONLY the Constitution mtters" despite trying to argue as such. It really frustrates me when people like you have to resort to Straw Men to argue against me.

This conversation is over until you provide the quote I asked for.

Re:I asked you to support your accusation

[plague3106]

I'm sorry but did you even read my reply? You impleaded the Delcartion was not relevent: "its nice, but not legally binding." Is that not dismissing it as an avenue from which to argue? Please explain to me how its not, because your claim seems to be that rights come from the Constitution. Otherwise that would not be the "best" way to argue rights.

There's no strawman here. Please explain why the Constitution is the place to start when arguing rights. If you can't, you're just throwing out strawman hoping that distract from your original post.

TSP has been gone for over a year - so what!

[Anonymous Coward]

"If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, as simply asserting that one must exist doesn't quite cut it. Remember how TSP came to light: leaks to the New York Times. The government simply cannot keep such controversial programs secret. There is no evidence of any current, ongoing "warrantless" surveillance."

So, is that like saying "John Smith killed 56 people, and that news was leaked to the New York Times. But he's not killing anyone now, so he must be a law abiding citizen!"?

The original wiretapping program was ruled illegal [ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domesticspying.lawsuit/index.html ] and rightfully so.
That the lawsuits have failed so far is sad, but regrettably expected. I doubt a suspected terrorist would come forward to challenge the law, and the rest of us have to put up with it because "IT HELPS WARD OFF OMG TERRORISTS!" So yeah, it is a catch-22 and it sucks. And I still can't conceive of a way to go forward with a lawsuit, because you have only one whistleblower, no real hard evidence (even though the government has admitted to surveying people). No DNA, no CSI's recreating scenes, no hollywood effects. Just an attack on our civil liberties, and it seems the common populace could care less (When I asked a few people about the illegal wiretaps, they said the government could do whatever the government wanted as long as it stopped the terrorists... I was like WTF?!). No wonder the government gets away with this kind of stuff.

Not usually.

[pavon]

In most cases where there are unjust laws, simply following that law causes you harm, and that is enough to give you standing to bring a case to court. It takes money to sue the government, but that is what the ACLU is for.

This case is unique in that it is challenging government actions performed in secret - you can't prove they are doing them, just that they gave themselves the power to do so, and secondly that the government has declared that if you can prove what they are doing, it is illegal to talk about it.

I understand and appreciate the Supreme Court's desire to only hear cases with standing in most situation, but this it's refusal to hear this case swings the door wide open to allow the Executive branch to operate without any regard to Constitution in the areas where Constitutional review is most needed.

Re:Not usually.

[element-o.p.]

it's refusal to hear this case swings the door wide open to allow the Executive branch to operate without any regard to Constitution in the areas where Constitutional review is most needed.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is a most depressing ruling from the Supreme Court. Sigh...

I asked you to support your accusation, you failed

[siesindallerscheisse]

I told you this discussion was over until you did so.

You cannot REASON your way into supporting you claim that I said "ONLY the Constitution matters". You claime dI said it, I did not.

You can either post the QUOTE that supports you, or admit you made that position up to argue against.

So either you're arguing against straw men, or you're a liar.

Either way, this discussion is over until your support your claim, and NO your current post was not in any way support for your claim that I think "ONLY the Constitution matters".

"Please explain why the Constitution is the place to start when arguing rights"

Please post the quote where I claimed only the Constitution matters or admit you made it up. I have no intention of doing anything other than insisitng you support said claim until such time as you do.

Re:I asked you to support your accusation, you fai

[plague3106]

I told you this discussion was over until you did so.

I guess you can't support your argument then.

You cannot REASON your way into supporting you claim that I said "ONLY the Constitution matters". You claime dI said it, I did not.

In those exact words, no, but you implied it. I explained that twice now; are you being purposefully dense? Or can't you admin that you are wrong and the Constitution isn't the "best" place from which to argue rights?

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

ECHELON springs to mind, but it's been around for quite some time now. I also haven't heard anything about those huge wiretap rooms being dismantled. I somehow doubt they have warrants to tap all those people, and I sincerely doubt that they can reliably tell whether they're tapping "foreign" communications or not. What if I get routed through Canada on the way to Slashdot? Is that "foreign" communication? What if Canadians visit Slashdot? Okay, so Slashdot is pretty much public anyhow, but if this were private communication, how would they know? Of course, I know they wouldn't know, and this makes it appear that they don't care.

I really wish that law enforcement cared more about the rule of law. Is that so onerous?

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your premise that controversial programs cannot be hidden. If anything, we've seen that they can be hidden (and were hidden) for quite a while until someone who WASN'T under their employ got suspicious enough and leaked it.

Somehow, I'm not comforted by the fact that the law won't allow this when they've apparently been operating above the law for quite some time.

You still fail, and now it's worse

[siesindallerscheisse]

"In those exact words, no"

That should have been the end of your post.

"but you implied it"

I did not. Read that again until you understand that what I SAID is what I SAID with no implication at all.

If you're going to tell me what I meant, after you used astraw man to support an exceedingly weak argument, I'll take that to mean you know you have lost this debate.

