White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now

austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.

Comments

How do they know?

[duffetta]

How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?

Re:How do they know?

[ExecutorElassus]

Sorry, that information is classified for reasons of national security. You have an inappropriately strong interest in questioning the Terrorist Monitoring Program's scope; just whose side are you on?

Re:How do they know?

[lorg]

Last thing transcribed ... "so I'll call you again next week to discuss THE plan in detail".

Re:How do they know?

[lorg]

OUTSOURCING. They had someone else do the wiretapping for them. Just like they don't use "harsh interrogation" techniques themselves they get someone else to do it for them. Same here .. They missed the information and then had to trade, buy or acquire it somehow from some other friendly agency.

Re:How do they know?

[MyNameIsFred]

...How do they know that they've missed important information, if they aren't wiretapping?...

It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time. Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Re:How do they know?

[v1]

because when you're in the evesdropping business, everything is important. Every minute you've missed invading someone's privacy is a travesty!

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ongoing investigations are covered by the laws in effect when the investigation started. This means that if they started monitoring a phone number last month, the can continue to monitor the conversations. Also, if they discover some reason to establish a new investigation, under the current law, they can start monitoring immediately and ask for permission up to 72 hours later.

The house would have been happy to extend "Protect America" but not make it permanent. Bush said he would veto an extension.

In reality, I believe the situation boils down to the Bush administration not wanting the paper trail they get with the FISA court where you have to ask, and you are always told yes, but they've made a paper trail of what you've asked to monitor.

It is pretty clear that right now all conversations going through the phone systems are recorded. Some are erased after an hour, some are erased after a year. I'm not even sure this is a bad thing --- it might have been pretty useful to have a copy of all phone calls made in the USA for the 3 days prior to 9/11.

This being slashdot, we should talk about how we'd do it, not how it is a profound intrusion into our privacy, or how the gubberment is lying to us.

Re:How do they know?

[Vellmont]

Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time.

Yah, that would be true if the current wiretaps were to expire when the legislation expired. But the law was written to specifically say they didn't. Any existing wiretaps expire when they were originally set to expire.

Re:How do they know?

[Cocophone]

That is why there are warrants. The Government can already start listening and then get a warrant after the fact. There is no excuse for wiretaps without warrants.

If they are not able to get a warrant, then who exactly are they spying on?

Re:How do they know?

[Zeinfeld]

It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was

That is the White House line and its a lie. Existing authorizations continue to be in force for a year. That takes us past the next inauguration.

The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.

The issue here is not providing immunity to the telcos, it is providing immunity to the Administration. They want to be able to shred all the evidence of their criminal activities before a Democrat takes over. And they are willing to hold the security of the country hostage till they get their way.

Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing. Bush's approval ratings dropped by ten points to 19%. The wiretap issue was gone after a single media cycle.

Re:How do they know?

[Alsee]

raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant

<republican>
In this time of war, I simply cannot be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
</republican>

-

Re:How do they know?

[10101001 10101001]

Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and power grabs are wholly unnecessary), and Bush and company are perfectly willing to sacrifice the security of the nation--you know, one of those primary functions of the Presidency--to cover their own asses. But, then, this story is at least as old as the Iraq War* and the bullshit about WMDs.

*Note: There might be older examples, but the Iraq War one was exceptionally egregious.

Re:How do they know?

[evil agent]

Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing.

I think you're wrong, something quite significant has come out of this: Bush has proved himself wrong. The gov't has been, and still is, saying that without this warrantless wiretapping, we are no longer safe. By calling their bluff, they forced Bush to say that he would veto the bill if it didn't include telecom immunity. In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public! If this wiretapping is so instrumental to our safety, why would he threaten a veto, or in this case, let the legislation expire?

Re:How do they know?

[trey_killer]

This is all so much BS! Any existing warrants before law expired are still valid for a year.

And remember, these are not like normal warrants, these warrants cover the entire group being surveiled as opposed to specific phone numbers.

Anything new they want has to go through the FISA court for a rubber stamp. Say system in place 2 years ago and prior.

This law is to cover up the fact the bush crime family put blanket tapping uin place BEFORE the 9/11 attacks. Thats right, thgis had nothing to do with "terrorism" when it was set up. If there is a trial date and places will come out.

Re:How do they know?

[dave562]

The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.

And they don't even have to get a warrant until 72 hours after they first start the wiretap.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are lying.

They have the current authorizations that will last for some time. On that count, they are full of shit.

Under FISA the administration has the right to wiretap whomever it feels it needs to in an emergency situation. So long as after three days they have the proper justification in front of a judge. Again, they are full of shit.

The fact is, the legislation is unnecessary and threatens our privacy.

Re:How do they know?

[illumin8]

The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.

That's still BS, because even if a new terrorist organization emerged, they could still use existing FISA to begin wiretaps immediately, and just get a retroactive FISA warrant within 72 hours. This whole fiasco is a recursive nest of lies, deceit, and illegality.

Re:How do they know?

[gilroy]

Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Because it's never been about getting a warrant, or conducting the wiretapping, or any legitimate purpose. It's always about immunizing the telecoms so that the lawsuits can't proceed to discovery phase -- which is just a way of saying, it was about immunizing the administration from its misdeeds.

Re:How do they know?

[Zanek]

I wonder when people will start doing something about this :

http://www.pushtruth.com/

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a member of the Green Party, so apparently I'm on Bush's side.

Re:How do they know?

[SeaFox]

Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time. Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

And what would they provide for justification for their warrant? Illegal recordings of telephone conversations?

Re:How do they know?

[mpe]

It's not that hard to presume that they know they are missing information. Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time. Although those examples raise the question of why don't you just get a warrant...

Possibly because whatever information "they" have was gathered illegally. Or simply that there is nothing to show that the recordings could not simply have been made by actors reading from a script.

Re:How do they know?

[mpe]

It is pretty clear that right now all conversations going through the phone systems are recorded. Some are erased after an hour, some are erased after a year.

Without proper oversight how do you know that there arn't ones should be being kept but are being erased quickly? As well as those being kept which shouldn't be...

I'm not even sure this is a bad thing --- it might have been pretty useful to have a copy of all phone calls made in the USA for the 3 days prior to 9/11.

Actually you'd probably want to include all phone calls made into the USA for the same period. But without additional information all you'd have would be a pile of data. Also the 3 days is arbitrary, without additional evidence there's no way to know if there were phone calls between any of the conspirators which made any reference to the plot.

Re:How do they know?

[mpe]

This law is to cover up the fact the bush crime family put blanket tapping uin place BEFORE the 9/11 attacks.

If this were the case it would have relevence far beyond the US. Effectivly this would be proof that such "blanket tapping" has little to no law enforcement value.

Thats right, thgis had nothing to do with "terrorism" when it was set up.

Or it may have a lot to do with 9/11, remember that the US Goverment continue to be suspects.

Re:How do they know?

[Nimey]

Not that it matters. The congressional GOP will continue to obstruct investigations and enable the Decider, and the Party leadership's wishes are more important than those of the People, especially People who are not rich and powerful contributors.

Re:How do they know?

[OakDragon]

In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. Bush wanted the telecom immunity in order to 1. prevent classified information from being exposed in discovery (civil trial) and 2. to better retain the cooperation of the telco companies in the wiretapping efforts. He is not putting their "well-being" over anything.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

I will enjoy it so much when you boy or girl gets in and continues the same thing. Because they will, because it's the right thing to do.

And what will you do without your little punching bag Bush to blame it all on? Be ready to be disappointed in your misguided utopian view of the world.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

They never stopped wiretapping, but they can't use the information that they've gathered from wiretaps when they shouldn't have been wiretapping in court cases, maybe? I don't know. I'm still very angry about all of this though.

Re:How do they know?

[dzfoo]

>> I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

He means that Bush's argument goes something like this:

1. The warrantless wiretapping program is essential for our national security.
2. We must not let it expire and we must enhance its regulation or else the country will be unsafe.
3. Oh and by the way, we could use retro-active immunity for the telcos in order to ensure their cooperation.

His focus when speaking to the American people has been on #1 and #2, in essence playing the "fear card".

By threatening to veto a bill that provides #1 and prevents #2 (his primary argument), just because it does not contain #3 (an auxiliary argument), he is conveying the message that retro-active immunity is more important than national security itself.

Now, you can argue -- as you you seem to do in your comment -- that it is Bush's opinion that retro-active immunity is essential for national security, and that may very well be the case. However, whether it is more important than having the program in the first place is debatable, and understood by many to be an indefensible position; and at the very least gives the appearance of a strawman to the first two arguments I mentioned.

            -dZ.

Re:How do they know?

[Steve B]

Nope. Under existing law, neither of those is a problem... for legal surveillance with a legitimate national security authorization.

This is about a coverup for administration crimes, nothing else.

Re:How do they know?

[grahamd0]

Thats right, thgis had nothing to do with "terrorism" when it was set up.

Or it may have a lot to do with 9/11, remember that the US Goverment continue to be suspects. Only to paranoid idiots. It's pretty easy to discredit any particular assertion made in Loose Change, and the "conspiracy" they're talking about is based on an idea that's so unnecessarily complex that no halfway intelligent person (and I don't think the Loose Change crazies accuse Rumsfeld and Cheney of being stupid) would attempt it.

Re:How do they know?

[sumdumass]

Actually no, it isn't proving himself wrong. If you need a shovel and a rake to get the job done, and are only offered the rake, can you do the job? No. So vetoing a bill that didn't allow him to do the job is simply not allowing a half assed implementation to exist.

You might think well, he got the rake, but he didn't get the tools to dig the dirt up in the first place. If the telecoms are being sued and having to double check everything for fear of a lawsuit from a Bush Basher, he is still handicapped. So what he is saying is that you need to provide what is necessary or there is no benefit over the existing system. That would be in his own words.

Re:How do they know?

[mpe]

Only to paranoid idiots. It's pretty easy to discredit any particular assertion made in Loose Change, and the "conspiracy" they're talking about is based on an idea that's so unnecessarily complex that no halfway intelligent person (and I don't think the Loose Change crazies accuse Rumsfeld and Cheney of being stupid) would attempt it.

That would be one theory, which like the Al-Quada one, isn't especially credible. There must be at least 50 theories about 9/11 (most of which involve conspiracy, since to hijack 4 aircraft without conspiracy would be a rather incredible idea).

Darwinian M&M duels

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theatre of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion.

There can be only one.

Re:Darwinian M&M duels

[Soft Cosmic Rusk]

I must admit that I don't quite see the connection to TFA, but anyway: Would you please either stop doing that or pay my dentist bills?

Re:Darwinian M&M duels

[mazarin5]

Old Brunching Shuttlecocks copypasta is old.

Resuming wiretaps

[Ice Wewe]

...that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies.

Which just goes to show you that they never had any intention to stop wiretapping, just to throw a big tantrum over it and then go back to spying on Americans the good old fashioned way, illegally.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

But Daddy said I'd get to do spy stuff! Spy stuff rules! Bang Bang, Bin Laden!

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[ArcherB]

Which just goes to show you that they never had any intention to stop wiretapping, just to throw a big tantrum over it and then go back to spying on Americans the good old fashioned way, illegally. I hear words like "illegal" an awful lot when it comes to things that Bush does. Illegal wiretapping, Illegal war, Illegal interrogation. Why don't we just call it "undocumented"? Isn't that the new PC word for "illegal"

Seriously. Is it illegal to eavesdrop on overseas conversations? That is what we are talking about here. These calls we are tapping have at least one party overseas. Please, tell me: What law designed to protect non-Americans are we breaking?

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Eggplant62]

Fuck the non-American's, it's the American side of the conversation that needs, no REQUIRES, protection. Last I checked, unwarranted searches and wiretaps were still unconstitutional, but the Bush administration has trampled roughshodden over our rights so much anyway that the sheep living in this country just shut up and take it. It's like everyone in this country has been put under some Svengali spell designed to keep them complacent, docile, and unquestioning, primed for the day before the '08 election, when the Bushies will dispatch the National Guard to institute martial law and a new Christian Theocracy. No one will question it, and no one will even raise a hand to do a damned thing about it.

Yeah, I know, it's a totally made up scenario. But with things going the way they are, that scenario could one day become very real. Take this moment to drop an email to your elected representatives and demand an end to this nonsense.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[ArcherB]

Seriously. Is it illegal to eavesdrop on overseas conversations? That is what we are talking about here. These calls we are tapping have at least one party overseas. Please, tell me: What law designed to protect non-Americans are we breaking? Someone want to explain how this is flamebait? Or was the mod not able answer the question?

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[fangorious]

go dig up the testimony of the AT&T engineer whistleblower, and the Qwest CEO. The surveillance rooms intercept all calls coming over the lines. There is no way for the telcos to route specific calls. During the onset of these programs, no language was involved to specify domestic versus international traffic. The overwhelming majority of traffic going thru some of the centers is domestic. And since you seem so confused, the Constitution is all about inalienable human rights, not inalienable American rights. It says the government needs warrants that specify parameters about what's being search: who; when; where. The very architectural design of this surveillance system (surveil everything that goes through a call center at all times) breaks the specificity requirements.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Phroggy]

Seriously. Is it illegal to eavesdrop on overseas conversations? That is what we are talking about here. These calls we are tapping have at least one party overseas. Please, tell me: What law designed to protect non-Americans are we breaking? Take a look at the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution:

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. The language is a bit archaic, but the gist of it is, the government can't go snooping through your stuff, unless they can show probable cause and get a warrant that says what they're looking for and where it is. Obviously telephones didn't exist at the time, but if they did, it's reasonable to assume that telephone conversations would have also been included along with "papers and effects", so that's how we interpret this.

So it's perfectly OK for the government to wiretap someone's phone, if they get a warrant. However, this raises three concerns: first, if they get a tip, they need to act immediately, and getting a warrant from a judge normally takes time. Second, it may be difficult to explain to a judge who hasn't dealt with matters of national security before why the government really should be wiretapping this person's phone. Finally, warrants are normally a matter of public record, and we wouldn't want terrorists to know which phones we're wiretapping!

