US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Explanation

A group of U.S. Senators are asking the FBI to explain a recent controversial National Security Letter sent to the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive was able to defeat the request with help from the EFF and the ACLU this past April. "The Internet Archive's case is only the third known legal challenge to NSLs, despite the fact that the the FBI issues tens of thousands a year -- more than 100,000 such letters were issued in 2004 and 2005 combined. But despite the lack of legal challenges from recipients at ISPs, telephone companies and credit bureaus, successive scathing reports from the Justice Department's Inspector General have found illegal letters and a willy-nilly culture within the bureau towards tracking their usage."

Comments

If they really want to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they should send the FBI a National Security Letter asking why,

Another paragraph worth quoting...

[mrbluze]

Why does the FBI think that list of possible records should be secret? Does that list contain items that are actually content -- for instance, URLs visited by a person? Having watched numerous films depicting FBI managers it will contain such things as "I wanna know who she slept with in kindergarten and what colour her t-shirt was on November 12 1948."

Re:Another paragraph worth quoting...

[Anonymous Coward]

I call anachronism. T-shirts weren't invented until the 60's. Before then, the only casual shirts were I-shirts (very uncomfortable) and &-Shirts (sometimes fatally uncomfortable).

Re:Another paragraph worth quoting...

[mrbluze]

You got me there... I guess they might as well put me in a &-jacket and take me away.

who is first?

[electrosoccertux]

This is the sort of thing where somebody has to be first.

If everybody could agree to all publish their letters at once and all be first, then the FBI would be powerless [more or less]. It would blow the whole thing wide open. Everyone could analyze for themselves the validity of these claims, including lots of lawyers who would eat this up. We'd see that 99.9% of these are just a template *.doc file printed with regards to [insert company name here] and mailed off.

I'm all for having watchmen, but not when we don't get to watch THEM. Which is exactly what this

Re:who is first?

[erlehmann]

Of course, intimidating doesn't work when all work together - that's the stuff revolutions are made out of.

But honestly, do you think that in a country that unlawfully spies on it's own citizens, tortures prisoners and holds hundreds of people for years while denying them a proper trial, anyone would risk that ? In the end, for those involved it's a simple risk calculation: I'd bet that almost no one is willing to risk jailtime for freedom of speech.

Re:who is first?

[RevWaldo]

The fact that this hasn't happened already probably means that the FBI relates some very scary-ass consequences to such an action - suspected bad guys get away & destroy America, you and everybody you know get harassed by the feds to the end of time, ass-pounding jail, and so on. Saying "yer bluffin!" would take a little more than moxie. Who wants to be first to step into the mine field?

Re:who is first?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for having watchmen, but not when we don't get to watch THEM. Which is exactly what this i think they got him before he could finish

Re:who is first?

[ceroklis]

This is the sort of thing where somebody has to be first.

Hans was first.

Re:who is first?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Han shot first."

- there, I fixed it for you.

Ur Welcome. ;P

Postage?

[stevedmc]

What could possibly go wrong with a letter? Did they forget to put a stamp on it or something?

Obligatory Watchmen

[oahazmatt]

I'm all for having watchmen, but not when we don't get to watch THEM. Which is exactly what this Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Words to live by. I talk to so many people on a daily basis who have completely become numb to the fact that the people should always dictate the actions of the government, not the other way around. I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.

Yeah, but unfortunately, every other person who lives their lives by a simple quote also wants to know the same thing.

e.g. Why won't you think of the children?! I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and callousness overwhelmed our culture.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[Anonymous Coward]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Words to live by. I talk to so many people on a daily basis who have completely become numb to the fact that the people should always dictate the actions of the government, not the other way around. I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.

A long time ago and was deliberately accelerated in response to the anti-war movement during Vietnam. The public school system has been in many ways deliberately designed to promote the acceptance of authority, a move not only desirable to the government but to the corporations. Politicians promote the government being the cradle to grave guide for its citizens as it makes for nice fat pork barrels and accompanying "donations". A false sense of safety and reliance on the government is pushed for the very same reasons $$$$. This is the reason why that an immigrant is vastly more likely to go into business for themselves then someone born in America, because the immigrant often wishes to enjoy the freedoms of America they have heard so much about and do not trust the authority that Americans have been trained to accept and seek out. The extreme power shift around the time of the "Civil War" from states to the Federal Government enhanced these problems.

The FBI itself was supposed to be a temporary agency within the government, but under J. Edgar Hoover leaped to astounding levels of power that were not cut back until his passing. It still exists and does anyone really thing that the FBI won't seek greater power and that such things as the misuse of NSLs won't enable such?

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[aztektum]

It was there on some small level back towards the Civil War era. It hit critical mass, IMO, after the Depression and FDR's New Deal.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[Mr. Slippery]

It hit critical mass, IMO, after the Depression and FDR's New Deal.

Nah, critical mass of fear was already there during the first Red Scare, when they passed the Sedition Act of 1918, locked up Eugene Debs, deported hundreds without due process, and destroyed the American left.

It probably goes back to the Great Upheaval of 1877. You know those big old National Guard armories they have in a lot of cities? They weren't built in case of invasion. They were built in case the workers got uppity again.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the children? Their worst enemies are their apathetic parents who are being steamrolled by government. Turn on the TV, go to the mall. Parents getting steamrolled by 7 year olds all over the place. It's sick.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[WDot]

Is it apathy or despair? Many people would love to see change, but how many can devote the time and money it would take to make that change happen? Most people in America are busy with full-time jobs and kids and finances that they don't have the energy to keep the government in check. The government would have its watchmen if Americans weren't so BUSY all the time! But then maybe that was their goal all along.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

What about the watchmen? Their best friends are the people who fling wild and inane accusations at them until they look like victims.

I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just saying that apathy is the price you pay for living by a catchphrase.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought their best friends were the ones flinging poo in the zoo...

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[TheGratefulNet]

I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.

I'd like to answer that, too.

but in a half hour, if you don't mind. my favorite HD tv show is on right now.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[istartedi]

If you read the entire article, it provides a decent summary of the ebb and flow of labor union power in the US. I favor the balance that was struck here in the US, as opposed to total Communism or total Fascism. I think most people in the US do too.

Re:Obligatory Watchmen

[ya really]

It probably goes back to the Great Upheaval of 1877 [wikipedia.org]. You know those big old National Guard armories they have in a lot of cities? They weren't built in case of invasion. They were built in case the workers got uppity again.

Actually, I think it possibly goes back farther than that, almost to the dawn of our country with the Alien and Seditions Acts of 1798. Pretty scary such acts were passed/signed into law by the same guys who fought for our constitutional rights and independence (John Adams was president at the time). Thankfully, there were politicians with common sense, such as Jefferson who fought for their repeal and finally won.

They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, Congress doesn't seem to have that power.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has any power they give themselves not explicitly denounced as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in review, and when they get a large enough consensus they can change even that. More explicitly, Congress controls the budget: All the other branches of government could piss and moan about it all they like, but a strong congress could turn everyone out into the streets until they backed down.

Re:They would, but...

[macslas'hole]

Congress has any power they give themselves not explicitly denounced as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in review Good Lord! Is that what they're teaching you kids in civics class these days? Cheer up emo kid, no branch of government has the ability to simply grant itself powers; all such self-granted powers would be, by definition, unconstitutional.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has any power they give themselves not explicitly denounced as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in review

Good Lord! Is that what they're teaching you kids in civics class these days? Cheer up emo kid, no branch of government has the ability to simply grant itself powers; all such self-granted powers would be, by definition, unconstitutional.

Yeah, but you're as far off base as emo kid!

Good Lord! Is that what they taught you in civics class back then? Cheer up boomer dude, The Executive has the ability to simply grant itself powers; as long as the Department of Justice (which is part of the Executive Branch) chooses to Congressional requests for information (and when the requests are ignored, to also ignore Congressional subpoenae issued against other members of the Executive!), no charges are filed, no arrests are made, and the case (and its constitutional issues) never reaches the Judicial Branch, and in the absence of a judge's ruling, the Executive's actions can never, by defintion, be ruled unconstitutional.

(I'm not the original AC, as you might guess. Google "inherent contempt", and "contempt of Congress". It may sound like I was going for +5, Funny, but it's actually been happening for real over the past 6-12 months. Long enough for everyone to forget what the original issue was, other than that it's useful for making the other side look bad in an election year.)