"explained that twice now; are you being purposefully dense?"

WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU TO ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY WHAT YOU READ INTO MY STATEMENTS.

I explained to YOU several times now exactly what I meant. Your continued insistence that I implied something EVEN AFTER I TOLD YOU EXPLICITLY WHAT I MEANT makes it clear you know your argument failed.

Why must you continue to pretend that what you read into my statement trumps my concise explanation of my statement?

I'd say that makes you the one being intentionally dense.

"Or can't you admin that you are wrong and the Constitution isn't the "best" place from which to argue rights?"

I never made that claim either, so why would I defend against another of your obvious straw men?

Re:You still fail, and now it's worse

[plague3106]

I never made that claim either

So then what exactly do you mean by this: "Maybe your argument would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead."

My question is still relevent: Why is an argument on rights better served by quoting the Constitution instead of another document based on the same philosophy as the Constitution?

Am I now using enough of the same words you did to ask my question?

Re:You still fail, and now it's worse

[siesindallerscheisse]

If you honestly think, after repeatedly lying about what I said, that you'll get anything but dismissiveness from me, then you're not half as smart as you pretend to be.

If you genuinely cared about the answers, you would have asked the questions before you lied about what I claimed, not after.

Re:You still fail, and now it's worse

[plague3106]

I haven't been lying about what you said. I followed your statement to its logical conclusion. If you feel my conclusion is wrong, please explain your conclusion and how you get there. I've already explained why I feel the Consitution is NOT the best place to start when arguing rights, that you can't ignore the philosophy upon which it is based (i.e, the context).

At this point, I don't think you really have an answer. That's what I've been trying to do this entire time, yet all you have been doing is attempting to deflect from that question by accusing me of strawman arguments and putting words into your mouth.

But please, keep telling yourself that you're right, and that I'm just trolling you or whatever it is you're doing to avoid answering the question. Its pretty telling that at this point you seem to know what I want, yet still refuse to provide any kind of answer.. you simply wish to dismiss my questions on your statement... I guess that's more convenient.

Re:You still fail, and now it's worse

[plague3106]

So that's all you can do? Delude yourself into saying I'm a liar? If you had a point, you'd explain it. What better way to prove I'm a liar, but you won't. You, and stop being a hypocrate. I didn't lie here, but I'm sure you've lied plenty in your life. So shove that line of crap already.

So, let me set the stage again; we're discussing "rights," correct? You said this: "Maybe your argument [about rights] would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead."

So explain what you mean; obviously I'm not getting it. What's your point, if I'm so off base? Be a man and explain yourself.

Its funny you mention posting history; you obviously never checked mine. If was constantly lying and posting stram man surely I'd been modded into oblivion by now right? Of course if you did check my history you'd see plenty of places where I admit I misunderstood or was wrong. I'm not above that.

So drop this "you lied" crap and make your point. Or continue to act like a baby and take your ball and go home, because you can't handle a debate like a man. If I am lying and making strawmen,the best way to shut me up would be to explain exactly what you meant, since you claim I'm not getting it. So go ahead. If you feel your made your point why do you bother to continue replying?

Did you go anonymous becaue you feel like you're the one looking like a fool?

WTF are you talking about, you admitted lying

[siesindallerscheisse]

"I haven't been lying about what you said."

Making a claim that isn't true = lying. You already admitted I didn't say what you claimed. You lied.

Call it what you want, you're liar and I couldn't care less what you have to say about it.

Also, I didn't read any of the rest of your post as I stopped caring about your opinion the second you lied.

Re:WTF are you talking about, you admitted lying

[plague3106]

I see. You're an ass. When called out on something stupid, you stomp and scream to distract from that. I explained in my first reply to you what was wrong with your statement and what that statement implies; I correctly convied your though, even if I didn't use your exact words.

If I'm a liar, than explain your point and how you think you can't get to my conclusion from your statement. Don't worry, I know you won't. Best would be to just admit your "rights are best argued from the Constitution" statement was stupid and move on.

Now you're just embarassing yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

"I see. You're an ass."

Perhaps, but you're a proven liar.

I'll take ass any day, liar.

"When called out on something stupid, you stomp and scream to distract from that."

Funny, when called out on lying about what I claimed, you did EXACTLY that until I refused to continue. THEN you admitted lying. And if you think for one second I'm going to let some fucking idiot (you) decide to put words in my mouth, you are as dumb as you appear from your posts.

Now you're a hypocrite too, liar.

"I explained in my first reply to you what was wrong with your statement "

NO LIAR, you attributed a point to me which I never made. You attacked a position I never held. I'm sure you're happy with your argument, but you were arguing against a made up point which had NOTHING to do with me.

You didn't say a single thing that had anything to do with MY statement, as you lied about said statement from the start. The statement you think is wrong is your own straw man, which is funny because you've already proven you're not smart enough to realize you used a straw man.

"I correctly convied your though"

NO YOU DID NOT. How stupid are you that you think you can tell ME what I meant? For the LAST time, YOU DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT I "MEANT", ESPECIALLY WHEN I'VE TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK I "MEANT". TWICE.