So, Congress addressed these concerns by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It establishes a secret court that can issue warrants without making them public; the judges have a ridiculously high security clearance and have training and experience dealing with matters of national security, and the warrants issued by the FISA court are retroactive for 72 hours - so the government can start eavesdropping immediately, then file the paperwork a couple days later and everything is OK. As it turns out, the FISA court is little more than a rubber stamp (apparently out of thousands of warrant applications, they've only ever rejected five). But this allows the government to comply with the Constitutional requirements laid out in the fourth amendment.

The problem is that the Bush administration is ignoring the law and wiretapping people's phones without getting warrants from the FISA court.

You mentioned that these calls have at least one party overseas. Even if you interpret "the people" to include only US citizens on American soil, if only one party is overseas, you're still eavesdropping on a conversation involving an American, so it's still illegal regardless of who they're talking to (if you don't have a warrant).

Also, how do you know the conversations the government is wiretapping all involve foreigners? Sure, that's why President Bush says he wants the power to wiretap without a warrant, but with no oversight whatsoever, all we have is his word, which most of us don't hold in high esteem at the moment.

Does this clear things up?

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[SpaceLifeForm]

It's Sunday in the U.S. and the reich-wing astromods will be out in force. They will be overwhelmed today though, and they should just go back to their planning meetings where they can bullshit each other and feel better.

Seriously moderators, if you have a bad reaction reading something here today on Slashdot, it's probably just due to your cognitive dissonance, and for your own safety, it would be best to leave before your head explodes.

Remember, it's for your own safety, we're here to protect you.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[DittoBox]

Gee, I don't know. Because non-Americans are *gasp* humans as well?

Everyone, not just Americans, deserve basic human rights. You may think you can put a label on someone (EG "terrorist") and then they somehow become less human, so you can do whatever you damn well please.

What if, say, Japan or France or some other foreign nation decided that we were a "terrorist threat," and decided to begin wire tapping conversations going from America to Japan or France? Or originating in those countries? Wouldn't that make sense that you would be outraged that your conversations were being wire tapped by another country? What if you were French or Japanese?

Or how about another country takes you and puts you in their prison, without any kind of legal recourse. They just need to slap a label on you and call it good. Then torture you.

I thought we busted the Japanese for water-boarding in WWII...or was that the Germans? No, wait, it was both. We also busted them for slapping labels on people and locking them up without any legal recourse.

The reason these rights were instituted among men is because you are human, not because you're born in some arbitrary nation.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[ppanon]

The Democrats just need to find the right catch phrase that will resonate with their base and independents. I propose

"Stop dragnet fishing in the telecommunications sea".

The parallel works on many levels, from catching a lot of unmarketable small fish to destroying the environment all depend on.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, how do you know the conversations the government is wiretapping all involve foreigners?

Democrats are close enough...

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[ArcherB]

Gee, I don't know. Because non-Americans are *gasp* humans as well?

Everyone, not just Americans, deserve basic human rights. Oh, so you support our invasion of Iraq then? Are you pushing for us to invade Syria, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so on? If you are going to say that the Constitution applies to all humans, not just Americans, than our government, and us as Americans, have a duty and obligation to guarantee the benefits that the Constitution provides us.

What if, say, Japan or France or some other foreign nation decided that we were a "terrorist threat," and decided to begin wire tapping conversations going from America to Japan or France? Or originating in those countries? Wouldn't that make sense that you would be outraged that your conversations were being wire tapped by another country? What if you were French or Japanese? Personally, I wouldn't care. My conversations are pretty boring. Besides, if I were calling someone in France, and persons in America had attacked France in the past, then I'd fully expect the French government to do whatever it deems necessary to protect its citizens. The government of France nor any other country but my own owes me rights.

I thought we busted the Japanese for water-boarding in WWII...or was that the Germans? Do you realize that Germans hugged their children too? The Japanese ate fish! We do both those things. I hugged my child just this morning right after sharing my shrimp fajitas with her. I guess that makes me a Tojo Nazi then?

Ah, yes. Waterboarding. Do you realize that we've spent less than five minutes total waterboarding since 9-11. We've waterboarded five terrorists... and yes, these were true 100% terrorists, for about an average of 45 seconds each. The Japanese nailed bamboo splints underneath fingernails. The Germans performed "experiments" on its prisoners. Both had forced labor camps. Tell me again how we are the same as the Axis powers of WWII? Tell me how waterboarding the guy that planned 9-11 for less than two minutes puts us in the same leagues as the Germans when they were committing the Holocaust?

I think you need some perspective.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[ArcherB]

And since you seem so confused, the Constitution is all about inalienable human rights, not inalienable American rights. So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.

If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?

Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[imkonen]

What if, say, Japan or France or some other foreign nation decided that we were a "terrorist threat," and decided to begin wire tapping conversations going from America to Japan or France? Or originating in those countries? Wouldn't that make sense that you would be outraged that your conversations were being wire tapped by another country? What if you were French or Japanese?

Personally, I wouldn't care. My conversations are pretty boring. Besides, if I were calling someone in France, and persons in America had attacked France in the past, then I'd fully expect the French government to do whatever it deems necessary to protect its citizens. The government of France nor any other country but my own owes me rights.

Ahh..the old "You've got nothing to worry about...unless you're hiding something." argument. Why not just drop all pretense of having a justice system in this country and let Bush execute or incarcerate anyone he thinks is a terrorist? You're not a terrorist, are you? Surely you're comfortable with this? Snark aside, the real problem with unlimited presidential eavesdropping powers isn't that I'm worried about my boring conversations being picked up. I'm worried about domestic spying being abused for political advantage. It's not like this hasn't already happened in this country, and it's not like the Bush administration has ever once given us reason to think they wouldn't abuse every power the constitution grants them and a few it doesn't. Finally (on this point at least) I can say unequivocally that President Clinton or President Obama shouldn't have the power of warrentless wiretapping either. Are you willing to argue that they should?

I thought we busted the Japanese for water-boarding in WWII...or was that the Germans?

Do you realize that Germans hugged their children too? The Japanese ate fish! We do both those things. I hugged my child just this morning right after sharing my shrimp fajitas with her. I guess that makes me a Tojo Nazi then?

Worst...analogy...ever. Did we prosecute any Germans or Japanese for war crimes because they hugged their children or ate fish? It's a rhetorical question, but I'd better answer it to be sure: no, we didn't. We did actually prosecute (and successfully convict IIRC) some Japanese prison guards who had waterboarded their prisoners...for the act of waterboarding (they may have also ate fish, but for some reason those charges weren't pressed) which we and the court considered torture. To make the argument that waterboarding is torture when someone does it to our soldiers and then turn around and argue that it's not torture when we do it is pure hypocracy.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[fangorious]

So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.

That's a strawman. Firstly because it's the NSA that's conducting surveillance, not the CIA. Secondly because I said the Constitution requires a warrant to conduct a search, not that spying is illegal. Having judicial oversight is the designated balance between the government not being able to perform its duties to defend the country and the government growing into an oppressive tyranny. I have no problem with legal intelligence gathering. The rules are spelled out, and there's a process that allows for changing them.

If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?

We have been using our military to "spread democracy" for 60 years, and the CIA to overthrow democracy and install dictators, and then often have to send in the military to remove them. It's why so many people around the world hate us. If an oppressed group of people need and seek outside help, then I have no problem with international forces coming to the rescue. We just need to follow our Constitution by declaring war with a clear and well-defined goal and follow the Geneva Conventions.

Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?

You're confused because you inferred a quotation where the was none, notice the lack of such notation in my original post. The discussion is regarding the legality of certain government actions. The Declaration of Independence says why we needed a new government. The Constitution defines that government, in such a way as to honor those inalienable human rights. So any discussion of what the government can and can't do must therefore refer to the Constitution.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Phroggy]

Indeed.

If you trust the Bush administration not to abuse their power when they wiretap people's phones without a warrant, will you feel the same way about the Obama administration doing it? If you don't want the Democrats to have this power, then you'd better make sure you don't give it to them.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for posting the clarification in clear form.

You know, we really ought to make people study that document in a little more depth in high school. It's astonishing to me how many voters AND politicians have no idea what the Constitution actually says. This is inexcusable considering how short the document is.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[mpe]

If you trust the Bush administration not to abuse their power when they wiretap people's phones without a warrant, will you feel the same way about the Obama administration doing it?

It probably won't matter who is US President, unless you get someone who is not a career politican.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[evought]

Ah, yes. Waterboarding. Do you realize that we've spent less than five minutes total waterboarding since 9-11. We've waterboarded five terrorists... and yes, these were true 100% terrorists, for about an average of 45 seconds each. The Japanese nailed bamboo splints underneath fingernails. The Germans performed "experiments" on its prisoners. Both had forced labor camps. Tell me again how we are the same as the Axis powers of WWII? Tell me how waterboarding the guy that planned 9-11 for less than two minutes puts us in the same leagues as the Germans when they were committing the Holocaust? And you know exactly how many "real terrorists" were tortured, how, and how long how exactly? Because this administration has been extremely forthcoming in allowing unrestricted civilian oversight, answering subpoenas from Congress without destroying tapes, requests from the Red Cross, law suits from other countries related to extraordinary rendition (at least one related to the CIA grabbing *the wrong person* and subjecting them to torture), and interrogating their duly arrested prisoners in easily inspected prisons within the United States? Somehow I don't think that's the case. Unless you are Mr. Bush logged in to SlashDot, you don't have the foggiest clue what we have done or not done and *that* as much as anything, is the problem. Under the type of regime he has established, I doubt Bush himself knows everything that is going on at this point: his kind of leadership does not inspire honesty in underlings.

It is the same problem with domestic wiretaps. We don't know who they have wiretapped and under what circumstances. We only know what has been reluctantly dragged out of them a piece at a time as they backpedal and try to hide potential evidence. That does not make me confident *at all* that what they have done and what they say they have done match up in any way. I certainly think it justifies further investigation and stricter limits, not less restrictive.

Do we have a responsibility to protect the rights of "everybody in the world"? No, but we certainly have a responsibility not to violate them ourselves, and letting our own government violate us is just stupid. But, in all fairness, it is not just Bush. Congress has not exactly lined up to correct the situation, and a lot of ordinary Americans seem to have been duped as well.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I am tired of being forced into the shadows by society, I have committed no crime, therefore there is no good reason that I should have to hide myself. As long as pedophiles continue to hide, there is no chance of them ever being accepted.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[misanthrope101]

Yes, it seems so obvious that human rights should extend to humans. It's sad that this is an edgy, subversive idea in our day and age. Suddenly basic moral principles are open to nuanced, legalistic discussion.

People just don't have the basic moral character that we like to think they have. Rattle them a little bit and suddenly they'll gladly sign off on tortureing someone to death if it could hypothetically lower the risk of an unspecified something happening to any American at any point in the future. Who are these people? Oh, my fellow Americans. How I love thee.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I am a pedophile-and children are sexual and need release with me via sex/contact.
2) I feel good about myself and my views on children-and will join pedo organizations.
3) I love children-and kids love pedophiles and want to be with them.
4) I wish to defend the right of free sexual expression for children and pedophiles.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Phroggy]

It probably won't matter who is US President, unless you get someone who is not a career politican. Uh, yes, this was basically my point. We should make sure the executive branch doesn't get the authority to wiretap people's phones without a warrant, because regardless of who the President is, they'll abuse the authority.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that Germans hugged their children too? The Japanese ate fish! We do both those things. I hugged my child just this morning right after sharing my shrimp fajitas with her. I guess that makes me a Tojo Nazi then? What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Resuming wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I am a pedophile-and children are sexual and need release with me via sex/contact.
2) I feel good about myself and my views on children-and will join pedo organizations.
3) I love children-and kids love pedophiles and want to be with them
4) I wish to defend the right of free sexual expression for children and pedophiles.

Well that answers the immunity question...

[TheRaven64]

Retroactive immunity is now a moot point. Previously they could argue that they weren't aware that they were operating illegally. Now they surely have no such defence. I'm sure some of the lawyers on Capitol Hill will start using words like 'wilfully' now.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[Bonker]

Hmm... We may actually have to impeach this asshat before the election.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[htnprm]

BS. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Telcos are well aware of the details under FISA. Honestly. The fact that your average American does nothing as a result of the evidence that this administration has been illegally wiretapping since 2002, if not before (Well before the Protect America Act was passed) says so much. People I speak to are waiting for Obama to change things. Well. Wait for this to change:

If Obama is elected - "I haven't had enough time in four years to change anything, so elect me again".
At the next congressional elections - "We haven't had enough time with a Democrat as President, so elect us again". ...What will you all do when nothing changes? I'm taking bets if anyone is interest.

(Note, this post is not a message against Obama, or for any other candidate. Just pointing out details regarding a candidate who everyone thinks will change things, but who is simply another politician, and an individual person, up against the whole of the political machine).

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[whoisjoe]

Hmm... We may actually have to impeach this asshat before the election. We *need* to impeach both of these asshats before the election (both Dubya and Darth Cheney). Given all of their crimes (from misleading the public to sell a war to willfully performing unlawful searches), not impeaching them sends the message to future administrations that this sort of behavior is OK.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[kharchenko]

Not that I don't think he deserved it, but I have some qualms about having current VP fill the spot.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't since 2002, and that's the funny thing: it was since 2001 and *before* 9/11!

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[Alsee]

Impeachment may have been worthwhile years ago, but at this point unfortunately it would be hugely counterproductive. It's far too late to really accomplish much of anything, and all the other asshats would have a field day politicizing it for the next election.

-

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[h4rm0ny]

So why isn't impeachment being done? Who has the power to bring impeachment charges to a president?

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[HiThere]

Because the Democratic Speaker of the House said she wouldn't support impeachment, and would do everything she could to block it. The villains aren't all Republicans.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Retroactive immunity is now a moot point. Previously they could argue that they weren't aware that they were operating illegally. Now they surely have no such defence. I'm sure some of the lawyers on Capitol Hill will start using words like 'wilfully' now.

You miss the point of this gambit.

You know the old saying: When you owe the bank a million bucks, you have a problem. When you owe the bank a billion bucks, the bank has a problem.