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

All excellent points ... however, Executive Orders have been happening a lot longer than 6-12 months... but the plan for the Executive Branch to play hard-to-get with Congress over information "protected" by an EO has been going on for *years*. Look at some of the earlier EOs, from 2001-2005, which Congress is still struggling with.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of Section 9, Article One are you claiming dictates the notion of Congress granting and rescinding powers as unconstitutional? Without those powers 99% of government wouldn't exist, having not been established by the Constitution explicitly.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as Bush won't veto anything they send to him, yeah, they basically can just give themselves powers. Then, eventually, the courts would take it away. But there would be no consequences whatsoever.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheer up emo kid, no branch of government has the ability to simply grant itself powers; all such self-granted powers would be, by definition, unconstitutional.

So if Congress grants itself an unconstitutional power and the Supreme Court fails to take that power away again, what then? Are you expecting the Angel of the Lord to descend from the skies and personally strike down the evildoers who have violated the Holy Constitution?

Let's get real, please. The Constitution is a mighty fine bit of paper with some truly wonderful words written on it, but ultimately it is just a bit of paper with words on it, and has no power or effect unless human beings uphold it. The separation of powers in the US government is designed to ensure that it will be upheld, and indeed makes that very likely, but it certainly doesn't guarantee anything. At the end of the day, if the government wants to imprison people indefinitely without due process and eventually convict them with show trials in front of military courts where the defendant is not even allowed to know the charges they are facing, it's going to do that regardless of what the Fifth and Sixth Amendments have to say on the matter.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still wrong.

No part of government, not even the executive, can grant itself powers, not even the scheme you just described. What *can* (and, unfortunately, does) happen is that the executive uses powers it has not been granted. This is not a power grant, it's a power grab.

Think of it as the difference between being given something by someone, and taking it against the owner's will.

Re:They would, but...

[MightyMartian]

REad the fucking Constitution. These Federal agencies, while their heads are named by the Executive (with the approval of the Senate) have their powers defined by legislation. Legislation specifically is the domain of Congress, but more importantly, money is the domain of Congress. Congress could, if it had the balls, simply pass a law stripping the FBI of its budget tomorrow, and there's not a fucking thing that the FBI could do about it. The best they could hope for is the President vetoing the bill.

Now I'm not saying this would happen. No one is actually going to strip the FBI's budget, and I doubt even if there was support in Congress for it that they could reach the 2/3s required to overcome a veto, but in theory at least Congress could render any Federal department or agency effectively null and void by withholding the cash. As well, these departments and agencies (like the FBI) are defined by legislation, so, Congress could deprive them of the ability of sending out NSLs.

Re:They would, but...

[MightyMartian]

A good deal of the Executives new powers (if they are that, and I think that's debatable) have been granted with Congress's approval. If Congress so desired, and the numbers were there, the Executive's abilities would be limited. The powers are firmly set in the Constitution. There's no doubt that there are fuzzy boundaries, but that's what SCOTUS is for.

Re:They would, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen so many AC's modded up in a single conversation thread. ... this must really have people scared sh!tless... when we can't use our semi-anonymous pseudonyms there's a real problem. Are we sure it's still the Land of the Free and Home of Brave ?

(Posting AC just in case i'm the only one that missed the memo.)

Re:They would, but...

[mOdQuArK!]

The scary (illegal) exception to the ability of Congress to cut off funding is the very high probability that the at least some of the "Black Ops" programs are being funded by illegal smuggling of stuff like drugs, arms, etc. Because those kinds of programs are externally funded, Congress would not be able to terminate them simply by withholding funding.

From a twisted amoral viewpoint, it's logical to fund those programs in that manner: not only can they conceal from ANYONE (including Congress) where and how much they are making & spending, but doing that sort of illegal activity probably also gives them all sorts of useful underground contacts.

Re:They would, but...

[jamstar7]

Are we sure it's still the Land of the Free and Home of Brave ?

Sure we are, we're perfectly free to chant all the pro-government propaganda slogans they come up with. Just make sure you're in a Free Speech zone when you do, and make sure you smile for the FBI cameras. Don't bother looking for Media-controlled cameras, there won't be any, they'll be down at the 'main event' where all the action is, recording everything our Glorious Leaders have to say.

Re:They would, but...

[The -e**(i*pi)]

nice sig

Re:They would, but...

[AK Marc]

I civics, they teach that there is a separation of powers and checks and balances. On the news they teach that every branch does whatever they want, even if they think it unconstitutional, and unless one of the other branches complains, it won't stop. Oh, and the people chosen for one of the branches are all chosen by another and filtered for those that will give more and more power to the branch that chose them. If a branch grants itself more powers, contradicting the Constitution, who is there to stop them?

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

Lol.. The use of AC when posting had more to do with protecting their slash dot account then any retaliation from the government.

And I think you have a skewed look at society. Your right to free speech and peaceably assemble and protest the government does not in any way override anyone else's rights, even to their free speech. Nor doe it guarantee you a venue for your speech. The "free speech zones" were original implemented by the democrats. It has made it threw the courts and they are legal. Get over it. The reason the cameras aren't interested in what your saying is usually because your a kook speaking opinions as if they were facts and the majority of the country doesn't hold the same opinions.

BTW, You are perfectly free to chant anti-government or even anti-people-in-government stuff too. as long as you don't break any laws in the process of doing either. That would be what the term peaceable means.

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

As long as the department is there and part of the Executive (like the constitution says), the president can direct them to do anything that is legal even if the congress pulled their funding in protest. Congress can only stop the executive from using his powers over the organization is it exists by stopping it from existing. In order to completely de-fund the FBI, congress would have to disband it.

This isn't a situation as simple as saying we will cut your funding so don't do this. As long as funds are there, the executive can direct it's use to any legal act under his power and congress is bound by the constitution to honor any debt incured. One might also argue that funding from other areas could be funneled over to support certain operations in the de-funded department. I have seen this happen first hand where HUD vouchers and First time home owners loan money has been diverted as loans for other projects (not related to HUD) leaving everyone in my county wanting to use those program up a creek. This was challenged and upheld in the courts.

So they can't simply take funding away. They would have to disband or dissolve the department in the process and they could only do that if it wasn't in the constitution (most aren't). There is significantly more at stake when removing a department or office of the executive.

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

If your still confused, you could just read the constitution which sets the government up and provides their roles and responsibilities.

Sure people attempt to stack appointive position in an attempt to retain power or further a goal. That's called politics. FDR was the first president to start us down the "unconstitutional is the norm path". A lot of his new deal policies were unconstitutional and ruled that way by courts and he basically said "so what, they aren't going away, so something about it". This is when the interstate commerce clause had become expanded and now almost anything in government can be justified by the interstate commerce clause. A lot of what is considered unconstitutional is done through some interpreted reading of the constitution.

Re:They would, but...

[AK Marc]

If your still confused, you could just read the constitution [cornell.edu] which sets the government up and provides their roles and responsibilities.

You are the one confused if you think that any branch follows that document as written.

A lot of what is considered unconstitutional is done through some interpreted reading of the constitution.

If you have to "interpret" in order to get something to say what you want it to, then it isn't there. Speaking of which, who gives the Supreme Court the "power" to interpret the Constitution? Oh, that's right, the Supreme Court is the one that declared that they are the ones that can.

Sure people attempt to stack appointive position in an attempt to retain power or further a goal. That's called politics. FDR was the first president to start us down the "unconstitutional is the norm path".

Someone that thinks that doesn't know his history. It started long before then. If it hadn't, he'd have had more resistance. Check the date on when the Supreme Court increased their powers by declaring themselves the Constitutional Intrepreters. And that wasn't even the first time.

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

You are the one confused if you think that any branch follows that document as written.

There is no confusion. The problem is that people think it means and says different things in practice. The governments are following it quite a bit. They are also abusing it to some extent. But as to what you originally states, it is being followed.

If you have to "interpret" in order to get something to say what you want it to, then it isn't there. Speaking of which, who gives the Supreme Court the "power" to interpret the Constitution? Oh, that's right, the Supreme Court is the one that declared that they are the ones that can.

Actually, the interpretations have come against the applications of laws and policy. The interpretations have taken forms from the liberal living document where it only means what they want it to mean according to how they see society to the strict interpretation of the written words. Things like the separation of church and state never appear in the constitution but were screwed into it through an attempt to detrmin the freedom of and freedom from religion debate.

BTW, the constitution makes the supreme court the final arbitrator of the constitution. It is the constitution that does what you think the supreme court did on it's own. Like I said, read it.

Someone that thinks that doesn't know his history. It started long before then. If it hadn't, he'd have had more resistance. Check the date on when the Supreme Court increased their powers by declaring themselves the Constitutional Intrepreters. And that wasn't even the first time.

I'm sorry. I must not have separated two thoughts far enough for you to understand them correctly. First, the positions have always been stacked. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. Second, the "unconstitutional is the norm path" could have been touched on at an earlier date but it wasn't as wide spread and flagrant as it is now. That would not make it the "norm". But FDR was the administration that set up every day and all day situations.