DO YOU FUCKING GET THAT?. You have not conveyed my thoughts. You assumption about what I meant IS WRONG. Why are you having such a hard time with that? Do you need to get someone smarter to read it to you?

"even if I didn't use your exact words."

NO, you made up a claim that is NOTHING like the claim I made. You lied. It wasn't exact words liar, it was a completely different point, WHICH I NEVER MADE, and then after you claimed I made it, I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T, and you continued to insist I did.

Again, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO ACT AS THOUGH YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT I MEANT WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL WHAT I WROTE?

"If I'm a liar"

Proven irrefutably.

"than explain your point"

I despise liars like you. That's the only point I care to explain to you at this point, liar.

"Don't worry, I know you won't."

I ALREADY DID YOU GOD DAMNED IMBECILE. TWICE. It's in the god damned posting history, liar. TWICE. The explanation is there for anyone who wants to read it, SO STOP FUCKING LYING AND PRETENDING I HAVEN'T ALREADY GIVEN YOU WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. TWICE. And don't blame me because you're not smart enough to understand it.

You're a proven liar and I intend to treat you as such. I told you already liar, your chance for reasoned debate went out the window after you refused to admit your claim about my statement was false.

In the future, if you plan to post, stop lying. We're all far too smart to fall for your stupid straw men (which you claimed you didn't use after posting a TEXTBOOK example), and you'll only end up with a long trail of posts that prove you're a liar and a fool. Like now.

Re:Now you're just embarassing yourself

[plague3106]

So that's all you can do? Delude yourself into saying I'm a liar? If you had a point, you'd explain it. What better way to prove I'm a liar, but you won't.

So, let me set the stage again; we're discussing "rights," correct? You said this: "Maybe your argument [about rights] would be better served by quoting relevant passages from the Constitution instead."

So explain what you mean; obviously I'm not getting it. What's your point, if I'm so off base? Be a man and explain yourself.

Its funny you mention posting history; you obviously never checked mine. If was constantly lying and posting stram man surely I'd been modded into oblivion by now right?

So drop this "you lied" crap and make your point. Or continue to act like a baby and take your ball and go home, because you can't handle a debate like a man. If I am lying and making strawmen,the best way to shut me up would be to explain exactly what you meant, since you claim I'm not getting it. So go ahead. If you feel your made your point why do you bother to continue replying?

Did you go anonymous becaue you feel like you're the one looking like a fool?

Violence leads to more violence.

[Futurepower(R)]

"Are US soldiers shooting them, or are they getting killed by Muslims?"

Both.

Should the U.S. government be considered responsible only for the people it kills directly, or should it also be considered responsible for the violence that violence causes? I've read several books that have considered that fundamental issue.

When the U.S. government was violent in Cambodia during the Vietnam war, for example, how many people died as a result of U.S. government action? The answer is more than 2 million people, in Cambodia alone, because the U.S. government supported the rise of a very violent dictator.

The U.S. government supported Saddam Hussein, partly by selling him weapons. The weapons deliveries were still being made when the U.S. government declared its first war on Iraq.

When people try to calculate the total number the U.S. government killed, they arrive at figures like perhaps 3 million killed directly since the end of the 2nd world war, and perhaps 8 to 11 million total if the people killed by the destabilization the U.S. government caused are also included, not including the people killed in Iraq. Partly the killing happened as a result of the U.S. government invading or bombing 25 countries.

All or almost all of the U.S. government's killing appears to be motivated entirely by profit. Certainly Cambodians and Vietnamese could never have threatened anyone in the U.S.; they only made about $200 per year, and had no animosity toward anyone in the U.S., if they even knew the U.S. existed.

The problem is that most taxpayers, who pay for the violence, don't realize the underlying facts. Both attacks against the World Trade Center, for example, were motivated by the U.S. government's killing of Arabs and Muslims long before. But most U.S. taxpayers don't know about the earlier violence.

I am always against violence; nothing I say recommends or justifies violence; I think violence is caused by mental illness. The fact is, when one person or group acts out mental illness by being violent, there is a liklihood that some other person or group will feel encouraged to act out his or its mental illness.

The U.S. government has often used its "cooperation" with the governments of other countries to corrupt those governments. See, for example, Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA. Most or all of that corruption happened for profit, such as kickbacks of U.S. government foreign aid. When the governments of Israel or Pakistan buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers using money from "foreign aid", that is embezzlement of taxpayer money.

For one example of profiting from violence, read How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power or Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed: Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor.

Apparently Slashdot editors agree with at least some of this, because now and for the last 2 months or more, this has been on the main Slashdot page, on the right, under Book Reviews: " The Creature from Jekyll Island is a compelling look at the history of the Federal Reserve system and asks if it's a system that has run it's course. (Michael J. Ross's review)"

"The Creature from Jekyll Island" discusses how the U.S. monetary system is manipulated by rich and powerful people for their own profit. It says that wars are started for profit.

The Cooperative Research History Commons is very valuable for those wanting to do their own research.

The poorly edited but very interesting free movie