Well, when the telcos are liable for $1M in fines, nobody has a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1B in fines, the telcos have a problem. When the telcos are liable for $1T in fines, the government (as in all three branches -- the courts, the DoJ, and the legislators) has a problem.

The financial penalties to which the telcos were exposed, and the jail time to which Administration, government, and telco employees were vulnerable, were already so sky-high that retroactive immunity was on the table. Every telco with the possible exception of Qwest would have been instantly put in Chapter 7 bankruptcy; lock the doors, nobody comes in to work the next day, shareholders and bondholders alike all wiped out. Everything gets sold for pennies on the dollar, probably to some upstart like Google.

That might be a great scenario for us geeks, but that's an unacceptable outcome if you're a telco executive. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any telco lobbyist. Which makes it an unacceptable outcome for any Congressman or Senator who depends on telco cash to get elected.

Now read the statutes and see how much bigger the penalties get when it's wilful. Publicly flouting the law doesn't make the issue of retroactive immunity moot -- it makes it a requirement.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[adrianmonk]

If Obama is elected - "I haven't had enough time in four years to change anything, so elect me again".

This could happen. God knows, stuff like it has happened over and over and over again in the past. But I'm optimistic for 3 reasons:

1. We have a Democratic majority in the House, and a slight Democratic majority in the Senate. It could stay that way while Obama is in office (if he wins).
2. Even if not, Obama seems pretty good at finding a way to do something constructive and work with people who have differing viewpoints. This really helps when you're trying to get things done.
3. Obama seems to get it. He has already stated explicitly on multiple occasions that he is opposed to warrantless wiretaps. And he said this in his appearance at Google's HQ: "Part of my job as the next President is to break the fever of fear that has been exploited by this Administration." (Emphasis mine.)

So, there are no guarantees, of course, but on the other hand, I'm not going to get too cynical about it, because, for once, I could actually see things in politics/government taking a turn for the better. Which is really damned surprising to me, but I'll take it, for sure.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[whoisjoe]

For the uninitiated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

To summarize, the House of Representatives must vote to impeach (i.e., indict or bring charges against the President). Actual removal from office requires conviction, which must be approved by the Senate. Only two presidents have been impeached (Jackson and Clinton), and neither of them were convicted.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to protect the American people from the terrorists.
/
Why are you agaisn't protecting us? If we had this in place 9-11 never would have happened. Why do you support putting a blindfold on the government's job to protect us?

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[h4rm0ny]

Thank you for that. So I'm understanding that the public has no recourse to remove a president even if they have evidence of a crime or dishonesty?

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[DavidTC]

Indeed.

People aren't realizing how much legal liability there is here. (And, luckily, the president cannot wave his pardon-wand at legal liability of lawsuits that haven't happened yet.)

There's enough that, when the Democrats get into office, they can destroy the telecoms industry. Totally, utterly, completely destroy the entire thing, simply by informing every American that was spied on that they were spied on, and making the telecoms liable for trillions of dollars. The largest class-action lawsuit in history would instantly spring up.

I guess it goes to show: If you don't want to go bankrupt, don't repeatedly commit millions of felonies, especially not ones with fines that are per-day and per-person.

And after those lawsuits, expect a bunch of follow-up shareholder lawsuits for destroying the companies, which, because the officers of the company committed crimes, can pierce the corporate veil and target the actual executive's bank accounts.

Oh, and instead of the assets being sold for pennies on the dollar, what should actually happen is that the Democrats pass legislation to deal with this beforehand, and end up nationalizing the telecoms existing infrastructure, and run it for free (In lieu of paying people the fines individually.) and then slowly sell it off as to the highest bidder piecemeal.

I'm sure some people will talk about how this is unfair. It is. There should be a lot more prison time then there's going to be. That would be the best deterrent. We'll just have to settle for grinding the companies into the dirt and the officers who made the decisions into bankrupcy.

Re:Well that answers the immunity question...

[htnprm]

To protect yourselves from the terrorists, first ask yourself why the terrorists exist, and secondly, why they are attacking the United States in particular.

I call B.S.

[christurkel]

Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information.

Riiiiiiiiight. If you can't illegally wiretap, how could you possibly know what you missed? Besides, there is a perfectly good FISA court still around; you can even wiretap and get a warrant 72 hours later.

Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.

Re:I call B.S.

[marzipanic]

Exactly! How would they know? Unless they have the extra secret alleged psychic warriors on the case, which would be easier than the whole wiretap thing.

I believe the age of "Enemy of the State" is upon us, I believe they have been doing it for a very long time! But that is just me and from what I hear.

It is not just the US either, it is UK too http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/29/interception_communications_commissioner/ although they keep getting "wrong numbers" ahem! Bet it is those 0898 numbers they keep trying!

It is good in one way as it will help reduce crime (allegedly) yet in another it is an invasion of privacy and as we know what is meant for good is usually used for bad by certain people.

Bring back James Pond! Codename RoboCod....

Re:I call B.S.

[johnsonav]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on.

Re:I call B.S.

[smitth1276]

I think you need to learn to take any characterization made by a reporter (most of whom aren't that intelligent in the first place) with a grain of salt. Just because a reporter's characterization the agencies' statements was that "they had missed important information" doesn't mean that they actually phrased it like that. What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded '5-insightful' for making that little fallacious leap.

Re:I call B.S.

[maxume]

You mean we are capable of being a better nation than this.

Semantics, but there is an important difference there.

Re:I call B.S.

[Lloyd_Bryant]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on. Even more than a rubber stamp, since the spook agencies are allowed to begin surveillance, *then* apply for the warrant (up to 72 hours later).

But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).

The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created. So Bush & Co. simply decided to ignore the problem and proceed without bothering to get warrants from the FISA court.

Re:I call B.S.

[Verteiron]

Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.

Apparently we are not.

Re:I call B.S.

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Wow, do I look stupid. I had completely forgotten that Gonzales was no longer AG until I spotted a comment about it later in the topic (I guess my mind insists on associating the surveillance program with him, for some reason).

Not that it actually changes anything, mind you. Same agenda, different face.

Re:I call B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants? By all accounts, they are a rubber stamp that will grant most any warrant. The FISA court was set up for exactly the type of activities that they say they are doing. So by circumventing that process, I can only conclude that the real program is much more broad, and illegal, than they are letting on. Exactly, it's ridiculous that this is even a serious discussion. The FISA court system is there for a reason. There is no need for them to circumvent this system unless they are hiding something that is incredibly sheisty. Retroactive immunity is also just as ridiculous. Any company that knew they were aiding the Feds outside of the law should be punished to the full extent.

Why the White House is complaining like a bunch of 10 year olds is just asinine. Enough with these outrageous policies, back door deals, insane cover ups and just downright douchebaggery by this White House.

Re:I call B.S.

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

There is not war on terrorism. War is the wrong word. There are military actions against disparate groups around the world, and there certainly was a war against Iraq which we won but had nothing to do with terrorism, before or during, now there is a threat of Terroism from the mistakes made in that war such that an Al Qauda group has formed in Iraq that was not there before. There is an occupation in Iraq but it is not a war. Iraq has a civil war going on and has groups resistant to the occupation but it is not a War.

So I hate to see the Republican Fear Marketing slogan War on Terror used. It is really like the 1984 war with the Northeast (if I remember right). That continuous war that keeps the population under martial law and rallied around the flag. For what, for accumlation of power.

So the War against Terror is just like the War against Poverty or the War against Aids. Its not a war, its a slogan, lets not forget that. It should not invoke war powers for the Executive branch. Actually it did not, the war powers were granted to go to war against Iraq because they were claimed (falsely and brazenly and seemingly with full knowledge of that falsness) have weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Elise Plame Wilson was outed as a CIA agent because that lie was being exposed by her husband.

Lets not forget the War on Terror is just a marketing slogan and get on with the business of cleaning up the mess in Iraq and the mess in Afganistan.

Terrists exist, there are terrorist who are targeting the US and other countries as well, but giving up our Constitutional rights and protections isn't the way to go. The Executive has lead us into improsonment with no charges, lack of due process, torture, rendition, wiretapping, ... and we dont know the entire extent. This blossoming of illegal unconstitional behavior is unprecedented and I feel unwarranted and the scope and type of those behaviors does not make me trust the ones doing those behaviors.

Marketing slogans should be reserved for those selling soap.

Re:I call B.S.

[jack455]

It's pretty clear that the reason the FISA court doesn't work and is "out-dated" is because they want to dragnet all communications and then search the results for terrorism. Clearly that is unconstitutional and they would never get said warrant. Also, who, even in secret, would write a warrant to allow searching of themselves? (Assuming the "secret" court is in the US)

Re:I call B.S.

[ardent99]

The exact quote from a letter from U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell is "We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," which was in TFA, if you had bothered to read it. Their obvious position is that "intelligence" information is "important" information, or they wouldn't be bothering with this at all.

I find it interesting that rather than address the issue on the merits, you chose instead to make an ad hominem attack on all reporters, say they are unintelligent and shouldn't be trusted, and project an air of arrogance and disdain to further deflect any disagreement.

You seem to be willfully diverting the question from the merits of the administration's remarks to an untruthful characterization of the reporting, a typical tactic of administration apologists. So let's summarize:

1) The administration says something
2) It gets accurately reported
3) You call reporters unintelligent, an ad hominem attack on the messenger,
without actually showing they did anything wrong
4) You assume an air of arrogance and disdain to deflect any questioning of your unjustified statements
5) In the end you have contributed nothing to the discussion of what actually happened

Maybe next time you can actually address the issue rather than mischaracterizing its reporting? What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded +3 insightful for making that little bit of flamebait.

Re:I call B.S.

[pha7boy]

it's more then that. The FBI collects information with the purpose of prosecution. The justice department and the FISA court also operate under that principle - information collected is to stand in court. Intelligence collection is about finding information, not about making a case. As such, the information available for the wiretap might not be good enough to convince a panel of judges. Having a a wiretap dismiss means all the information goes "bye-bye" and can have a snowball effect on the rest of the cases emerging from it. That's one of the reason they are oposed to it.

Re:I call B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the problem likely data mining on voice and data for broad sets of people. Even the vast bureaucratic arm of a police state couldn't handle the individual FISA paperwork.

Re:I call B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want to get warrants because they are engaged in the wholesale datamining of all telecommunications traffic. The paperwork for that many warrants would be staggering, and if the FISA court had to approve all of that there would be rumblings.

They're probably collecting information on political enemies, just like Hoover was using the FBI to do. I wouldn't doubt they're as far up George Soros's ass as they can get, because his name is dropped as a bogeyman every time there's a study that contradicts the Bush world view.

Re:I call B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my opinion that the Bush administration is not really concerned about the financial well being of the telecoms. What they are really concerned about is if some lawsuit actually succeeds. There will then be an actual court decision stating that what the Bush administration has been doing is unconstitutional. If this happens, then the real fun will begin! Can you imagine criminal charges being introduced? This could even happen after the Bush administration leaves office.

Re:I call B.S.

[WK2]

there is a perfectly good FISA court still around; you can even wiretap and get a warrant 72 hours later.

But FISA has a paper trail, which might be publicized via "Freedom of Information". They don't want the public to know exactly how fruitful their wiretaps are. Their decision to wiretap is pretty much just guessing. Somewhat intelligent guesses, better than rolling a 10-sided die 10 times, but not much.

Also, they spend a lot of time spying on people critical of the government. They want to be able to blackmail and/or discredit these people. They don't want anyone to know what they are doing.

Re:I call B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the proper solution is to streamline the process, not to remove the process entirely.

Re:I call B.S.

[dbIII]

The real question for me is, why not get FISA warrants?

Isn't there some requirement in the warrant for there to be some overseas connection with at least one of the parties and some reason instead of just a fishing expedition looking for paticular words?

Re:I call B.S.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

We're a better nation than this.

I think it has been proven time and time again, that, in fact, we are not.

We like to think we are, we congratulate ourselves for being it, and maybe once upon a time we were. But our morals and ethics have faced the biggest test they have had in a long time, if not ever, and we failed. Pretty spectacularly.

I think the fact that we were debating if "waterboarding" constituted torture, on C-SPAN, clearly indicates that ethics, morals, and justice are just so much rhetoric until those notions are put to the test. And we caved to our baser notions in what can only be a speed record.

We have laughed at the French for the speed in which they surrender(ed) when put to the test; I wonder if the US will be known for generations for the speed in which our character collapsed when we were faced with a test.

Re:I call B.S.

[dcam]

But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).

Actually this is not the issue.

The issue is that they cannot get warrants for the information they are retrieving. By all accounts the program captures all information flowing past and then filters that for interesting information. It does not have a specific target in mind, which means they cannot get a warrant.

Re:I call B.S.

[palemantle]

"We're a better nation than this."

Apparently ... not.

Re:I call B.S.

[Ironpoint]

"The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created."

I disagree. The cold war presented a far greater surveillance challenge. The simplest explanation is that the government doesn't want top secret judges to know who they are wiretapping. Given that there is already a history of the executive branch illegally spying for political purposes, this is the most likely explanation.

The 'paperwork' claim hasn't really been put forth by the administration because most people understand that things are done by computer over secure networks. In fact, the administration hasn't really offered any sort of explanation except threatening the public with terrorist attack. The administration probably can't and won't offer an explanation because only illegal programs such as mass wiretapping would require disposing of judicial review.

Re:I call B.S.

[zolaar]

Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.

Apparently we are not.

Yes we are. We've just forgotten how to be that nation.

How long has it been since we had a leader who made us feel proud of ourselves? How long has it been since we've felt truly optimistic about ourselves as a nation? Back in the fifties and early sixties, there was never any doubt as to which nation was the freest, the most ambitious, the most enthusiastic. We were. And we knew it. It was clear in our minds and apparent in our works. We harnessed the forces that shape the universe itself to provide ourselves with energy. We rocketed into the skies and explored the heavens. In a mere twenty years, we transformed ourselves from a nation of farmers and miners into a nation of physicists and astronauts. The American spirit was seemingly indominable.

Seemingly.