Perhaps you can tell us when it became the "norm" if you think it started before FDR.

Re:They would, but...

[AK Marc]

BTW, the constitution makes the supreme court the final arbitrator of the constitution. It is the constitution that does what you think the supreme court did on it's own. Like I said, read it.

I did. Nowhere is the Supreme Court given the power to interpret the Constitution. That job was supposed to land on all three branches, but was taken by the Supreme Court. If you disagree, please tell me where they are tasked with interpreting the document.

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

Article 3 section two puts it pretty clear,

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states

All cases can't really be argued with. You should read it again, it give the SCOTUS a pretty broad reach.

Re:They would, but...

[AK Marc]

Sure, they hear all cases. But they have also decided that they do not find facts. If there is a question of fact, they rule on law and bounce it to another court to mess with the pesky facts. There's nothing in the Constitution laying out that, for or against. Additionally, there is nothing in the Constitution that states they get to define words. Have you seen recent laws? They have definitions piled in them. There are even laws wich appear to be nothing other than definitions (with the definitions usually tying to previous laws). So, why wouldn't the interpretation be that they are to decide cases according to the laws as written, and if there is a problem, rather than creating Case Law (the foundation of anti-citizen law), refer the case to the Legislature? If there is any confusion on the meaning of the law, they shouldn't guess and then redefine words to mean something that 9 of the best legal minds can't even agree on, declare it Law and have the law becone some spaghetti of laws and a massive number of prior rulings held as law (with no legal basis of doing so). But that's what we have, a system where they aren't ruling on matters of law, but matters of opinion. If it wasn't rulings on matters of opinion, how can so many learned scholars of the law agree so rarely? If they are truly intrepteting the laws so differently, then it is impossible for any lay person to know the law, which should be illegal in itself.

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

Are you sure that you have read the constitution? Well, you might have but not in it's entirety or perhaps you failed to understand it or pay attentions to the details.

Sure, they hear all cases. But they have also decided that they do not find facts. If there is a question of fact, they rule on law and bounce it to another court to mess with the pesky facts. There's nothing in the Constitution laying out that, for or against.

First off, I don't think you understand what "facts" are in this situation. The constitution gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction over all cases that it doesn't have original jurisdiction. That means that they don't find facts of the case, that they can't find a fact pertaining to the law or the application of the law. The facts happen to be "john the murderer" kill this person. They don't look at that fact. They look at whether John got a fair and impartial trial, was able to present his defense, how the prosecution convinced the court of his guilt or if the law is justly applied to him in this case. In almost all supreme court cases, someone is claiming a right to something or to of been deprived of a right. If the law or it's application is unconstitutional because post facto (created after the dead has been done) or it is only selectively enforced against people who don't like certain parties in the government, then they can find that. If the law wasn't applied correctly, they can rule on that, or if he was denied a proper defense, they can rule on that. Those facts aren't the facts of the case where John has done something. All that maybe true or false, it isn't the concern of the courts. In most if not the majority of cases reaching the supreme court, they are validating or rejecting an earlier ruling about something where another court has found problems on appeals.

And yes, the constitution says "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The exceptions congress can make are only when the SCOTUS is of a primary jurisdiction because they have jurisdiction in all cases. (congress can't create a higher court nor could they make a law forbiding the SCOTUS from ruling on a law.)

Additionally, there is nothing in the Constitution that states they get to define words. Have you seen recent laws? They have definitions piled in them. There are even laws wich appear to be nothing other than definitions (with the definitions usually tying to previous laws). So, why wouldn't the interpretation be that they are to decide cases according to the laws as written, and if there is a problem, rather than creating Case Law (the foundation of anti-citizen law), refer the case to the Legislature?

The legislature is free to submit something supporting a definition. However, not all laws have the definitions that you are seeing and it is the intent to determine what the law meant. Now there are also situations where the laws are so specifically defined that it actually creates a loophole that people exploit. One example that comes to mind is child pornography where congress defined pornography in another law and then defined the meaning of child porn from that. This left a loophole where artful pictures were exempted and art is an interpreted work. Someone was busted for making art involving children in the nude and acting somewhat suggestively and claimed the art restriction. Congress said that this is the entire purpose the law was written, to stop the exploitation of children like that. The court had to rule that the law did create an exception because that is exactly what the law said. Congress changed the law after these people committed their offense and it would be a post facto application of the law to hold them to it.

The definition of a law has to be concise and understood by all in order to provide a fair opportunity not to violate it. I

Re:They would, but...

[AK Marc]

The constitution gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction over all cases that it doesn't have original jurisdiction. That means that they don't find facts of the case, that they can't find a fact pertaining to the law or the application of the law.

And yes, the constitution says "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Ok, so then real slowly so I get it. They have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact. Doesn't that mean that in appeals, they can find facts? For what can't they find facts? For what can they? I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that it indicated that the "both as to law and fact" says they can, but choose not to. Appeals courts *do* find for facts. I know that because I've read decisions where they were sent back down to the appeals courts to find the facts. Also my understanding is that the appeals courts are essentially an extension of the Supreme Court, in both branch and function, created to off load and pre-screen what makes it to the Supreme Court.

It is understandable that not all of the justices come to a unanimous decision.

It must just be that the "important" cases are split decisions, but I can't recall reading a decision by the Supreme Court that was unanimous. Perhaps that's a testament to the efficiency of the appeals courts, or maybe it's because the law in the US is so convoluted that even experts in the field can't agree on its meaning.

I like to refer to this as the holy thumper problem.

The problem wouldn't exist if God would answer everyone so that everyone else would hear. Do we really need to worry about eating pork or fiber blends sending us to hell? Ask God and he'll clarify whether Jesus was his son, just a prophet, or Satan out to trick everyone. But he doesn't answer (well, Bush says God talks to him, but God has never answered my questions with a booming Yes/No answer in a glowing bearded image like in Star Trek). But Congress can answer. "Did you mean XXX or YYY?" The Supreme Court could repeal the laws until clarified.

the SCOTUS is the final arbitrator with jurisdiction according to the constitution.

I hate that characterization. They are not the final arbitrator, unless forced to be. They are last, but not final. Congress is tasked with not writing any unconstitutional laws. I would like to see every Congressman that voted for the DMCA thrown in jail for treason. Clinton was quoted as saying that the was signing a law that he believed unconstitutional. Of course, he was saying it in a way to be calling for a line-item veto, but I heard it as "when I took my oath of office, I was lying and am currently acting to subvert the Constitution." He's not alone with those acts, but he's the only one I've seen quoted saying the was signing something he personally believed to be unconstitutional. His impeachment was a joke that was one of the saddest days of this country. To have that marked in history as the second Impeachment, and hopefully last for another 100+ years, will reflect poorly on politics at this time. But I'd have been behind an impeachment for his words on the law he signed. All three branches are supposed to err on the side of granting too much power to individual persons. Not to corporations. Not to their own branch. But the people are the ones that the government is supposed to be protecting, and all three branches are tasked with that, not just one. To word it in such a way just reinforces the idea that there is only one branch that protects the people, the other two are out to allocate taxes (Congress) or run undeclared wars in contradiction to the Constitution. But then legal minds greater than mine have determined that the Constitution doesn't apply outside the US (even though it is what the government can do, not where it can do it) and that Congress can cede its declaration of war to the President, even if that isn't in the Constitution.

Re:They would, but...

[sumdumass]

Ok, so then real slowly so I get it. They have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact. Doesn't that mean that in appeals, they can find facts? For what can't they find facts? For what can they? I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that it indicated that the "both as to law and fact" says they can, but choose not to. Appeals courts *do* find for facts. I know that because I've read decisions where they were sent back down to the appeals courts to find the facts. Also my understanding is that the appeals courts are essentially an extension of the Supreme Court, in both branch and function, created to off load and pre-screen what makes it to the Supreme Court.

In the appellate, facts are in law and the application of the law or procedures, not in the case itself. A fact would be if the evidence was gathered legally and if it could be used or not, not if the evidence is true or accurate or that it proves or disproves anything. It is the same word but a different application. In the original case, a finding of fact may be that X evidence proves or disproved someone's whereabouts on a certain date at a certain time. In the appellate, it is if that evidence should have been introduced or not or whether not introducing it gave someone a fair trial or not. In essence, they find facts about facts instead of just considering the facts.

A generic term for appellate might be appeals. The case has already been decided, they determine if it was decided correctly or if some gross error cause a miscarriage of justice or the principles of rights held by the people.

It must just be that the "important" cases are split decisions, but I can't recall reading a decision by the Supreme Court that was unanimous. Perhaps that's a testament to the efficiency of the appeals courts, or maybe it's because the law in the US is so convoluted that even experts in the field can't agree on its meaning.