We're still human, after all. Disappointments, hardships, and betrayals will inevitably drain on a culture's collective psyche, and America is no different. Our most promising and progressive leaders had been assassinated, our young men had been ordered to die for a cause nobody believed in, and our elected officials had been conspiring against us, against each other, against the rest of the world. Americans lost faith in America.

How could we do otherwise? Our freedoms became conditional. Our ambition turned unprofitable. Our enthusiasm felt naive. Far-removed are we from the iconic notion of a shining beacon of opportunity and hope. Today, America is a marketing campaign for greed and cynicism.

Why? Because, when we lost faith in our country, we lost our faith in ourselves. We collectively, subconsciously approved of our nation's decline because we collectively, subconsciously felt we deserved it. Maybe, for a while, we did deserve it.

There's a problem, however: the world has continued on without us. Things aren't getting any better, either. We still have the same problems we had 30 years ago, and we've accumulated a lengthy queue of new problems as well. Our mourning, our melancholy, our self-loathing : it all must end. Like it or not, ready or not, we've got to stand up again.

Miraculously, we've been blessed with the emergence of a phenomenon we've not seen in nearly forty years: a leader. Energetic, inspirational, charismatic -- a leader who shines with the light of those who gave us hope, daring us to dream again. A leader who challenges us to challenge ourselves, to challenge each other, and to challenge the status quo. Yesterday's hackneyed plans and empty promises, long dismissed by a pessimistic and distrusting populace, now invigorate our hearts and set our minds ablaze. Nothing seems impossible.

A leader who reminds us of who we were, asks us who we are, and dares us to discover what we can become.

We are better than that, sir -- you're mistaken. Don't sweat it, though -- heck, we'd nearly forgotten too.

Re:I call B.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he is correct. Reporters are, on the whole, uneducated morons.

But that is neither here nor there. Idiots like him will refuse to believe any statements that directly challenge their template of the world. i.e. that Bush is the second coming of Hitler, wants to listen in on Democrat's phone sex, blah blah blah.

People like that poster call themselves open minded, but are really the most closed minded people around.

Re:I call B.S.

[UdoKeir]

Because the wiretaps have absolutely nothing to do with national security?

Maybe they're tapping the phones of the DNC for political advantage.

I just don't get it

[websitebroke]

What does the White House, et al. want with this? In the previous system, all you had to do was get a warrant to spy on somebody. There was a special court set up just to issue these warrants, and it was completely confidential. If they really, really had to spy on somebody right this very instant, they could, and just had to make sure that they touched base with the court in the next few hours. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever?

Oh, yeah, he wants us to not sue Verizon, AT&T, whoever. Well, sorry guys, you had a responsibility, as citizens of the USA, to tell the government no. I mean, WTF, corporations run this country anyway...

Re:I just don't get it

[drooling-dog]

What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever? Exactly this. The FISA court is practically a rubber stamp for legitimate surveillance, and yet Bush's spying needs are so super-sensitive that not even it can be allowed to catch wind of them. Unless you believe that the court has been infiltrated somehow by "the terrorists", there's only one logical reason for this: both the court and the public would be outraged if the real reason for the surveillance became known. Are they collecting commercial intelligence for their closest corporate patrons? Do they intend to tamper with the upcoming elections? Are they going to mess with political and ideological opponents? I'd worry about all three.

Re:I just don't get it

[Lijemo]

Because the previous rubber-stamp system left a paper-trail (albeit one they could claim was "classified for reasons of national security") as to who they were spying on and why, and thus had some amount of accountability, no matter how tiny.

The new system does not.

If there's anything this administration hates, it's accountability.

Re:I just don't get it

[bberens]

My speculation is this:

You get a warrant when you want to spy on SOMEONE. You don't get a warrant when you want to capture all inbound and outbound (from the country) telephone traffic and put it through your NSA analyzer supercomputer thingymajig looking for suspicious activity. You see, for something like this to work, you need a very large sample of data to compare to. You will never be given a warrant for little Felipe who wants to call mommy back in Italy to talk about spaghetti recipes. But you need that data as a base line.

Re:I just don't get it

[TubeSteak]

Unless you believe that the court has been infiltrated somehow by "the terrorists", there's only one logical reason for this: both the court and the public would be outraged if the real reason for the surveillance became known. Or it's like the **AA & the DMCA: FISA was a good idea at the time, but now the government has realized how much extra work it is to comply with the law & they're desperate to get around it.

However, the fact that the telecoms are having "understandable misgivings" after the collapse of the immunity bill tells us all we need to know about how their corporate lawyers view the situation. If we're lucky, the truth will get declassified in 25 years, but I doubt it.

Re:I just don't get it

[fizzywhistle]

That baseline data is also what you need to monitor everyone in the country at all times. Especially activists groups of the sort that might cut into corporate profits.

But hey maybe your right. Maybe they're looking for who funds the terrorists, oh wait they already know that (cause Bush and the Royal Family are BFF). They're looking for terrorists in this country. Ohh no wait, that wouldn't work, it would be stupid to communicate over phones or hotmail. No trained terrorist would be that dumb and you don't need the data itself anyway. You just need the points of interest then you can monitor those points (such as cell phone numbers). But then theres disposable cell phones, and OMG the most diabolical of all... snail mail, newspapers, etc. etc.

John Nash might find the red spys, but the NSA is just looking for dirt on anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. Its been done before, thats why we have FISA in the first place.

Speculate all you want, but its just as likely they're looking for Rainbow Ponies as Terrorist in the 'Tubes.

Tapping the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the more enlightening slashdiscussion for today is: when is wiretapping ok and when isn't it, and to what degree? Keeping in mind the world today isn't the same one in Capone's times.

Re:Tapping the future.

[wellingj]

It's ok when they get a fisa warrant, and not ok wehen they decide they don't need one.
Somebody should troll a terrorist attack, get caught, and then expose the whole mess of no fisa warrant.

Re:Tapping the future.

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Somebody should troll a terrorist attack, get caught, and then expose the whole mess of no fisa warrant.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to do the "troll" and "get caught" parts, but the last bit might be really, really hard, because you'd have to make it look like you were serious about it. Once you've put effort into making yourself look like a serious terrorist, it's probably kinda hard to transform into a whistleblower.

Re:Tapping the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

also, noone will hear a whistle that is blown in gitmo.

Re:Tapping the future.

[JackieBrown]

Go ahead

Re:Tapping the future.

[TheLink]

OK, volunteers for anyone willing to get shipped to "friends of the CIA" for rendition, and somehow get back in shape to "expose the whole mess" after X years...

Sounds like a combo Darwin "Peace Prize" Award sort of thing. You might even get a "Purple Heart"...

Now he says that?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bush has said he would hold out for a permanent overhaul of the 1978 surveillance law."

Wow, what a brilliant idea! Too bad Bush didn't suggest that BEFORE authorizing an illegal program and goading the telecom companies into going along with it. Had he done so he wouldn't need to get retroactive immunity for them.

I think everybody understands that in the height of an emergency tough decisions have to be made, but the next priority should have been to move for revision to the FISA legislation, not keep the thing secret for several years and then try to bail out the organizations involved once people found out the law was being broken. Don't like constraints of the FISA law? Conform to it, revise the legislation, or break the law and face the legal consequences. There is no other option for a person holding office who has sworn an oath to uphold the law. Well, there isn't supposed to be.

Business Opportunity ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If for a moment you take the announcement at face value, stop worrying talk to me!

In our area we have several high traffic bridges jammed with commuters every day, this is your chance to buy a fractional share. Your financial worries are ended. Worry about climate change, forget it you can live well even it they sink. Lack of resources and wars over water, by then you will be gone. So what's your worry? Contact me for the opportunity of a life time. Rich at last! Rich I say.

Your Good Ol' Boy the "W"

Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

Yesterday, Bush barfed at us in his radio address:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Terrorists are plotting new attacks against America "at this very moment," Bush said in renewing his call for the House to pass legislation needed to renew the intelligence law that expired last weekend.

Bush has his new Attorney General lying to back him up, but they can't even keep their stories straight:

The Bush administration said yesterday that the government "lost intelligence information" because House Democrats allowed a surveillance law to expire last week, causing some telecommunications companies to refuse to cooperate with terrorism-related wiretapping orders.

But hours later, administration officials told lawmakers that the final holdout among the companies had relented and agreed to fully participate in the surveillance program, according to an official familiar with the issue.

It's obvious that it's Bush's fault the PAA expired without extension:

But even if telecoms were refusing to cooperate, the reason for their refusal was not because they don't have retroactive immunity, but rather, it's because there is alleged uncertainty over the legality of current surveillance requests, and uncertainty over the ongoing validity of the prospective immunity provided by the PAA, because the PAA expired. If the PAA had been extended, they would be completely protected with prospective immunity for future surveillance cooperation. And, of course, the PAA would not have expired had Congressional Democrats had their way -- they wanted to extend it until they could agree to a new bill. Thus, any alleged refusal on the part of telecoms to cooperate is exclusively the fault of Bush and House Republicans for forcing expiration of the PAA. That's just true as a matter of basic logic.

The bottom line is that Bush's own Attorney General just admitted that he and Bush and the rest are repeatedly breaking the law:

But leave all of that aside for a moment. Since Mike Mukasey himself just said in this letter that spying outside of FISA is "illegal," and since it's indisputable that the Bush administration did just that for years, doesn't that compel him as Attorney General to commence a criminal investigation into this "illegal" conduct?

What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?

Re:Bush Blows It

[rpillala]

Yesterday, Bush barfed at us in his radio address:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that Democratic leaders in the House are blocking key intelligence legislation so trial lawyers can sue phone companies that helped the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

This is a fabrication, as the only case pending right now (am I wrong?) is the one by the EFF, hardly a bunch of trial lawyers looking to get rich. Gleen Greenwald interviewed Cindy Cohn, the lead counsel in EFF's case against AT&T in October of last year.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Carewolf]

No one is going to impeach the president as long as the vice president is more corrupt and criminal than the president is.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Anonymous Coward]

You cite the Daily Kos as if it were a credible source? How quaint.

Re:Bush Blows It

[ShieldW0lf]

What does it take to get impeached in this country?

Invasion of the US by the coalition of the willing. When you don't deal with your own, and other countries have to step in, it's a lot worse for you than if you'd done it yourself. Just a thought

Re:Bush Blows It

[houghi]

Iregardless of whether or not he will be impeached, he will loose some of that tention he has.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a respectful note: "iregardless" is not a word. regardless would be quite enough :)

Re:Bush Blows It

[Anonymous Coward]

So impeach him first. A thorough investigation into his back-room energy dealings should provide enough reasons to impeach.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous Republican Coward calls a source not credible without even clicking it, where they'd see it's a simple quote of two contradictory lies by Bush's henchmen, presented with the most basic logic. No wonder facts are a stranger to this AC.

These sources are as "quaint" to Republicans as are the Geneva Conventions they've been torturing for years.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

Why not? Cheney's crimes depend on him having the time and privacy to work them. If he had to be the spokesmodel, and his team were cut in half, the operation would b crippled.

Besides, what makes you say that Cheney's not the president right now? And who says he can't be impeached, on his own charges, or as siamese accomplice to Bush? In case you don't recall, Nixon's VP Agnew was forced to resign first under threat of impeachment (for tax fraud over bribery). Which showed that their gang was vulnerable, which forced people to talk and abandon the conspiracies. Not a bad model for today.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw your intern - get threatened with impeachment.

Screw your country - nothing happens.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Carewolf]

True. To be honest I believe the main reason no one is more aggresive in their attacks on the current president right now is because he has such a short time left, and any attacks is likely to backfire at least a tiny bit on the aggresor. The democrats probably consider their chances better if they are not smeared in the blood of the former president.

That said, it could be harder to remove Cheney than Bush, because his crimes are more traditional stuffing the pockets of his friends, than outright lying to congress (unless I've been overlooking something?)

Re:Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

The Democrats are playing it "safe" because Bush/Cheney's crimes make it cheaper and easier for Democrats to run against them this year. So they're bottling us up in here with them, our only way out seemingly to hand Democrats a trifecta power monopoly. Democrats mainly care about increasing their nominal Senate majority closer 60:40, with Republicans defending 23 seats to Democrats 11. In January the Congress will also probably have some thing like a 15-20 point Democratic House majority, possibly that 60+ seat filibuster-proof Senate, and a Democratic president with the first actual majority of voters since Reagan.

With which Democrats can abuse all those "Bush/Cheney" tyrannical powers without the Iraq War that gets you caught. But with the Iraq War that gets you paid.

Quite a racket. Which is why Americans should force them to impeach, or at least make it as costly as possible not to. Because Republicans will be in no position of any kind to offer the kind of "opposition party" these Democrats couldn't muster even the past 8 years with very solid minorities and blatant catastrophes.

The missing party, as usual. is the American people. And decent country would be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches by now, especially with economic collapse staring everyone in the face. Instead, we've got Slashdot and the Daily Kos. And President VP Cheney.

Re:Bush Blows It

[pclminion]

What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?

Yes, that way we can get Dick Cheney put directly in charge as soon as possible. I wholeheartedly support this measure.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Doc Ruby]

Cheney's already in charge. Impeaching Bush would just force Cheney to waste more time as spokesmodel, and put someone else in the Cheney Bunker at the controls.

Besides, who says we can't impeach Cheney? Though it'll be harder to find someone to blow him.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw your intern - get threatened with impeachment.

Screw your country - nothing happens.

Just for the record, the impeachment was for lying under oath about it. With Hillary as his wife, the sex with the intern was pretty much understood, if not expected.

Re:Bush Blows It

[rhizome]

it could be harder to remove Cheney than Bush, because his crimes are more traditional stuffing the pockets of his friends, than outright lying to congress (unless I've been overlooking something?)

Well, there was the small matter of leaking a CIA agent's name to journalists in retaliation for something her husband did. Frankly, I think the best punishment for Cheney would be for him to become president after Bush is impeached.

Re:Bush Blows It

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine, impeach the entire executive branch and call it a day.

Re:Bush Blows It

[HiThere]

What it takes to impeach a president is the House of Representatives needs to decide to do so.

That's it.

Conviction requires that the Senate agree.

As to just *what* someone can be impeached for... "High crimes and misdemeanors". If that's defined anywhere, I don't know it. (It probably is defined somewhere, but it certainly isn't defined in the constitution.) But practically what a president is impeached for is getting the leadership of the House of Representatives angry enough. The now Speaker of the House promised over two years ago to not impeach the president. Looks like she stays bought. I wonder who paid her off.

Re:Bush Blows It

[neomunk]

Maybe they just showed her some results of some of that-there FISAless warrantless wiretapping. Results with her as a participant in a, to be polite, awkward conversation.

With bandwidth prices being so low nowadays, I'd say that's a pretty cheap and efficient method of making mass-payoffs... if you consider not having a private conversation aired publicly a payoff. If you throw in a nice position in the House (Speaker sounds dandy), I guess it's not a bad deal, assuming you've already sold your soul (and lets be honest, these ARE politicians we're talking about).

Re:Bush Blows It

[yuna49]

I can't imagine many people actually listen to any of these addresses; they just provide fodder for later press coverage. This sounds like Bush preaching to the Republican choir about the evils of trial lawyering. Many Republicans see organizations like the EFF as "trial lawyers" even if those organizations have very different goals and rewards.

Some of you may recall the piece here the other day about AL senator Sessions attempts to overturn a patent decision concerning electronic check clearing. He also saw this issue as another attempt by wicked trial lawyers to extract unfair settlements from the poor banking industry.

The depth of animosity between the parties over "trial lawyers" and plaintiffs' actions is profound. Democrats see the attorneys as defending the little guy against the malfeasance of large corporations and governments. Republicans see plaintiffs' attorneys as a bunch of greedy ambulance chasers out to make a quick buck off apparent fat-cat targets.

Personally I wish John Edwards could become an AL citizen in time to run against Sessions. The debates in that campaign would have been great theater.

Corporate intrest

[Dan541]

I cant help but wonder how long it will be until the RIAA are allowed to wiretap just in case people are talking about their latest downloads.

~Dan

Re:Corporate intrest

[rhendershot]

I was going to moderate you off-topic but, well, then.... my 2 cents.

First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts. That goes WAY beyond the issues of private commerce between individuals and recordings-producers.

With that said; what the fux do you think DRM *is* except a way to "wiretap" the private individual (aka. customer). Without judicial review. Unilaterally.

Personally I think it's a violation of RICO and monopolistic to enforce law through technology when the issues of fair-use are not resolved by a court. That's another rant though.

Re:Corporate intrest

[jimmydevice]

The lower the # the thicker the tin-foil?

Re:Corporate intrest

[datatrash]

First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts.

I agree with this but I think it runs both ways to some degree, because, Bush has said that the companies won't participate if they don't have immunity. Could one then make the argument that this then means that with immunity they are more than happy to participate since it doesn't matter if it is illegal? Now, I don't think believe that the telecoms just sit around waiting to turn over user information to the governemnt. That said, in other situations (the COPA case for instance, which involved search records) most ISPs and search engines were fine going along with the government request even when it may have been overbroad. While there may be some strong arming going on, it also might be possible that its fine for them, they just don't want to get in trouble.

Anyhow, if it so important to have this that all national security depends on it and the terrorists are winning without it, what does that say about our telecoms when they make immunity for any wrong doings a precondition of helping the government? Doesn't sound very patriotic. Quick, someone check their lapels to see if they are wearing their flag pins.

Re:Corporate intrest

[rhendershot]

dude. I didn't mean wiretap as in Allow the government to listen-in, I meant "wiretap" as in Maintain a presence within the private individual's domain. DRM does that. It's law enformcement. Except mostly without the backing of law. Until recently...

They're playing to cover their own crimes

[Phoenix666]

If the Whitehouse can bully Congress into passing retroactive immunity to the telecoms for warrantless wiretapping, then they also by extension are exhonerated. So, they get to get a free pass for breaking the law without directly asking Congress to give it to them.

Re:They're playing to cover their own crimes

[jbengt]

I've got a compromise to suggest.
Instead of giving the telecoms immunity, give them the right to sue the government (and the government people involved) if the telecoms acted in good faith relying on direction by the government that what they are doing is legal. This would satisfy the need for corporations to limit their liability, while allowing the real purpose of the lawsuits to survive: finding out what's really going on.

Holy crap

[Anonymous Coward]

you made my day.

Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon: a counterstrike map that accurately portrays the White House and surrounding grounds. Of course it's an assassination map. Suck it Bush, you're the only president in the last 40 years (yes, including Nixon) that if I knew I could get completely scot free with killing that I'd have to seriously think about it.

Re:Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you have just been wiretapped.

Re:Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you even have to think about it?

There's a word for this: Fascism

[Ralph Spoilsport]

They could do this legally through the FISA courts, but rather than go bother with even a Ruber Stamp court like FISA and at least pretend they're not spying on American citizens in direct violation of the fourth amendment for which the FISA courts were implemented to supposedly protect, they would rather run rough shod over everyone's privacy and interests for their own ends based out of their own incompetence and ignorance.

The sad part? There is no promise that any democratic administration would stop this.

Why? Because it's fascism, or, as one of the guys who invented fascism (Mussolini) caled it: Corporatism.

The American Empire is dying and it's a sad thing to watch it act, as WS Burroughs said in 1984, as the single greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.

RS

Re:There's a word for this: Fascism

[KKlaus]

No he did not. Not only is the quotation you are referring to probably apocryphal (it does not appear in any known records), but the word "corporazioni" that he is supposed to have used does not mean corporation. Feel free to do some actual research (the wikipedia page on corporatism would be fine) and you will see that the word means more like guild. So please stop spouting nonsense. Fascism has very little to do with corporatism and Mussolini was certainly no corporatist. He was, in fact, nearly the opposite. But I guess Orwell was right when he wrote that Fascism has come to mean little more than "something that I don't like," (writing in the 50's!), and here we see another example of people desperate to call something they hate Fascist, and they aren't going to let something like whether or not it actually has any of the aspects of Fascism (or Fascism of it) get in the way.

Re:There's a word for this: Fascism

[Fantastic Lad]

The parent poster may not have all his facts correct, but don't you think you're being a little harsh?

But I guess Orwell was right when he wrote that Fascism has come to mean little more than "something that I don't like," (writing in the 50's!), and here we see another example of people desperate to call something they hate Fascist, and they aren't going to let something like whether or not it actually has any of the aspects of Fascism (or Fascism of it) get in the way.

Definitions of Fascism.

What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets.

Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

People are upset about the government tapping their phone lines. What difference does it make if phone taps don't fall precisely into some pre-defined category which nobody can agree on anyway?

Many words naturally evolve. The intent behind them the thing which matters.

The Bush government is a, "Thing I Don't Like", but if I call the Bush Government, "Fascist", I'm communicating a lot more in a lot fewer syllables.

-FL

What do you expect with a secret government?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of secret governments that spy on people in fear of terrorism, an open government would make all these problems go away. There's no point conducting terrorist attacks when you can productively participate in the system. And of course, there's no point in an open government trying to do things in secret.

The framework is already being built: http://www.metagovernment.org/

I'm sure that website is "wiretapped" :) but it doesn't matter. There are no leaders in an open source government.

It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped

[Zollui]

The NSA has been eavesdropping on electronic comms of US citizens including telephone conversations for several decades. It was illegal to do this in the USA so they did it from their base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, England (MH is the world's largest listening post).

Re:It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped

[TheLink]

That'll be rather hard, since you'd have to send all the conversations across the Atlantic.

Much easier if you shipped the Brits to the USA to listen and then ask them if they heard anything interesting ;). Then you have some of your people to the UK to listen to the UK people and do the same thing. Similarly for the rest of the Echelon members.

BUT the main thing is, it looks like they've even stopped bothering to go through the proper motions. And that should worry the people in the USA (and people elsewhere because the USA is the most powerful nation and willing to unilaterally use that power for bad reasons).

When the people in power regard their _subjects_ with such contempt that they even stop putting on a "quality show", then it makes you wonder what's next.

Re:It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA has been eavesdropping on electronic comms of US citizens including telephone conversations for several decades

And this reinforces the fact that eavesdropping does not prevent terrorist attacks (911).

Re:It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped

[Zollui]

It's funny you should mention that, because the Menwith Hill listening post is widely known to be a listening post, but in the UK the official line is that it's an RAF base (it happens to have an ancillary RAF function). Reciprocally, the UK has a permanent RAF base in the USA (Nevada I think). And naturally, UK servicemen on an RAF base are not answerable to American laws, and are free to listen to whatever they want (including American telephone conversations) without obtaining a warrant from an American court. So it's likely that some kind of exchange of information takes place on the pretext of these reciprocal Air Force bases.

Just by way of reminder

[HangingChad]

We were not completely surprised by the 9-11 hijackers, the problem was we didn't act on what we did know. Even then we knew. We knew without the Patriot Act, we knew without wholesale spying on the American public, we knew without the Protect America Act. We knew and did nothing. So now the solution is to spy on Americans. Makes almost as much sense as being attacked by terrorists operating out of Afghanistan and responding by attacking Iraq.

Only a Republican would think it makes sense to fight terrorism by monitoring my 83 year old mom's phone calls.

And, just in case this dust up has interfered with the intelligence community's ability to monitor the activity of Americans, the bake sale has been postponed until next week because the lady running it broke her hip and mom change her hair appointment to 11 am this week because Marge's family is flying in from Montana. And dad still can't figure out why his pineapple plants keep dying in the front yard. Now you're up to date.

Re:Just by way of reminder

[rubycodez]

re: nsacarnivore-20080915-1103535-2535EJA34032:
subject lives in climate where pineapples can grow, similar to asian areas with high islamic radical populations. relatives in Montana which is known abode of militia groups. subject altering appearance at 11am.

action: subject to be reclassified as probable threat to national security.

Re:Just by way of reminder

[WickedLogic]

You are making the same mistake if you just blame the republicans. Both parties will continue to abuse the ill-gotten power of the previous party, this is how we got in this mess. It is a fallacy if you think this is a two sided issue, they aren't on the same team but they are funded by the same people.

Re:Just by way of reminder

[tom's a-cold]

Only a Republican would think it makes sense to fight terrorism by monitoring my 83 year old mom's phone calls.

They're not afraid of terrorists. They're afraid of us. Even your mom. And they have every reason to be afraid: criminals are often scared of being held accountable for their crimes.

Revolution 2.0

[fishthegeek]

Will be fought one vote at a time. If the telecom providers didn't do anything wrong when they assisted the wiretaps then they do not need legal protection from congress. By moving to protect the telecom providers Congress is implicitly admitting that they acted in ways that are probably illegal.

Re:Revolution 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

"One vote at a time?" Isn't mere voting a little simplistic for Revolution 2.0?

The introduction of social networks into governance adds a whole new dimension to democracy.

Bush has agreed to pardon the telcos?

[schwit1]

How else could he continue to get unfettered access to the phone systems?

Radical Transparency

[Anonymous Coward]

These ideas are well-known: Radical Transparency and Open Source Governance.

But it is great to see people trying to make it happen.

psychic warriors

[jefu]

Given the reports of the value of the intelligence before the Iraq war, and the continuing reports of bad intelligence about other areas, it may not be unreasonable to assume that most of the intelligence gathering by the CIA is indeed being run by psychic agents. The satellite they just shot down - it contained a very highly instrumented dowsing rod.

Sounds almost like a comedy film plot - go into the CIA and see women with crystal balls (probably wearing trench coats), levitating tables, windowless rooms with velvet covered tables for tarot readings.

Re:psychic warriors

[oddtom]

A comedy, you mean like this? Unfortunately, in this case it would be more appropriate to cry rather than laugh.

Re:psychic warriors

[dbIII]

Is that another one to blame on scientologists funnelling money out or just on confidence tricksters in general where one just happens to be a leading scientologist? It's amusing to see that there actually was a contraversial military project called "The Stargate Project" - I wonder if the scriptwriter for the movie got the name from that or vice versa?

Wiretap this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw Fuhrer Bush and screw the United Snakes of Amerikkka!

Resume?

[nurb432]

Did they ever really stop?

This whole issue of the US gov. spying on ....

[3seas]

...its citizens is not about identifying potential terrorists but rather to determine what the general public mindset is so to know what to promote in order to manipulate it.

Why such spying has resumed, or hasn't stopped, is because its an election year.

And that should be obvious.

Is this against the constitution of the united states? Absolutely, as it is an intent to invade privacy in order to deceive.

This is nothing new as even the "Declaration of Independence" identifies government abuse of its citizens, even being specific.

To All: When was the last time you read it?

Now what?

[EaglemanBSA]

...and just when I thought the administration couldn't be any more open about breaking the law and violating my civil liberties. Honestly, does this piss everybody else off as much as it does me? I'm all for America, and I think we have a good number of good things going on over here, but this is getting ridiculous - we have these controls in place (the representatives of the people) to limit the power of the executive branch, and it's as if the administration doesn't even hear them.

I don't know what's worse, not having any input at all, or knowing that it won't be used in any decisions in the end anyway.

Re:Now what?

[ArcherB]

...and just when I thought the administration couldn't be any more open about breaking the law and violating my civil liberties. Honestly, does this piss everybody else off as much as it does me? Yeah, it did until I realized that we are talking about conversations where one or both parties are NOT in America. Then I started wondering what made me, and evidently everyone else, start thinking that the Constitution was meant to protect everyone in the world. Why are we extending Constitutional rights to people in Pakistan, Germany, Indonesia and Burma when their own governments don't?

Then I realized. It was the rhetoric. "Illegal Wiretaps" sounds so much more unconstitutional than "foreign surveillance". Bush's illegal war in Iraq sounds so much worse than "Bush's Congressional approved liberation of a country that was riddled mass graves of women and children". It sounds so much more ominous when it has the right name.

It works the other way too. "Undocumented workers" instead of "illegal aliens"...

Re:Now what?