It's more of a testament to the appeals courts. If everyone would agree unanimously, it is likely that it would be resolved way before it ever got to the supreme court. The supreme court is usually three or four appeals up the road from initial appeals. You start by appealing the obvious to the original judge, if that doesn't work, then the next highest court then a district court and perhaps another court before the Supreme Court get the opportunity for a crack at it. Of course there are some varying approaches to it like when time makes it necessary to skip a few of the other processes or if by nature of the charge/case it starts off at a higher level or perhaps even at a state level. But yes, the cases the supreme court gets a hold of are generally the toughest ones where they think not only is there a dispute, but the dispute has enough validity that it needs a closer look.

The problem wouldn't exist if God would answer everyone so that everyone else would hear. Do we really need to worry about eating pork or fiber blends sending us to hell? Ask God and he'll clarify whether Jesus was his son, just a prophet, or Satan out to trick everyone. But he doesn't answer (well, Bush says God talks to him, but God has never answered my questions with a booming Yes/No answer in a glowing bearded image like in Star Trek). But Congress can answer. "Did you mean XXX or YYY?" The Supreme Court could repeal the laws until clarified.

Well, I agree somewhat with your prognosis except the I believe God does answer people in his own ways and you have to be somewhat deserving enough to recognize the answer. It is sort of like the preacher who wanted to let everyone else evacuate first when a flood was coming because he knew God would take care of him. He stayed and soon the roads were blocked. Someone drove by saying we can use goto the top of this hill to escape the dangers but there won't be any food or water. He said that's ok, God will take care of me. Soon, the waters got so high that the hill was blocked too. A boat ca

remember!

[crazybit]

they do this to protect your freedom...

Re:remember!

[pha7boy]

the sad thing is that most of them actually believe that they do protect your freedom and your way of live by doing this. Good people in a bad culture leads to really, really bad decisions.

Re:remember!

[macslas'hole]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Churchill?

Re:remember!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Churchill? Also from old Winston ... "democracy is the worst form of government."

Re:remember!

[QuoteMstr]

You forgot the rest of that sentence: "...except for all the others that have been tried."

Slightly different sense, yes?

Re:remember!

[moxley]

I don't believe for a second thagt most of the people involved in the abuse of these NSLs believe that they are truly protecting our freedom.

Re:remember!

[Spliffster]

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

Re:remember!

[macslas'hole]

Slightly different sense, yes? Sorry, not even wrong, unrelated. That quote goes something like:
"Democracy is the worst form of government..."
and then the bit you quoted. Your quote is, I think, from Churchill; I'm now certain my quote is a few centuries too old for him.

Re:remember!

[bjorniac]

The post he replied to directly quoted it as being from Churchill.

'Also from old Winston ... "democracy is the worst form of government."'

Which he then corrected with the remainder.

Re:remember!

[macslas'hole]

Damn, sorry dude. I see now that you were responding to someone else.

Re:remember!

[Drahgkar]

war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength Isn't it ironic that this was modded Insightful?

Re:remember!

[sumdumass]

Why not? I mean the courts and congress who gave them this power don't seem to think it is an abuse of liberty, so why would anyone dealing with the NSLs think they were doing anything besides going after the bad guy and protecting our way of life?

Re:remember!

[moxley]

I think that if one is only looking at this on the surface, 'sumdumass,' then it may look as though this is post 9/11 politics as usual and that it's all either incompetence or "Aw shucks, it's sure a shame that we have to unconstitutionally violate the very liberties we're supposed to have sworn an oath to protect, but we'll do whatever we need to do in the name of safety."

Well, I think many of those who have researched our current situation and are familiar with the players and history would say that there is a much deeper level of politics at work, and from what I can tell it has nothing to do with protecting our way of life. If it did, things would be so different. It is actually destroying our way of life.

Another thing to remember is that there is no such thing as perfect safety in a free society; and in a controlled/repressed society (as we are becoming) you aren't safe from the controllers. Blanket safety does not exist, and anything can happen.

The way the corporate media in league with government goes on with bombarding the populace with fear relentlessly, both via "news," movies and TV shows and even commercials on one hand - then speak of safety via giving up liberties and undermining our Bill of Rights on the other hand - you'd think our constitution had been replaced with a simple guarantee of safety - but it hasn't; and if it had, who would protect the populace from the sociopaths charged with protecting us?

There is a reason the that oft quoted statement in our constitution says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not "Safety, life, and the pursuit of happiness" - our founding fathers were all too familiar with the political uses of fear and how the populace can be manipulated via that method.

So my point is that IMO there is a level of political manuvering going on that most people aren't aware of. As far as the courts and congress, unfortunately we have seen many courts become political tools and the majority of congress has basically all but abdicated their duties to the people and the constitution.

Re:remember!

[sumdumass]

I think that if one is only looking at this on the surface, 'sumdumass,' then it may look as though this is post 9/11 politics as usual and that it's all either incompetence or "Aw shucks, it's sure a shame that we have to unconstitutionally violate the very liberties we're supposed to have sworn an oath to protect, but we'll do whatever we need to do in the name of safety."

I think you should actually look below the surface if your going to make comments about on the surface. The NSA letters have been around since about 1978 or so. The only things that changed in a post 9/11 world is the inclusion of the application to terrorist or suspected terrorist as a matter of foreign inteligence. Before 1978, we didn't need the NSA letters because the NSA had free range until it was found to be making taps for other agencies who couldn't get warrants and passing the information along. This is when the virtual "wall" between agencies started (with Carter) and the NSA letters.

Is including the terms terrorist really such a bad encroachment of liberty and a violation of the constitution or is it only a popular usage to bash the current administration. It would seem to me that it should have been bad all along but people seem to be only concerned with post 9/11 and this administration's role.

Well, I think many of those who have researched our current situation and are familiar with the players and history would say that there is a much deeper level of politics at work, and from what I can tell it has nothing to do with protecting our way of life. If it did, things would be so different. It is actually destroying our way of life.

I'm not sure I see the connection. They aren't looking at me, they aren't looking at you, well unless your in communications with someone or are someone that is considered a threat to national security. And even then, one component of your ring has to be legally defined foreign agent. If any of that is true, I'm not sure I care about your way of life. If none of it is true, you are grossly over reacting and exhibiting irrational fear. Like I said, the only think different since 9/11 is the inclusion of terrorist under the scope of the NSA letters.

Another thing to remember is that there is no such thing as perfect safety in a free society; and in a controlled/repressed society (as we are becoming) you aren't safe from the controllers. Blanket safety does not exist, and anything can happen.

Sure there isn't. But this isn't what this is about either. It is about reasonable safety from foreign threats. The US government has always maintained the ability to protect itself from international threats. Like I mentioned above, the only difference here is the inclusion of terrorist as an international threat. The US government has had all the powers your railing about long before 9/11 came about. Well, maybe with the exception of the habeas corpus situation pertaining to non-citizens. I'm puzzled to why it is all the sudden a big problem.

The way the corporate media in league with government goes on with bombarding the populace with fear relentlessly, both via "news," movies and TV shows and even commercials on one hand - then speak of safety via giving up liberties and undermining our Bill of Rights on the other hand - you'd think our constitution had been replaced with a simple guarantee of safety - but it hasn't; and if it had, who would protect the populace from the sociopaths charged with protecting us?

What is so new to the mix that you have given up liberties? What is violating the constitution? Do you even know what the constitution says pertaining to any of this? Or what the courts have said about the constitution in this? There was the one rulling about the warrantless wiretaps by the Anna Diggs Taylor judge but it had been toss out because of her close connections to one of the plaintiffs and a complete disregard f

It's about time

[zappepcs]

I don't know about the rest of /., but I think it is about time that the NSL usage was challenged. I'm glad that they finally found one that was worth challenging. These things are evil incarnate... or rather enable evil incarnate.

There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority. I really don't care if that sounds unpatriotic. I just do NOT believe that there was ever valid justification for such actions as allowed by the NSLs. They give carte blanche access to your information in ways that you are supposed to be protected from. Simply put, it is a non-supervised method to violate every or any citizens constitutional rights to privacy.

I'm tired of seeing arguments about how it's for security, or it fights terrorists. For FSM's sake, if it violates MY rights, then it's fucking wrong. period. no argument. for. ever.

I don't care if you tell me it will only be used in 'certain' cases.. I do NOT want you to have the ability to do so because I do not fucking trust you. ever. period. get over it.

The 2nd amendment is there to provide recourse to such actions by the government and I don't care if those in power think I'm saying treasonous things, I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say them, think them, and 'believe it or not' act on them. I do NOT want this, or any, government to be snooping in my life, or anyone's life just because they can for expedience sake. Follow the law, do the right thing and you will have my respect. Don't and I will keep my gun very handy. THAT, my friends, is the intent of the framers of the constitution. Don't tread on me was used early on as a rally cry... I'm using it now. Don't tread on me or my privacy. It's time that ALL citizens of the USA said the same.

Re:It's about time

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The 2nd amendment is there to provide recourse to such actions by the government and I don't care if those in power think I'm saying treasonous things, I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say them, think them, and 'believe it or not' act on them.

It's a tricky situation. The second amendment is supposed to help "correct" democracy if it no longer becomes representative, and also help uphold the constitution. Unfortunately, this is no easy task. Are you a speaker for the people, attempting to rally them to bring down an oppressive government? Or are you a lone nut, acting as if your perspective is really that of the people? What if the constitution is being violated, but preventing that would be against the will of the people, and undermine democracy? Is the will of the founding fathers enough to trump the will of the people?

Is violating the constitution enough to warrant a death sentence to all in power, or are there grey areas that warrant only throwing the government out of office next elections? If you do indeed decide to go on a shooting spree, who should die? Should everyone employed by the government be offed? How about everyone in executive positions, right down to transport ministers? Or everyone in the white house?

The second amendment may have been relevant years ago, when the US was small and times were unstable, but now you have a lot more to lose. You have a huge economy, a wealthy lifestyle, sturdy future prospects, large population and infrastructure just to name a few. Violent coups must be thought through because they are devastatingly expensive. A civil war could ruin the US, so you had better to be bloody sure that you are doing the right thing. That's not even counting if you're a pacifist...

Re:It's about time

[fahrbot-bot]

There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority.

Agree and futhermore...

<soapbox>
It doesn't really matter how much, the ends don't justify the means - despite what the Bush administration would have us believe. The Constitution is there to protect us from our Government and from those citizens who want to limit the rights of other citizens. As far as the "War on Terror", if the US has to behave badly and/or contrary to our core principles to "win", then we lose and they win.
</soapbox>

Re:It's about time

[zappepcs]

This is what I said:

I'm using it now. Don't tread on me or my privacy. It's time that ALL citizens of the USA said the same. It neither called others to violent action, or intimated violent action on my part. My reference to the second ammendment (no, it is not out of date) is simply to frame the statement. The intent of the framers was not to create a fixed/rigid document to define government for all time, but to allow, nay, encourage citizens to change that government and document to suit all people in the pursuit of freedom and happiness etc.

I'm absolutely sure that when the rest of the world mocks our 'land of the free' label, it is time to do something. Not tomorrow, not next month, but now. Yes, voting is a quick and comparatively painless way to implement change. The problem (as I see it) is that this does not highlight to the citizenry that the people they vote in may be in the same cabal of (on face value) patriots that would violate their rights.

Sadly, in the land of the free, there are few who know their rights, and why they have them. I'm tempted to say that 'no child left behind' has ensured this, but won't. Despite the sig, I do not promote violent overthrow of the government, but I reserve the right to. There is no difference between one tyrant 3000 miles away and 30 tyrants 100 miles away... save for the fact that shooting the 30 is easier.

My entire tirade (and it is one) is for one simple reason; I'm tired of having MY rights trampled in the name of something that simply does NOT exist. If you think me wrong, shut down all the anti-terrorism measures... ALL of them, prove to me empirically that there is a danger that warrants such invasion of my life and privacy. Go ahead, do it!

I'm tired of people 'protecting me' from dangers that do not exist and trampling MY rights in the process. If you want to guard my house while I'm on vacation, fucking do it from the other side of the street. My security system is working fine, and I'm not paying you to waste your time and MY tax dollars to sit inside my house.

This goes for terrorism, child-pornography, internet bullies, file sharers, and any manner of thought crime criminals.

See my sig, I do not advocate violence, rather I suggest that the Internet changes everything. Information wants to be free, and information frees the rest of us. If the government is so honorable at protecting my rights, why do they have to do it in secret?

Don't give me that bs about national security ... I have a TSEC, and I understand it, how it works, what it is for. There is no reason that NSL letters, DMCA, USPATRIOT act et al need to exist. We have plenty of laws to take care of these problems already. New laws are only implemented to empower people or limit the scope of power of others. period. study it a bit.

I am BLOODY SURE that what I'm saying is right. I'm not a pacifist, but I am also not advocating a violent revolution. I like the Ron Paul revolution myself. The trouble is that if you do not smack people around a bit, they won't have the attention span to listen. Now is the time to listen to what is being said. Now is the time to take heart. Now is the time to put on the tin foil hats and load your home security devices. Now is the time to be skeptical. Now is the time to question EVERYTHING that the government is doing, or is asking for laws so they can do. Now is the time to listen carefully. Now is the time to start making up your mind about whether you would use a gun. Now is the time to decide how much your constitutionally guaranteed rights are worth to you. Now is the time to figure out what you would do when they come to take you from your home....

Yes, sounds a bit paranoid but then when you compare the Bush administration to the German government prior to WWII, it's a scary piece of entertainment... try it for yourself.

If you give an inch, they will take a mile so the saying goes. In this case that is not true... they will not stop with the mile.

There is much that can be done before violence is needed, but it must be done now. Attention must be drawn to the wrongs that are happening in this country now, not next month, not in September, but NOW.

Re:It's about time

[scooter.higher]

The second amendment is supposed to help "correct" democracy if it no longer becomes representative, and also help uphold the constitution. And that is one of the problems we are facing. Our elected politicians are no longer concerned with representing their constituents. They are doing the bidding of special interest groups.

Elections have become nothing more than pageants. Where did this term "unelectable" come from? The media decides to not cover a candidate because they are considered "unelectable?"

There is a problem. People just don't care enough to do the research to find a solution.

Re:It's about time

[macslas'hole]

There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority. I really don't care if that sounds unpatriotic. unpatriotic? Since when is supporting the constitution unpatriotic! it's the definition of patriotic.
war is peace
slavery is freedom
etc.

Scary shit, I tell you.

Re:It's about time

[wellingj]

A couple of things.
1. The purpose of the constitution was to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
2. Violating the constitution is against the law. There should be a trial. But if some legislators were to come and deprive me of any of my rights, you damn right there will be violence. The government depriving anything from me is tantamount to forcing me to choose between doing what is right and violence done against me by the state.
3. They started this, I wouldn't be pissed off if they had just left me alone to live freely. But they had to take the money that I work for, as if they owned 25% of my worth as a human being. Now they want to take my rights to do something about it.

Re:It's about time

[Scrameustache]

I don't know about the rest of /., but I think it is about time that the NSL usage was challenged. I'm glad I'd say that time was 6 years ago, back when it was open-season on any law that would extend police and military power. I'm upset it got this far.

Re:It's about time

[moderatorrater]

The intent of the framers was not to create a fixed/rigid document to define government for all time, but to allow, nay, encourage citizens to change that government and document to suit all people in the pursuit of freedom and happiness etc. No, no, the intent of the framers was to tenderize meat more efficiently, and they knew that to produce meat tenderizer in the bulk that they wanted would require that government stay out of the way. Everything else was incidental to the framers' opinions.

In reality, it was a large group of men who all had differing opinions of what government should be and who all are now dead, and therefore unable to tell us what they intended. That's why they left a document to base the government on, so that we wouldn't worry about their intent, but the one document they left us with legal force. Intention should only be considered far enough to determine the meaning of archaic words because anything else cannot be independently verified.

Re:It's about time

[jez9999]

Follow the law, do the right thing and you will have my respect. Don't and I will keep my gun very handy.

Good luck against 100 armed police, and a plethora of news networks reporting how an evil madman was shot dead by the valiant defenders of law and order.

Re:It's about time

[TheRaven64]

Our elected politicians are no longer concerned with representing their constituents. That's half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that your elected politicians are concerned with representing their constituents, to the extent that they will do things that benefit their state, or a few key districts in their state, while harming America as a whole. Tragedy of the commons on a massive scale.

Re:It's about time

[TheGratefulNet]

the constitution does not work anymore. its broken.

or rather, americans have become USED to the fact that it regularly gets ignored.

we have lost control over our own country and government. I believe the constituion TRIED to keep a balance of power (checks and balances) since the makers of the const. had first-hand experience with, shall we say, a government out of control?

note: its not just the US; all countries (read the news, you'll see) are losing their privacy rights and freedom. the US is spearheading it but look at the UK and australia. they are actually BEATING the US in terms of wiping out checks/balances and personal freedom/privacy.

this is way beyond 'the US constitution'. this is a human phenomenon and its catchy as hell. the 'put fear into your own people' shit is happening all over the world and its not showing any signs of slowing down.

yes, the terrorists have already won. sad, isn't it?

don't look for our laws to protect us. this NSL stuff was always against the law - but that never stopped the US from the chilling effects it seeks to install in its population.