[EaglemanBSA]

My fiancee lives in a foreign country, and I call her every other day, you insensitive clod. Perhaps you missed the part where it's totally possible to monitor those phone conversations legally, with a warrant (at which point I would have no problem with it). Why the need for such secrecy, that the tap has to be without the approval of a judge, even 72 hours after the fact?

Beyond that, this isn't just about wiretapping phones. It sets a very dangerous precedent through which the executive branch can bypass the legislative branch's powers and act illegally with no fear of repercussions.

Re:Now what?

[Dr. Donuts]

Yes, and how exactly do you know what IS and ISN't being tapped, if there is no judicial oversight? How do you know what conversations and who is where, and what reason is there for the tap?

That's the problem with warrantless wiretapping, there's no accountability to make sure that what is being tapped is legal.

It's not about extending Constitutional rights to others, it's about making sure yours are protected right here at home.

Re:Now what?

[LunarCrisis]

Yeah, it did until I realized that we are talking about conversations where one or both parties are NOT in America.

Right, so it's okay as long as they are only spying on one American and not two?

Re:Now what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it did until I realized that we are talking about conversations where one or both parties are NOT in America. Then I started wondering what made me, and evidently everyone else, start thinking that the Constitution was meant to protect everyone in the world. Why are we extending Constitutional rights to people in Pakistan, Germany, Indonesia and Burma when their own governments don't? If one of the people being wiretapped is an American, that is "domestic wiretapping" however you try to spin it.

    The Constitution is a document designed to protect Americans from an evil government, and one of the first things a government does when it turns evil is to run surveillance on its own citizens because it knows those citizens are pretty pissed-off and want to do something about it.

Whether or not other countries have evil governments, it is NOT okay for our government to turn evil "but just to people who are not citizens". It's then only a matter of time before they do it to you, too. Our government is currently doing everything the Constitution was designed to prevent, but somehow if it uses taxpayer money to do it on taxpayer defended land that is "rented" from another country to foreigners then somehow it's okay?

Bush's illegal war in Iraq sounds so much worse than "Bush's Congressional approved liberation of a country that was riddled mass graves of women and children". Iraq has many more mass graves now than before the U.S's "approved liberation" of their oil, and now they have mass killings pretty much every day, and hardly any water, electricity, security, or sewer services either. Whether Bush's patsies in Congress voted for it or not does not make it right. This was a war of aggression, pure and simple, no matter how many lies were spun to try and make it look otherwise. One of Germany's first acts in starting WWII was to similarly "liberate" Poland.

Germany was a constitutional democracy before it became totalitarian, and one of the factors in allowing to become an evil totalitarian state was because they had many right-wing shills like you helping helping it become that way. It wasn't right then, and it's not right now, and the US government should not behave evilly just because someone is not a "citizen" or the "terrists" are supposedly out to kill us.

A free people are free from government spying. Don't be one of those helping the US become less free.

Re:Now what?

[esper]

I realized that we are talking about conversations where one or both parties are NOT in America.

No, Bush claims that we're talking about conversations where one or both parties are outside of the US. And this surveillance is being done entirely by people who, directly or indirectly, work for Bush himself without even attempting to maintain the trappings of due process or third-party oversight, so we have no meaningful assurance that it really is being limited to conversations where one or both parties are outside of the US.

Even if we assume for the moment that everything the executive branch has said about it in public is absolutely, 100% true and the program is being impeccably run in perfect compliance with all actors' best judgement solely to support the national good, there are still two issues with it:

1) If they're monitoring conversations where one party is a US citizen on US soil, that effectively means that you give up (some) Constitutional protections solely for the act of speaking to someone outside of the US. That should not be.

2) Even if Bush is running this surveillance program perfectly and in a manner which respects the rights of all innocent people in general and US citizens in particular, what about the next President? Or the one after that? Or the guy 20 years from now? Somewhere down the line, we will have a President who is not beneath using these powers for personal gain. If Congress makes the powers permanent, they'll fall right into that bastard's lap. If they're allowed to expire, but ultimately viewed favorably, he'll be able to cite the present day as precedent in his bid to have those powers "restored". This is why we must not allow the President (or any branch of government, really) to have powers which can be easily abused without accountability, regardless of who gets those powers today - it's just a matter of time before the powers will fall into the hands of someone who will abuse them.

Re:Now what?

[Sergeant Pepper]

what made me, and evidently everyone else, start thinking that the Constitution was meant to protect everyone in the world Because... it... does. Seriously. I see this argument so often and it's utterly ridiculous. Things like "Oh, the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens!" No, it doesn't. It never uses the word "citizen," only "person." Other parts of the constitution use the word "citizen," but not the Bill of Rights.

In 1982, in the case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to all people over which the government had power. Thus, they cannot violate anyone's Constitutional rights except for as provided for by law. Immigrant-status, citizen-status, or anything is completely irrelevant.

Re:Now what?

[ArcherB]

My fiancee lives in a foreign country, and I call her every other day, you insensitive clod. Perhaps you missed the part where it's totally possible to monitor those phone conversations legally, with a warrant (at which point I would have no problem with it). Why the need for such secrecy, that the tap has to be without the approval of a judge, even 72 hours after the fact? Getting a warrant is great, if you know which phones to tap. Now, I ask you this, and this is the key, How do you know which phones to tap?

The phones we were tapping last year are no longer active. All the terrorists we capture are carrying "disposable", "Pay-As-You-Go" phones. Each week, they are carrying a new one. So, again, how do you know which phone to tap? unless you have a system in place that listens to a wide range of signals, sniffing for key words or patterns. Do you get warrants for all those calls that are "sniffed"? Do you get warrants for the thousands of hits out there that end up as false leads? Do you get a warrant to tap that safe-house that you are about to drop a pair of 500-lb bombs on? Or, do you just bother with the ones you plan on prosecuting in an actual court?

Beyond that, this isn't just about wiretapping phones. It sets a very dangerous precedent through which the executive branch can bypass the legislative branch's powers and act illegally with no fear of repercussions. No, right now, it's about tapping phones. When we hear about them tapping or spying on political opponents (like the previous administration did), then THAT'S abuse. Tapping foreign phone calls is not.

Re:Now what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting a warrant is great, if you know which phones to tap. Now, I ask you this, and this is the key, How do you know which phones to tap?

How do you know where the terrorists are hiding? Let's just search every home and business at random!

Spying on the democrats and peace groups

[Anonymous Coward]

They know that they can get fisa warrants on anyone they want to even retroactively, so the only reason they can be putting up a fuss is that they are spying on people that wouldn't be approved by fisa - peace groups, eco groups, and anyone that wants to oppose them like democrats. 800,000 AMERICANS are on the terrorist watch list - they can't all be al queda. After this post I might be too.

The end of the Afghan war

[Max_W]

To understand what is going on in the USA and in the world one has to realize what a traumatizing event was the destruction of Mew York City and the US military headquarters in September of 2001.

The war in the Afghanistan ended not by the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The true end of the war was on 9/11. It was the logical final of supporting and financing the religious fanatics around the world.

At the same time it was a wrongful attack on the civilian targets which forever changed the social and political climate in the USA. Like the defeat of Germany in 1918 brought radicalism and extremism decades later, the same way 9/11 will bring the certain political realities for years to come.

What happens in Iraq, Kosovo, the USA itself is the message which hurt American people send to the world and to themselves: "We can be as cruel, ruthless, nasty just about the same as the outside world was to us. Even more so. Much much more."

There is nothing new in this phenomena. Sometimes people are surprised why the leadership of the USSR did not want accept some good economics ideas from the West. But they forget that Leonid Brezhnev was a general during the WW2. He was part of the battle for Crimea. He was among few survivors of the most ferocious artillery barrage during human history at Malays Zemlya.

It is difficult to expect a senseful decisions from traumatized people. The crime that was committed against the great nation on 9/11 will be felt by the generations to come.

The New York City was not only the achievement of the USA. It was the part of the humankind heritage. That is why its destruction changed the humankind. Inevitably to the worse.

Re:The end of the Afghan war

[ChromaticDragon]

There is one fly in the ointment of your essay suggesting that the tilt towards power consolidation in the US is due to the destruction of the twin towers. Actually there seem to be a lot of dead or funky insects in there. Let's see...

OK. There's this one twitching, little bug about the fact that the illegal wiretapping under discussion here started in February 2001. Last I checked, assuming causality, order of time, lack of time travel and all that... February is BEFORE September. The very issue under discussion could not have been implemented in February based on events in September.

Wow. There's also this fascinating old creepy-crawly that it is not entirely clear that Yoo's theory of the Unitary Executive developed only after September 11, 2001. No... it looks like several of the creepy folk crawling in, out and around the Bush administration had put forward lots of ideas towards strengthening executive power (eg. the rampant use of Signing Statements). These were documented well before September, 2001.

And look at THAT!! There's this monstrous spider with strange markings on its back that appear to spell out PNAC. It truly does appear that certain groups were hellbent on expanding and projecting American military power, including via several wars, long before September 11, 2001. It seems likely, although completely hypothetical, that we'd have gone to war with Iraq even without the attack on NYC.

Actually... your salve does nothing to cover up the stench that is the Bush Administration (and the completely complicit Republican congress). Whatever the reasons are for what is happening in the US, it is not at all completely explained as a reaction to the trauma of 9/11.

Re:The end of the Afghan war

[Max_W]

First of all it was not only twin towers. You are still in the denial phase. The damage to the New York City was enormous. Both physical and moral. In fact, it was the technological weapons of mass destruction.

Many buildings around got the structural damage, cracks. The city was polluted by the toxic ashes and dust. If earlier the NYC was the major tourist attraction it turned into no-go zone.

The characteristic Manhattan skyline had been an object of fascination and inspiration for people around the world. Now it looks like a dangerous contraption where people do not even want to rent.

People in the USA are rightfully angry about it.It is the mood in millions of the US households that the US should "kick the ass" or be considered a sissy. Politicians feel these mood on their antennas, besides they are themselves part of the society.

As we know the denial phases is followed by the anger phase, then the depression phase, and only then by the acceptance. The same way as the radicalism in Germany reached its peak 15 - 20 years after the humiliating defeat of 1918, the same way we will see the consequences of the 9/11 still many years with possibly unpredictable tragic consequences for the whole world.

The New York City was the pinnacle of the civilization. Possibly its destruction signified the end of the civilization itself. Like those skyscrapers folded after some time, the whole world may fold the same way.

Re:The end of the Afghan war

[ghostunit]

That's the problem with you people. Always trying to aggrandize stuff out of proportion.

Listen here, 9/11 was an act of international terrorism, and should have been dealt with as such. What's with this "war on terror" non-sense? you are all just reacting as it's one of your damn movies or something.

Lies and follies are always paid for (even if it's not you who is being made to pay the cost) and the sooner you realize that phrases like "great nation", "achievement of humanity" and "noble intentions" mean nothing at best and complete hipocrisy most of the time, the better.

How unpatriotic

[krbvroc1]

We know the answer already, but why isn't the government highlighting just how unpatriotic these Telecom companies are that they are unwilling to help in the 'war on terra'. I mean if its so important, just nationalize the fuckers.

This has to be a cover-up

[Animats]

The Bush administration has to be covering up something very embarrassing. Something worse than what we know about already. Otherwise it wouldn't be spending its remaining political capital on this issue.

If the Bush administration really had a national security case for this, they could make it in a classified briefing for the House and Senate intelligence committees with the people at the CIA, NSA and telcos directly involved testifying under oath. They haven't done that.

The Bush administration likes to pretend that the President is the "decider", but he isn't. Congress is. Whenever Congress takes a unified position opposing the President, they win. Even many of the Republicans in Congress are fed up with Bush at this point.

The details will come out under the next administration.

Re:This has to be a cover-up

[Boronx]

The Bush administration has to be covering up something very embarrassing. Something worse than what we know about already. Otherwise it wouldn't be spending its remaining political capital on this issue.

There's no mystery: the Bush administration began spying illegally on Americans soon after it came to power, that is months *before* Sept. 11. Not only did the system fail to prevent the attack even though much information was already known about the hijackers, but it was initiated during a period when terrorism didn't even make the list of Bush administration priorities, even though they'd been warned by the Clinton administration to take it seriously.

So what's to hide? 1) Illegal spying already has failed to protect the country. 2) Illegal spying was not started to protect America from terrorism. The real purpose is still not public.

Somewhat related to your other point: This congress won't have the guts to impeach Bush, because despite what you say, all most every Republican politician still has his bag. The next Congress can, however, impeach a president after he leaves office: this is mostly symbolic, but would also cut off all federal funds to Bush and prevent him from taking other federal offices.

Criminal charges

[Nimey]

Since the current congress is too spineless, too complicit, and too full of Republicans, I think we'll have to pin our hopes on the next President telling his AG to investigate and pursue criminal charges against those responsible in the Bush Administration and in Congress.

That definitely wouldn't be Clinton (too much of an insider) and it wouldn't be McCain (he's shown he's a good boy after all), and Paul hasn't got a snowball's chance. I can only hope that Obama wouldn't pull a Ford and pardon Bush "so the country can move on".

Re:Criminal charges

[Vellmont]

I think we'll have to pin our hopes on the next President telling his AG to investigate and pursue criminal charges against those responsible in the Bush Administration and in Congress.


It'll never happen, no matter who the president winds up being. Any administration doesn't want to look back on the previous one, and realistically they only have so much political capital to spend. This administration has screwed things up so badly that it'd actually be a waste of political capital for a new President to pursue that.

I'd say the only hope we have of that happening is someone in Congress to take up that cause.

Re:Criminal charges

[TheRaven64]

I'm not convinced. The current administration has so completely discredited the office of the president, both domestically and internationally, that it will take a lot to restore it. Pursuing criminal charges would send a message that the President is not a dictator, and that the new incumbent expected to be held to account for their actions.

Re:Criminal charges

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we'll have to pin our hopes on the next President telling his AG to investigate and pursue criminal charges against those responsible in the Bush Administration and in Congress.

The Bush administration knows about this risk. They are busy shredding what little paper trail there is. Then, a day or two before Bush leaves office, he'll pardon everyone for everything. Just watch.