Re:It's about time

[jamstar7]

They also left us other documents that go a long way to explaining where their heads were at. Federalist Papers anyone? More nifty stuff is available at the click of a mouse.

Re:It's about time

[moderatorrater]

Correction: some of them left contradictory documents that go a long way towards explaining where some of their heads were at. 55 delegates attended, more than 5 different plans propesed, and a lot of dissent (leading, in part, to the creation of the bill of rights). Compromises were put in place, and the final arrangement was not the idea of any one or even three people, it was a balance of the needs of many people.

With 55 people contributing on behalf of 13 political bodies, claiming to know what the framers intended is, at best, overly optimistic.

Re:It's about time

[sumdumass]

don't look for our laws to protect us. this NSL stuff was always against the law - but that never stopped the US from the chilling effects it seeks to install in its population.

Umm.. No it hasn't been. Congress made it a law allowing it to happen. At first, they limited the information that could be gathers with them. That has been expanded. Make not mistake, it is or has been legal according to the law.

Re:It's about time

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm not really going to debate this with someone who goes by the name "sumdumass". Seriously, with a name like that, you probably work for Bush (or are Bush). :-)

Re:It's about time

[sumdumass]

Oh gee, I didn't think it was too hard of a question. I didn't mean to scare you away MR BOT.

What a pansy ass excuse. Umm... I'm not going to back up my statement because someone has a more screwed up name then I do.

It seems to me that if you had anything, you would say it. More unsubstantiated accusations I guess. Well, at least I called you on it. You see, I was wondering what you were talking about seeing how as I mentioned, congress has backed up bush with laws and the courts haven't invalidated them. Perhaps your ignoring that really obvious fact to keep your opinion. I guess I wasn't missing anything after all.

You can go back to bashing people for no reason now. I'm done with you.

Re:It's about time

[TheGratefulNet]

its 'legal' in the sense that our maf^H^H^Hcongressman have created an unjust law.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems that to be accused of a crime but NOT to be allowed to even talk about it (not even to your wife, for example) is TOTALLY beyond the design of any constitutional concept.

would our founding fathers (or even 100 years later, the 'middle fathers') have approved such a thing? that's the litmus test for.

while there's no way to know how a dead person would answer, they PROBABLY would have rejected the very notion that the gov can totally ruin a person's life and without just cause, without being allowed to question or challenge it and not even really be able to DEFEND against it.

really, if you get a NSL you are probably screwed and there is nothing that can help you. THAT very notion is completely against all that the US was built on. this is worse (far worse!) than 'taxation without representation'. if they threw a 'fit' about that, some 200+ yrs ago, what would they have done about THIS?

throwing tea into the water would have been the last thing they would have done. I'm thinking pitchforks and heads on sticks would have been the peoples' reply to any government power-grab to THIS level.

Re:It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot members should form revolutionary groups. You'd need a name to go with your rally cries.

Re:It's about time

[sumdumass]

I'm no lawyer, but it seems that to be accused of a crime but NOT to be allowed to even talk about it (not even to your wife, for example) is TOTALLY beyond the design of any constitutional concept.

I think your a little confused. The NSA letters aren't imprisoning anyone, they aren't accusing the person who receives them of anything, They are simply saying we have a right to this information now give it to us.

You as a citizen have no duty to follow the constitution in matters like this. The constitution is in place to define and limit the role of the government not you as a private citizen responding to an act of government. You might have objections to what the government is doing but your actions pertaining to the NSA letters do nothing with the constitution nor does it accuse you of any crime.

Our founding fathers wouldn't probably care about this at all either. You see, it has been illegal for quite some time to call a friend and say don't come over here, the cops are here and they are looking for you. It is called interfering with an official investigation and aiding and abetting a criminals escape from capture. That has been illegal for quite some time before the NSA letters have ever been present. And of course the NSA letters have been around since 1978 or so in one form or another. They have only been expanded recently to cover suspected terrorist activities.

really, if you get a NSL you are probably screwed and there is nothing that can help you. THAT very notion is completely against all that the US was built on. this is worse (far worse!) than 'taxation without representation'. if they threw a 'fit' about that, some 200+ yrs ago, what would they have done about THIS?

Again, I think you are confused. The person who receives the letter isn't the person under investigation. The idea behind the letters is to gather information or evidence on a suspect without them knowing about it. It isn't to accuse someone of a crime. In some rare cases, it might be used to preserve evidence that they think you might be destroying because you were somehow tipped off to their investigation of something you have done. But even then you aren't accused of anything at that point in time. If a judge were to issue a search warrant with a gag order to get the same material, it would have the same effects but without all the objections for some reasons. The accused, when they are accused, will have the opportunity to challenge the charges and their detention in a way consistent with the constitution.

throwing tea into the water would have been the last thing they would have done. I'm thinking pitchforks and heads on sticks would have been the peoples' reply to any government power-grab to THIS level.

Are you pissed because the NSA letters where present since 1978 or because they have been expanded to include a type of suspect that is common with this president? I mean I don't see it as a power grab. I see it as a minor extention to something that was put in place When Carter was president to catch international drug cartels and tax evaders. I'm not sure if I am missing something on this particular situation or something. Please tell me where I am wrong.

Now that being said, I do think that the Federal Government has over stepped it's bounds. It has grabbed to much power. But it has done this long before Bush was even thinking about being president. It had started doing this long before your parents were even born. Everything that has happened recently is minor in historical contexts. Even the disregard of the FISA laws have been upheld in courts before because congress doesn't have the ability to regulate the executive in matter of foreign inteligence. In a 1980 (seceral years after FISA,) United States v. Truong decision that still stand to this day, The defendant claimed that the bugging of his apartment and phone conversations violated his fourth amendment rights and all

Re:It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Your statement is actually very patriotic. In order to keep our government in check we must do so by force of arms. First the arms that move the hand and the pen, and if that fails then by the arms that are weapons. This government will bend to the will of the people or it will break, and we will be the hurricane that tears it apart and rebuilds it, and with each rebuilding (be it via votes, diatribe and protest, or bullets) we must assure that our freedoms are paramount over everything including our security, for what is security without freedom but an empty and hollow thing.

Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[phantomfive]

Seriously. Of course this is bad, but it's realistically just a matter of bureaucracy gone bad, with some potential for abuse. It's not like we're talking about some government wide x-files conspiracy to enslave the entire nation. It is just a precaution we need to take, to keep ambitious scoundrels from getting too many ideas.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

HE'S A WITCH!

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas it is far more insidous as a bureaucratic problem than as a consipracy.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[phantomfive]

No, it's not, Mr. Coward, because it is a solvable problem, and it doesn't take a revolution (as some people have already promoted on this story). It's a matter of people who are paid to investigate doing there job and investigating, and not worrying about potential for abuse. That's ok, it's not what they get paid to do. Maybe some of them abuse it, that's human nature and they should be punished. Most importantly, the bureaucratic process should be fixed so it's not secret. Some parts HAVE to be kept secret, at least in the short term, but if we have open government, then this sort of thing will be much less likely to happen.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like we're talking about some government wide x-files conspiracy to enslave the entire nation. True. The USA was enslaved in 1913 when it gave a private bank the right to issue the national currency.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[Waffle Iron]

Of course this is bad, but it's realistically just a matter of bureaucracy gone bad, with some potential for abuse.

Stalinism was also just a bureaucracy gone bad.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[phantomfive]

Oh yeah? You don't think there was anyone (for example, Stalin) with intentions of manipulating the government to enslave their citizenry, by force and murder if necessary?

The point is, no one here is trying to turn the US into communist Russia. If someone did try, could they use this bureaucracy to their advantage? Yes, of course, which is why we need to make some changes. But there is no mass secret conspiracy. There is no need for a revolution, as others here today have suggested (at worst, we're looking at some minor abuse). There is merely some preventative action that needs to happen, that's all.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[TheRaven64]

Of course this is bad, but it's realistically just a matter of bureaucracy gone bad, with some potential for abuse That's exactly right. Mind you, so was the whole McCarthy-lead anti-communist crusade.

Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia

[phantomfive]

Sort of, the McCarthy-lead ant-communist crusade was already beyond the 'potential for abuse' stage. Hopefully we don't have something at a similar scale here, and we are definitely not at the point where we need a revolution (as some have suggested on this story).

It is worth noting that even with the McCarthy issue, as soon as people realized what he was doing, they got rid of him.