For all you legal experts

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know who to get a warrant for if you have not listened to their conversations? I am so tired of these lame Slashdot circular arguments. This is like requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding, if you don't know they are speeding, then how can you get the warrant? Next I suppose you will tell me they needed warrants in WW2 to listen to shortwave broadcasts of spies residing in the US. (even if they didn't know the source) Same idea, different technology.

Furthermore you haven't bothered to show any intelligent distinction between gathering intelligence and building a legal case which have completely different sets of goals. The only way the 9/11 guys could have been stopped was if you knew what they were planning. And that would have required listening. But please, by all means, tell me how you will keep us safe, by doing nothing. It is such a well though out plan. Of course if always gives you a new reason to complain about the government for failing to protect you as you have tied their hands. What a bunch of whiners

Re:For all you legal experts

[scifiber_phil]

No amount of intelligence will ever make you "safe". Warrantless wiretaps will, however, make you a slave to self-censorship. When the first time comes to you when you hold your tongue, because the government may be listening, warrantless wiretaps will no longer seem like a good idea. Freedom means that you can live your life unscrutinized until there is actionable cause to suspect you have committed a crime. Then it's time to get a warrant and investigate, not before the fact. Freedom does not mean spy on everyone all the time to keep them honest. Now, do you want to live in freedom or not? Whatever your answer is, do not presume to tell me that I should live in fear and repression so you might be "safe". That decision is not yours to make.

Re:For all you legal experts

[esper]

You're forgetting that there's a substantial body of evidence, including testimony from involved FBI agents, that we did know what the 9/11 guys were planning, based on information collected through old-fashioned police work, without the need for warrantless wiretaps or any of the other powers granted or assumed by the President since then.

There is a vast difference between "we must operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and the law" and "we should do nothing".

Re:For all you legal experts

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom means that you can live your life unscrutinized until there is actionable cause to suspect you have committed a crime. Then it's time to get a warrant and investigate, not before the fact. Freedom does not mean spy on everyone all the time to keep them honest. Now, do you want to live in freedom or not? Whatever your answer is, do not presume to tell me that I should live in fear and repression so you might be "safe". That decision is not yours to make. So by your "definition" of Freedom, police can only react to crimes, not try to prevent them. So you have no answer to preventing another 9/11. They did not commit any crimes till they took control of the planes. Your solution is to do nothing to protect society. I feel so much better. And in case you missed the topic, the issues at hand was not to Spy on everyone all the time (fallacious argument)
but to Spy on people talking to terrorists.

Re:For all you legal experts

[justinlee37]

I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment.

This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having their actions reviewed by a judge, and without telling you.

How would you feel then? Personally, I'd start to feel like it resembled Nazi Germany or Cold War Russia.

What we ought to be asking is, why hasn't the supreme court acted?

Hey, who is on the supreme court these days, anyway?

News at 11

[conureman]

Yeah, like an announcement by our Fearless Leader was needed, for us to know they are tapping our communications.

Re:News at 11

[The Spoonman]

Yeah, like an announcement by our FearFUL Leader was needed, for us to know they are tapping our communications.

There, I corrected that for you. Bush, like anyone else still afraid of "terrorists", is a huge pussy.

Re:News at 11

[element-o.p.]

I've got to disagree with you there. The dude's got cojones so large, I'm amazed he can still walk.

Look at it this way. His attorney general when he first announced the program has left the post in disgrace. Congress refused to pass an act providing retroactive immunity to the telcos who first participated in program. The ACLU and EFF have filed lawsuits because of the wiretapping program. People across the county have spoken out against the program. And still he announces that the warrantless wiretapping has resumed. Sounds pretty brazen to me.

On the one hand, I want to believe that he is doing it with the best of intentions but is just to stupid to realize the long-term implications of such a thing. On the other hand, I am very, very afraid that he knows exactly what he is doing. In either case, this program is a (tm) Bad Thing and needs to end, permanently.

Re:News at 11

[MillionthMonkey]

There, I corrected that for you. Bush, like anyone else still afraid of "terrorists", is a huge pussy.

That's a lie. George Bush has never feared terrorists.

He just encourages the rest of you fear them, so he gets the power he needs to do Good Things for America.

Re:News at 11

[Znork]

Sounds pretty brazen to me.

It's not like any lawsuit can do anything to him. He's got immunity. And it's not like he cares what people speak out against.

Courage requires risking something. Bush's merely an obstinate simpleton, something a coward can easily be. As long as he doesn't risk getting smacked in the face about it.

Re:News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

He just encourages the rest of you fear them, so he gets the power he needs to do Good Things for America.

I guess he got addicted to the game too much and wants to play one of the mob bosses in it for real...

That or its just for the hookers

Re:News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the stupid things bush has ever said its really hard to pick a favorite. I'm kind of partial to the "bring it on" speech actually encouraging terr0r1sts to dare try to attack the US as if he was some little kid running his mouth in the cafeteria.

Although "axis of evil" most certainly caused the most harm.

I don't understand how anyone can support immunity for telecoms while at the same time making good on their oath to uphold the constitution.

It is so plain and so blatent that I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with all republicans and a minority of democrats supporting (or begging for permission behind the scenes) such whacked nonsense.

I'm donating my left nut to the EFF.

Re:News at 11

[sethadam1]

He's got immunity. Historically, Congress has several actions at their disposal to formally censor, impeach, override, or otherwise reprimand a president. However, what should scare us is that this congress full of pansies won't, and this country of fat lazy bastards will lose interest and go back to TMZ's 24-hour Britney rehab-watch coverage.

Re:News at 11

[sumdumass]

Maybe you should ask some questions like why won't congress do anything?

You might be surprised to find out that many in congress agree with his actions even if no publicly. You might find that another portion think he might actually have the power to do what he claims and is doing and this apparent loss to them is more frightening then a potential abuse.

You will also find that a big reason why most will go back to watching TMZ is because the program is limited in it's scope. You have to be talking top a line outside the country and there has to be a terrorist or suspected terrorist on the line. For most in the population, that doesn't include them and it doesn't seem unreasonable either. Right or wrong, I can understand their lack of empathy to your cause. It is sort of human nature, especially in America, to not care about something that doesn't effect them.

Re:News at 11

[sumdumass]

Of all the stupid things bush has ever said its really hard to pick a favorite. I'm kind of partial to the "bring it on" speech actually encouraging terr0r1sts to dare try to attack the US as if he was some little kid running his mouth in the cafeteria.

Well, the bring it on speech was really a mark of genius. It did two things, first, it called the terrorist out. It did so at a time they were celebrating a huge PR victory. The lack of action on their side sort of canceled that out which took away recruitment advantages and their team spirit. Imagine a football team losing a game, and then chalenging the other team to another match only to find their coaches where too chicken to allow it to happen again. It implies to the players that the win was a fluke that they shouldn't rally around.

The second thing was, it happened at a time when we had personnel and equipment in place to deal with it. But more importantly, if something was going to happen, it would necessitate communications in some way. So know you have restless enemy agents wanting the go ahead, and the enemy leadership holding them back. While we where monitoring most common communications ports, this gave us an idea of how much danger was present and what or where we needed to worry about. This might not seem important to you, but it would be important when the enemy agent knows they are going to die. You don't just talk someone into killing themselves for a cause and then let that cause goto hell. Obviously, it isn't going to be obvious because then you would be telling the enemy what your attempting to do.

Although "axis of evil" most certainly caused the most harm.

Yea, I am with you on this one. He would have been better off creating some dorky naming like coalition of the stupid or bad guys or something. Or perhaps we would have been better of just not hearing anything like that.

I don't understand how anyone can support immunity for telecoms while at the same time making good on their oath to uphold the constitution.

Well, that could be because the constitution doesn't come into play for them. You sea, it has a few tests, one iis reasonable and unreasonable. If they think it isn't unreasonable to listen to both sides of a call to a terrorist, then the constitution doesn't come into play. It would simply be a law. Now judging on how congress made what the president was doing legal, then they apparently have come to that same conclusion and also believe that it is necessary enough to let him continue to do it. Well, at least until it expired anyways. But then this is only going to be used as campaigning material in the upcoming election.

It is so plain and so blatent that I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with all republicans and a minority of democrats supporting (or begging for permission behind the scenes) such whacked nonsense.

Maybe you should give up your biased views and enter a little objectivity. Look into the situation from both sides with an open mind and you will probably understand where they are coming from. After that, you can go back to your biased view but at least then you can see where they are coming from.

Oh yea, I wouldn't give your nut to the EFF unless it is worthless to you. They have a habit of giving your donations to other groups. This is why I stopped donating to them about a year or so ago.

Yeah, and we have a process for that...

[PotatoHead]

...too!

All this administration needed to do was demonstrate that was warranted and it could have had Congress modify the law on a vote. Maybe it's ok if we do that. Maybe it's possible to do in an accountable way?

Just doing it, with no accountability, is the core problem.

That's a law violation and a crime against the people. That debt needs to be paid.

Hope Dodd is up for another stand or two, because they are not gonna yield on this one.

Want to send the NSA a message?

[WhitefishMT]

http://www.wiretapthis.com/ - if they're reading your mail, they'll find it. If they're not reading you mail yet, they will!

Now theres a War on Liberals?

[Doug52392]

I bet that's why the wiretaps are here. So the government can read the forum posts, IM conversations, IRC chat logs, and even Slashdot posts, of liberals that oppose the government. I bet all liberals could find themselves on one of those "Watch Lists" soon, just for expressing their 1st Amendment rights!

Spying to find "terrorists" is just the pretext the government is using to wiretap the homeland (and why FISA, it should have been called HISA, Homeland Intelligence Surveillance Act), so they can find not terrorists, but rather innocent people who criticize the government on the Internet through blogs, IM, IRC, etc.

So that's where our tax money is going: paying the NSA to read all the rants on the government (most of them are the real truth to, how ironic!)

change your national anthem

[Coraon]

You guy should sue your government. your national anthem is flagrant false advertising. you are most defiantly not the land of the free and the home of the brave. your the land of the indentured to corps and the home of the paranoid. Come to Canada, we will let you have your freedom, just leave your violence back in the US.

Spying is OK if accountable.

[headkase]

The problem isn't with the spying - like you say there are many cases where it is needed. The problem is that the checks and balances from the oversight aspects are being compromised. The Federal Government can spy on anyone they like and even get a FISA warrent for it after the fact in cases of emergencies. The problem is that the Administration branch of the government thinks that even that is too much and want to remove that check and balance (or continue to ignore it). Spy away, but damn well be accountable *when* it is abused.

Re:Spying is OK if accountable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but it is not the executive branch that has not renewed the legislation in question. And while checks and balances in general are good, the Constitution does lay the responsibility for "defense of the country" on the executive branch (not everything gets a check/balance). I would consider intelligence and searching for terrorists in country as a defensive measure (as opposed to sending troops somewhere) The grey area comes up when you try to stop the terrorists, do they get arrested or similar legal action vs a military response. In this case I tend to give deference to the military rather then trying to arrest people on a battlefield for attempted murder.

Re:Spying is OK if accountable.

[esper]

Ah, but it was the executive branch (and, specifically, the President) who decided that retroactive immunity for the telcos was more important than the powers granted by PAA. ("I will veto any bill which grants those powers but does not include immunity.") All the legislative branch did was to (finally) acknowledge that accountability is important and call Bush's bluff.

oblig

[PieceofLavalamp]

yeah i've gotta admit i'd rather be constitutionally violated than shot in the face.

Parent does get it

[jbengt]

"You don't get a warrant when you want to capture all inbound and outbound (from the country) telephone traffic and put it through your NSA analyzer supercomputer thingymajig looking for suspicious activity."

approximately 40 cases

[SpaceLifeForm]

Link

Re:approximately 40 cases

[rpillala]

I stand corrected then, thank you. Maybe what I read was that EFF filed the firs such case and then I misinterpreted it.

I can't tell from a cursory examination whether any of these cases are of the kind that Bush alleges in his address. That is, a frivolous suit by an individual who wasn't really damaged in order to milk some funds from the government. I'll keep reading.

The real question is

[WindBourne]

is this FISA based wiretapping or the same approach of the DOJ/whitehouse listening to whereever they felt?

laugh laugh

[conureman]

I thought I'd die. TFA gets archived in an old folder named "the_end"

Two dots

[SpaceLifeForm]

Qwest. Microsoft.

catch22

[scifiber_phil]

Anyone against these wiretaps is suspect, and probably should be placed on the wiretap list? The language of the fourth amendment is clear and straight forward. The executive branch, the phone companies, and congress need to reread it a few times until they understand it. When they start arresting people for expressing concerns over the loss of our constitutional guaranteed rights, it will be too late. Forums like Slashdot etcetera will disappear. People will be afraid to post. Wiretaps without a warrant and fear of arrest will see to that.

GPG?

[Lorien_the_first_one]

I've been getting concerned myself about all this, so I enjoy reading all your posts. But the most interesting thing about all this is: most email is clear text. Why? Because bozos like Microsoft, Yahoo and Google refuse to support GPG or other such standard for encryption of email.

I did some searching for encryption software in Windows and it's damn hard to find for free. On the other hand, Evolution supports GPG out of the box.

I've used Yahoo and Google Mail and there is NOTHING there for encryption and even if you wanted it, you have no way of knowing for sure if it's encrypted without confirming it with your buddies or test email. And then of course they could always save a copy for your friendly government.

For this reason, I'm not so ready to switch to web based email.

Re:GPG?

[Doc Ruby]

A Firefox plugin that de/encrypts GMail right in the browser, that's stored encrypted at Google could be really good. Maybe even a GPG Javascript frame around the GMail frame that contains the encrypted message.

But the real chance to get everyone using encrypted email is as people switch to mobile phones as their messaging terminal. A Java email app for that, or maybe a mobile Opera plugin, could really catch on.

Re:GPG?

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, by the way, thanks for the nice compliment. Appreciated, especially since I usually get flames or silence.

How does it go?

[X-rated Ouroboros]

Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, Ammo Box, Coffin?

Where on the progression are we now?

Impeach now

[Rinisari]

The president is outright refusing to follow the orders of Congress. How is this not grounds for impeachment? It's like the CEO of a company not following the edicts of the board.

Re:Impeach now

[jjohnson]

It's not grounds for impeachment because impeachment would take longer than Bush has left in office. That was true after the 2006 elections, which is why Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table". As a practical matter, it's just not doable, so threats of impeachment are empty.

Re:Impeach now

[WNight]

The problem is that if he's not impeached, he gets away free. If he's impeached, and we fight this spying, then we'll let the next people know that they can't do this.

If we ignore this, not only will our next leaders continue it, but Bush will go unpunished.

He's by far the worst president the USA has ever had. Not just in what he's personally done, but in the lack of respect for law that he's instilled into the office and various three-letter-agencies.

If, on the other hand, he was stripped of power, even a day before the end, not allowed to pardon anyone, and made liable for criminal lawsuits... Ideally, he'll get tortured in Gitmo, that would be the ultimate payback for the sell-out.

Re:Impeach now

[Boronx]

It's not grounds for impeachment because nearly every Republican and a few Democrats still have Bush's back in Congress. That siding with Mr. 19% approval against the American People and the Constitution isn't a deathblow in this Democracy is depressing.

The spying started before 9/11. It wasn't about terrorism, and it didn't work anyway.

Re:Impeach now

[jjohnson]

He's going to get away free. There's nothing that can be done to Bush himself in any practical sense. Possibly some lawsuits after he leaves office, but I doubt even that. It sucks, I know, but that's life.

That's not to say nothing can or will be done. The Democrats have finally started making hay out of wreckage of the Bush administration--letting the surveillance bill lapse because it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms is a good start. That allows lawsuits to proceed against them that, over the next few years, will make clear the scope of the domestic spying that was going on.

To the extent that anything will change, it will be because a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress will look for a lot of legislative achievements in the first 100 days, riding a still-fresh wave of disgust, that have to do with (very loudly) making certain things illegal, restoring and strengthening FISA, and cleaning up the civil service. More than impeaching or imprisoning Bush, suing and jailing the civil servants who carried out his orders will put the fear into those who happily break the law under colour of executive authority.

AG agrees wiretaps are illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what our Attorney General say, in a letter McConnell and Mukasey wrote to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes:

[You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have elapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency authorization provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "may begin surveillance immediately" in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest]. In other words, in the Administration's own words, what they are doing is illegal. Nixon broke into some file cabinets. Bush and the complicit telcos monitor everything. And the Democrats are so spineless they let it happen. Amazing. One telco refused to comply - Quest - and they were shut out of lucrative government contracts.

Glen Greenwald has been on this beat for a long time now. Read more about Mukasy's recent admissionhere.

Re:AG agrees wiretaps are illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is a red herring. In a good system of government, these decisions are never at the discretion of one person. If Bush has the power to do this, that's a problem. If he's doing it, well, that's just inevitable--of course someone will at some point, given that the problem is there.

no leaders?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would we do in a world with no leaders? How would we accomplish all the corruption and politicking and spying we get from our beloved leaders?

Re:no leaders?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think Ron Paul or Ralph Nader (who announced today) is going to solve all the problems in the world?

OK, more realistically, how about Barak Obama? Won't he figure out everything for everyone?

I don't believe in flame wars.

[Lorien_the_first_one]

They serve no purpose and only detract from the facts. Civil discourse tends to foster civilization and... The expression and diversity of human opinion is essential for human survival. Done.

Mod Parent Up.

[mad.frog]

An AC makes an excellent point for once.

Who was it that said they'd stop?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember that there was an "update" from someone complaining that the warrantless wiretapping wouldn't continue. Not to mention a +5 insightful comment complaining about exactly how wrong I was for putting that statement at the end of the story, merely because it was supposed to be illegal or something...

Can we have an update to this story mentioning that, hey, guess what? The previous story was RIGHT before the update. As was expected by anyone paying attention, the warrantless wiretapping DID continue, no matter what the laws or the constitution says. I mean, what were they going to do? Deactivate the billions of dollars of equipment they'd set up? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they never had any plans of actually stopping this, only plans to legalize it. And now they won that lawsuit saying that no one has standing to sue them unless said person is a terrorist (who won't be allowed anywhere NEAR the normal legal system).

They know that we won't stop them. That's why they're able to get away with this. I wonder if history will look back on pardoning Nixon as the beginning of our decline, when presidents first learned that they can get away with it, no matter what they do?

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

LAST TIME - Pay Attention

[not_hylas( )]

LAST TIME - pay attention.

It's wholesale data-mining.

Spying in the Death Star: The AT&T Whistle-Blower Tells His Story
Mark Klein = Patriot
Former AT&T technician

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview

In room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, California is a SPLITTER that duplicates ALL traffic and diverts it by the way of a proprietary black box to an unnamed acronymed agency.
Mark Klein called it a "Big Brother Machine".
It can't be more clear than that.

For all the folks that still don't get IT, good God!, go back to sleep, and or, quit posting drivel.

Re:LAST TIME - Pay Attention

[THEbookman]

It's wholesale data-mining. Spying in the Death Star: The AT&T Whistle-Blower Tells His Story Mark Klein = Patriot Former AT&T technician http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview In room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, California is a SPLITTER that duplicates ALL traffic and diverts it by the way of a proprietary black box to an unnamed acronymed agency. Mark Klein called it a "Big Brother Machine". It can't be more clear than that.

NarusInsight Intercept Suite(in room 641A) + Synthetic Environments for Analysis and Simulation(aka.Sentient World Systems @ 'unnamed acronymed agency' aka.National Security Agency) = proprietary black box + system_capable_of_using_that_much_data

facebook != Revolution 2.0

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't tell me it will be Microsoft running the social network government. :(

Re:because other people tell them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution Twitter, vote straight Libertarian in the next election and every election thereafter.
_____________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Pardons

[LackThereof]

I don't understand why Bush wants Congress to give them immunity so badly.

He's the President of the United States. He can just pardon them. And knowing this country, the political fallout would be minimal.

Re:It's actually possible to tap phones legally...

[Nimey]

Holy fuck, pardner, don't they teach about paragraphs where you come from?

In short, break each idea into a paragraph of its own. If you've got a few sentences talking about Subject 1, then that's a paragraph. Split it off from the other sentences with a blank line, and indent the first line of each paragraph by 4 to 8 columns. Don't talk about more than one idea per paragraph.

If you did, in fact, write all that in paragraph form, then make sure to post using "Plain Old Text" (in the drop-down next to the "Preview" button); posting as HTML *will* screw paras up unless you use HTML codes like p.

Impeachment

[MarkusQ]

Impeachment may have been worthwhile years ago, but at this point unfortunately it would be hugely counterproductive. It's far too late to really accomplish much of anything, and all the other asshats would have a field day politicizing it for the next election.

I beg to disagree, Impeachment is as important now as it ever was, and should be pursued (IMHO) even after the present administration has left office.

Why? Because the basic purpose of impeachment is not political theater, throwing the bums out, or any of the other nonsense that is commonly cited. Impeachment is about investigating plausible claims of wrong doing by high ranking officials and if the claims are true meting out appropriate consequences. We are in a very risky point in our history, but not because of the offenses against our constitution presently being perpetrated, but rather because of the precedent we setting by ignoring them. The third amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

is interesting in that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the present administration hasn't been plausibly accused of violating. And yet we do nothing.

So turn the question around: if we aren't going to impeach now, when would we? And what sort of message does that send to future administrations, of either party?

--MarkusQ

Re:Impeachment

[Anonymous Coward]

The Third Amendment hasn't been violated *in the United States* by this administration. Since it was created in response to the British habit of commandeering shelter for its soldiers pre-war, and the enormous long-lasting ill-will such actions engendered in the local populace, perhaps we *should* be concerned with what the US is doing in Iraq and Afganastan w/r/t housing our troops. Just sayin.

Mod redundant, please

[Workaphobia]

An oldie but a goodie. Still a non sequitur.

Green Party Platform

[evought]

I'm a member of the Green Party, so apparently I'm on Bush's side. I'm not (either), but how do you figure? According to: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/democracy.html#320735 the Green Party is against the PATRIOT act and related evisceration of Constitutional protections. I believe that Mr. Nadar has spoken out against these measures as well. Or was there a joke there I missed?

I am in favor of wiretaps when necessary and under oversight. That is what FISA is for. Procedures are already in place to deal with emergencies where warrants cannot be obtained in time. I think that the limits which were put in place to curb *actual past abuses* are fine.

Surveillance Is Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

With an encrypted SSL tunnel, your communications are mathematically guaranteed to be private.

Surely there must be at least one person in the current administration that knows this?

Will Bush and Cheney agree to resign ???

[freedom_india]

Cheney wants to make Telecoms immune from legal action for their breaking of laws. Fine, the congress can grant it, with a clause which states Cheney and Bush will stand impeached for illegal house-breaking (like Nixon).

Somebody should take responsibility for breaking the law. As Bush was so fond of saying, he's the command-in-chief.

So, if he wants telecoms need immunity, they will get it, provided Bush and Cheney stand down or get impeached, convicted and sentenced to jail for breaking the law.

After all, Bush swears high and low that the corporates broke the law based on HIS insistence.
Fine, as a tool, corporates can get off the hook. The instigator gets the sentence.

Courts operate that way. That is why planners of crimes are sentenced more severly than the humans they use to carry out their criminal plans.

However Cheney wants none of this. His idea is: Yes corporates broke the law and they must be given immunity. BUT, i cannot be held responsible for forcing them to break the law, because neither part of the Executive nor Senate, which means am above law.

The House, and Obama (clinton is a stooge) should pass a resolution granting immunity to corporates if Bush or Cheney resign and agree to stand trial.

Am sure that will make both of them forget immunity.

Re: Impeachment..

[Lunarsight]

At this point, the impeachment is primarily symbolic. This is the best time to do it, since if Bush gets kicked out of office, we're not stuck with Cheney for a long period of time.

Bush -definitely- needs the scar on his record. You figure - Clinton got an impeachment over much less.

Re:because other people tell them.

[CrashPoint]

Voting a straight party ticket is only a simple solution if the problem you're trying to solve is "I'm tired of thinking".

So now we're just making shit up? You're smart!

[smitth1276]

No, it is absolutely, inarguably true that they have "lost intelligence information". The original and incorrect characterization of the statement was that they had lost "important intelligence information", which was not what was said and which was used as a springboard by some moron (maybe you... I don't know) to fallaciously leap to the downright fucking retarded conclusion that they knew it was "important" therefore they must have been listening anyway--afterall, says the typical slashdot moron, how could they know it was important without listening to its contents? (It isn't "flamebait" or ad hominem to point out that most journalists are not very well educated, and, in fact, end up in journalism because they are only good at writing, for the most part--one need only watch the news on occasion to realize that reporters don't know what they hell they are talking about--nor is it "flamebait" to point out that most slashdotters are weak-minded juvenile group-thinkers who will misconstrue pretty much any story if they think they can win some "coolpoints" Bush-bashing for the rest of the clique.)

In any case, the bottom line is that you are still wrong, and I'm a bit embarrassed for you that you are reduced to pretending that a) Mukasey said something that he clearly didn't say and b) that you didn't use that slight difference in the quote to build a stupid conspiracy theory. Even if he HAD said what you say he said--which, again... he DIDN'T--it would be entirely appropriate in context and anyone with the most basic of logical reasoning skills would realize that it in no way implies that they were, in fact, listening to calls. This is because, of course, when you are looking for those nuggets of information in the phone calls made by jihadists in Afghanistan, and suddenly the calls themselves are made unavailable to you, then you have clearly lost "important intelligence information" in the calls themselves.

I am still astonished at the mindboggling stupidity of the assertion that the statement can be construed to mean that they were listening anyway--and you have the audacity to accuse ME of flame-baiting? My "air of arrogance and disdain" over you and others who subscribe to that silly conspiracy theory is very, VERY well founded, and others should feel free to express that view as well... you look stupid, and this community could use a little culling-through-shame on occassion. People like you are WAY too common on slashdot. You have cheapened the discourse with the childish cynicism... if you honestly took what Mukasey said as some allusion that they were listening to the calls anyway, then you should feel lucky that I even bothered responding to you.

Re:because other people tell them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me one party, any party that doesn't think of the Constitution as Toilet Paper.

Is it the Republicrats or Democans? Nope, Bush stated it is a God Damned piece of paper and the Republicrats have been using it as toilet paper just as the Democans have. Ron Paul isn't even a true Libertarian.

Is it the Green or Reform parties? Nope, they are repackaged left-wingers. They want to take money from the people at gunpoint and continue giving unconstitutional government handouts and regulate businesses to death. Regulations at the federal level are unconstitutional.

Is it the Constitution party? Nope, they are just repackaged Right-Wingers. They are against homosexuality and totally against abortion. The Constitution forbids the Federal government from getting involved. In other words, they should be called the "Unconstitutional Party"

What party does that leave? The Libertarian Party, the party of principal. If you don't believe me about what is constitutional then take a look at the ninth and tenth amendments. To sum those amendments up, if it's not in the constitution, it's unconstitutional.

The Libertarian party is the only ones that values small government and liberty for all. No other party can claim that.

_______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.

wow...

[justo]

this is why i love and continue to read slashdot -- insightful responses to straw-man arguments that both inform and inspire how not to spread hate, but instead understanding.

thank you fangorious! (if i had mod-points, you'd get at least one ;)

Re:because other people tell them.

[CrashPoint]

Your ineptly-regurgitated party line does not address the point I made, which is that the kind of blind loyalty you display - regardless of what party receives it - is a sign of being too intellectually lazy to consider the issues properly. You are acting exactly like the "Democans" and "Republicrats".

Re:So now we're just making shit up? You're smart!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fscking Moron,

IIRC the gubbment can monitor ANY foreign comms. (No FISA/PAA required.) So no "lost intelligence information".

It's just comms those that involve AMERICANS (you know: The People!) that require a warrant....

But I guess adhering to the Constitution is "Quaint" these days.