Warrant

[Boronx]

Gee, if only the FBI were required to get a warrant before making a search, we'd already have an explanation on record to look up. Too bad our founders didn't put anything into the constitution about that.

MOD PARENT UP

[scooter.higher]

Damn it! I used all my mod points yesterday.

People don't just need to hear these things, but do something about them. I feel the biggest problem is that people are not doing anything but complaining on internet forums thinking that they are doing something.

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

Ed Howdershelt If the internet is our soap box, then it is time to move on to the ballot box. And voting for either of the three people that are being pushed on us by the media will not change anything.

Convince friends/family/strangers to do a little research on how many candidates are out there, and what their positions are, and write in someone's name if they have to, as long as they don't vote for the same crap that we've had for too long now.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

Ed Howdershelt

If the internet is our soap box, then it is time to move on to the ballot box. And voting for either of the three people that are being pushed on us by the media will not change anything.

Convince friends/family/strangers to do a little research on how many candidates are out there, and what their positions are, and write in someone's name if they have to, as long as they don't vote for the same crap that we've had for too long now.

And since we all know how much difference that'll make, how about the day after the inauguration, we open the third box.

I think that's why other ACs up there were positing "What if everyone who had an NSL went public with it, (whether anonymously, or by simply upping a .torrent to WikiLeaks and following up with a blog entry under their own name)?"

That's what it means to open the third box. There's only 100,000 people who'd have to be rounded up, right? Dare them to file charges on everyone! Dare them to find 1,200,000 people for jury trials, all of whom will convict. That's working great for RIAA these days, isn't it?

Dare them to try and chase down 100,000 defense lawyers. And the millions of people who will be collecting ("gotta catch 'em all!", "I wonder if any of my friends got one?") their own copies of these embarassing letters just for curiosity. Keeping a lid on embarassing dcuments really worked great for Barbara Streisand, didn't it?

Yeah, it would suck to be the first guy crazy enough to do it. If you're a big powerful organization, picking off your critics one by one is child's play - when you've only got one or two critics to deal with at a time. As the Anonymous Vs. Cult of Scientology thing shows, the this approach just doesn't scale when you've got over 9,000 showing up at worldwide protests every month. Fair Game:Stop.

Y'know, if just one person does it, they'll think he's really crazy and disappear him. If two people do it -- in harmony -- they'll think they're both terrists and they'll disappear both of 'em. But if three people do it - can you imagine? Three people postin' an NSL to their blog, singin' a bar of Anonymous' Restaurant, and upping an NSL? They might think it's an organization. And can you imagine FIFTY people a day? I said FIFTY people a day -- loggin' in, copypastin' "Anonymous' Restaurant" and uploadin' an NSL to Wikileaks? Friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is:

THE ANONYMOUS' RESTAURANT THIRD-BOX MOVEMENT.

And all you gotta to do join it is to put on a Guy Fawkes mask (or not!) and upload your NSL to Wikileaks (or just post it on your blog) the next time it comes around on the guitar...

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[TheRaven64]

If the internet is our soap box, then it is time to move on to the ballot box. And voting for either of the three people that are being pushed on us by the media will not change anything. I think you are on the wrong side of the ballot box. Using a soap box does not just mean watching people spout their opinions, using a ballot box does not just mean voting. If there are no candidates from the major parties that you want to elect, put your own one forward. In the 2006 election, voter turnout was 43%. If you can convince half of the non-voters that it's time to start voting again, and that your candidate is the reason to do so, then you'd win. And, as you said, the Internet is a good soap-box to start this kind of movement. If you can't win in a national election, start with state legislatures and get them to push back against the federal government (they were, after all, meant to be one of the main checks in the power of the central government).

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[sumdumass]

That's what it means to open the third box. There's only 100,000 people who'd have to be rounded up, right? Dare them to file charges on everyone! Dare them to find 1,200,000 people for jury trials, all of whom will convict. That's working great for RIAA these days, isn't it?

Your math is faulty because your not considering real world variable. Like how multiple letters are sent for different people under the same investigation. For instance, of they were to investigate our threads here, they would have to send two letter, one for information about you and one for me. Sometimes there would be more. Now there are only around 50,000 NSA letter used during a years time. If you take that 50,000 and estimate an average or 2-4 letters per instance going to the same place then divide it by this, you would have about 12,500 to 25,000 people the letters were issued to. It may be more or less in reality but this means that across the 50 states, it would average around 250-500 people arrested per state. Even without adjusting for multiple requests per incident, it would only be 1000 arrests and trials per state.

But wait, we can make a few real world adjustments still. If you take the 12,500 to 25,000 people and account for how many of them go to the same companies for unrelated investigations, we could probably take another 20 percent off. That would move us to something around 10,000-20,000 people which is about 200-400 people per state. Something that seems a lot more plausible. But wait, we can most likely lower that number still. A portion of the NSA letters will be issued to various government organizations who won't participate in your post them on line escapade. There will be a good portion of people who wouldn't risk the jail time or financial problems associated with breaking the law and attempting to defend again it. You could probably drop the real number down to less then 100 prosecutions per state. This is something that is more then doable. It would barely impacted the system.

Now the reality of the situation is that people are already protesting the stuff now. They just aren't breaking any laws in the process. Most people look at protesters and think they should get the book thrown at the for breaking the laws. I seriously doubt these actions would gain any more supporter then there already are. All the government would have to do is say X happened because you posted the NSL and we aren't safe anymore then some of your protesters will probably leave too. As for copying and spreading the information, They might not come after you, but your likely to get into some trouble down the road and it will set of an alarm, then when your in front of the judge attempting to explain how it was all an accident, someone will call him and inform the court of your advocacy of posting the NSL's and how many of the anonymous copies floating around where because of you and the judge will deny bail. He will probably throw the book at you and find some reason to make you pick it up to give it back to him so he can throw it another time for good measure.

And if it isn't you, it will be someone else thinking that. the real numbers for the prosecutions would be really small. They may even selectively arrest people based on how cooperative you where when dealing with them.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[kalirion]

I think that's why other ACs up there were positing "What if everyone who had an NSL went public with it, (whether anonymously, or by simply upping a .torrent to WikiLeaks and following up with a blog entry under their own name)?"

That's what it means to open the third box. There's only 100,000 people who'd have to be rounded up, right? Dare them to file charges on everyone! Dare them to find 1,200,000 people for jury trials, all of whom will convict.

Or, you know, they could just pick and choose the ones they dislike the most and leave the rest for a rainy day.

What, me read?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://uniset.ca/terr/news/lat_fbibreakin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/sr=8-1/qid=1172469926/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3962904-3664448?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://code.google.com/p/torchat/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/iron.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rule_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_prohibition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writeprint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec
http://www.eff.org/testyourisp/pcapdiff/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/COPLINK/
http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/research/coplink/authorship.htm
http://www.coplink.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/idemix/
http://packetstormsecurity.nl/filedesc/Practical_Onion_Hacking.pdf.html
http://www.williamson-labs.com/laser-mic.htm
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dfrankow/files/privacy-sigir2006.pdf
http://freehaven.net/anonbib/topic.html#Anonymous_20communication
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/compbooks/mcnamara/links.html

Re:What, me read?

[Anonymous Coward]

tl;dr

Stop having a secret government

[Anonymous Coward]

Web 2.0 and the concept of open source have provided us with everything we need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance

Please stop bowing to your rulers, grow a pair, and govern yourself.

Does willie know?

[Tmack]

successive scathing reports from the Justice Department's Inspector General have found illegal letters and a willy-nilly culture within the bureau

So, does Willie know they have adopted his culture? Didnt think it really fit the FBI to wander around smoking up and playing guitar all day...

tm

I'm glad the headline wasn't ...

[justinlee37]

"US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Expansion"

Penalties

[Repton]

If an organisation is breaking the law (which is what "illegal" means, right?), why do police never get involved?

As an outsider looking in, it seems like the cycle is this:

1. Government organisation does something illegal.
2. If someone notices:
   1. Senate / ombudsman / inspector says "Bad! Naughty government organisation!"
   2. [optional] Organisation says "Sorry!"
3. GOTO 1.

Is it any wonder that nothing changes if there are never any consequences for illegal doings?

Re:Penalties

[Scrameustache]

If an organisation is breaking the law (which is what "illegal" means, right?), why do police never get involved?

Do you remember the fuss about the politically-motivated firing of several US attorneys?
Some got fired for investigating people belonging to THE party. (The one in power)

Do you now understand what all the fuss was about?
Why you can't allow the power to be above the law?

Re:Penalties

[sumdumass]

I find it interesting that only 3 of them were involved with an investigation into the party. It always interests me when people start fishing around for accusations and when they don't stick, they throw another out there. You see, at first, the accusations were that All of the attorneys were not prosecuting illegals (immigrants). Then when we realized that this actually meant that they weren't doing their jobs and probably deserved to be fired for ignoring laws being broken and presented to them for prosecution. So now it is because a couple of the attorneys were investigating the party. Not all of them, just a couple of them.

I wonder what all the accusations were when Clinton fired all the US attorneys?

it must be true: I read it on the internet!

[Scrameustache]

If everybody could agree to all publish their letters at once and all be first, then the FBI would be powerless [more or less]. It would blow the whole thing wide open. Everyone could analyze for themselves the validity of these claims How could you know how many of those are genuine?

Re:it must be true: I read it on the internet!

[sumdumass]

By watching all of the people who got arrested and are not looking at 3-5 years, have to pay a fortune in legal fees, ask permission to move between state lines, can't own a firearm anymore and so on.

They don't issue much more then a couple of thousand of those a month. There was around 50,000 issued in all of 2007. Many of which go to the same companies. Lets say an average investigation involved at least 2 but not more then 4 suspects and a NSA letter needs to be issues for each suspect. That would drop that 50k down to about to anywhere from 12,500-25,000 locations. Now lets assume that because of the type of business they do and the geographical distribution of their service areas that 20% of the NSA letters go to the same companies. That drops it down to 10,000 to 20,000 locations. Now if your lucky and I mean really lucky, about half of those locations will be willing to risk posting them somewhere. So let keep that in mind. We now have between 5,000 to 20,000 sites that might post.

Now here is the interesting part. Suppose that they are issues accross all the states. We now have between 5,000 and 20,000 places that could participate in the post is now plan. If it is spread across all fifty states, or if resources were moved from other states to the heavier states to utilize existing resources, that would only be about 100 to 400 arrests and prosecutions per state. If the feds get the states involved, it becomes even easier to do. You (well whoever posted them) would most likely be charged with violating the NSL as well as interfering with an official investigation. In some situations they might tack on a aiding and abetting a known criminal in the commission of a crime and a few other constructive charges.

Either way, it isn't very unrealistic in thinking that they would go after anyone who would post the NSA letter. It wouldn't be too all that taxing on their systems either. I didn't even go into the possible situation where the NSA letters were sent to other governmental offices like maybe a state office or something and requested information that wasn't public or already available. It would cost them an arm and a leg to defend against. The NSA letters just aren't being used all that much in reality. And when you start thinking abut how much they are being used, you realize that it wouldn't be all that hard to prosecute the entire lot of people who violate it in protest.

Everyone should read that link

[Anonymous Coward]

Your link is an example of how the Second Amendment was used but failed due to the press element of the First Amendment not upholding their end. The press supported the politicians and the corporations while ignoring the truth, else the Federal troops might not have gotten away with taking out one element of the strike at a time. The assorted groups rising up would have likely went to the aid of the other groups where ever the Federal troops were attacking and many more Freedom loving Americans might have joined them. As shown by the headlines quoted in the article you linked the media colored and misrepresented the facts even then. It is also worthy of note that Rutherford B. Hayes was put in as president over the winner of the popular vote Samuel J. Tilden.

Re:Everyone should read that link

[mrraven]

Thanks for being a lefty in favor of the second amendment lefties who are courageous and overly p.c. cowarards are VERY needed at this juncture in history.

Re:Everyone should read that link

[Mr. Slippery]

It is also worthy of note that Rutherford B. Hayes was put in as president over the winner of the popular vote Samuel J. Tilden.

Yes. This was a critically important moment in American history, because the back-room dealing that decided the election in the House ended Reconstruction and enabled decades of Jim Crow and segregation, the legacy of which continues to this day.

bureaucratic shortcut

[cats-paw]

One of the overlooked problems with the NSL is that they provide a bureaucratic shortcut. You know, warrants are just so much work. Naturally it becomes the path of least resistance and so everything becomes related to terrorism just so they don't have to do all that work to get a regular warrant. You have to show probable cause, you need to identify the particulars of what you are looking for, etc... The best part is that you can do a really sloppy job and nobody will be the wiser, because they're all ecretsay.

There should be a little work involved, shouldn't there ? Wouldn't it be just great if those letters would actually apply to matters of national security ? The FBI has proven for us that they don't, just by the simple fact that they've generated so many of them.

FUD has ruled for many years now. Contact your congresscritter, register to vote, after all it is supposed to be your government.

Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[Scrameustache]

I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture. I'd say for apathy it was around the time that popular actors were being picked to represent private interests as their candidate to be the president to the United States of America, I mean... come on. An actor.
These days I see people complain when actors give their opinion on world matters.

No, I take it back, it had to be before that. You need preexisting apathy to get that far.
Nixon? Maybe he killed the peoples' collective trust in the system. Or was it the pardon?
Yeah, I'll go with that:

Apathy overwhelmed your culture when Ford pardoned Nixon, fear was on 9/11 (that one was obvious).

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[Darby]

Apathy overwhelmed your culture when Ford pardoned Nixon, fear was on 9/11 (that one was obvious).

It really was much further back as some of the other posters have said.

"Ford's Folly" as I like to call it, did cause the death of the idea of Presidential accountability. Just look how bad that's gone since then. Had Nixon been punished no matter how mildly and we'd (not that I'd been born yet...) actually stood up for our right to be citizens and not subjects, do you really think Reagan ( or, well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., and assorted other criminals we keep hearing from) would have dared to sell crack to buy weapons for terrorists in direct violation of Congressional orders? Created death squad training camps? Doctored intelligence to make the Soviets look like a much bigger threat than they were to justify massive welfare for government contractors and promote a culture of fear?

Then to pull this whole Iraq scam after getting away with all of that?
Not a chance.

So, Nixon needed a slap on the wrist. With what Ford did, he needed to be impeached.
As the crimes have gone up the stakes have too, so at this point to regain any possibility of accountability on the part of our government Bush, and most of the members of his administrations need to be tried, convicted, and executed for treason. If we don't, the next group of scumbags will *know* that they can get away with anything just like these scumbags did.

It's much worse than that even. Half the Supreme Court and most of Congress need at least long prison sentences for their complicity and that's never going to happen.

If I ever have an opportunity, I will piss on Ford's grave.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

to regain any possibility of accountability on the part of our government Bush, and most of the members of his administrations need to be tried, convicted, and executed for treason

With all the "debates" this past year, there are two conspicuous questions I would have emjoyed being raised:

(1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?

(2) As President, what will be your response if top officials of the Bush administration are arrested and imprisoned for war crimes when visiting a foreign country, say a European ally?

It's not that I would expect anything more than bluster from the Republicans and squirming from the Democrats but maybe they would at least understand that some people are concerned about more than flag pins.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[Scrameustache]

Apathy overwhelmed your culture when Ford pardoned Nixon, fear was on 9/11 (that one was obvious).

It really was much further back as some of the other posters have said. Well, there were political riots in the late 60s, so I figured apathy hadn't set in yet...

But *something* happened to the USA in the 50s, you can tell by looking at propaganda movies from the late forties, where they would make sense, and then the ones from the 50s, where the bullshit started piling up.
Is that the "further back" you were referring to?

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

They wouldn't need to answer those questions because only an idiot would entertain the idea.

First, one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president. Only an idiot would make a claim of doing something within a month of being in office and they don't deserve to be the president. As a matter of fact, I can't believe that your such an idiot for thinking that someone should make a decision and take an action like that so carelessly. It sort of pisses me off that people like you will end up voting and continue fucking up the country.

Second, None of the other countries would arrest a sitting or past diplomat or government official as long as the government they represented is still in power. It could be five presidential terms later and it simply wouldn't happen. One of the most fundemental rules of diplomacy is that you don't endanger the lives of your heads of states or diplomats by doing something with another countries. The only exception to that is for spying and generally they are only held long enough to realize the extent of their work. Why do you think that neither the UK, US, or any of the other countries that went to war in Iraq prosecuted Saddam for war crimes and it was left to the new Iraqi government to do? Because you don't fuck with present or past officials of other countries over something they did as that official and expect your officials to be safe. The mere Idea that it might happen is nothing more then hand waving. It won't happen. And if the response from any sitting president is less then all out war, I will be the first to lead the charge of impeachment or assassination on him. I wouldn't assassinate anyone myself but I would publicly thank anyone who did.

And why would I do that? Because any leader of official of the United State of America, regardless of how much you liked or disliked their policies or actions when they were the official, deserves the full unfettered protection of the United States. Anything they did while serving office was for the interest of the office they served. If the U.S. doesn't impeach them or bring charges to them ourselves, then no other country should.

This isn't just about Bush or Cheney either. If some other country is foolish enough and attempts to arrest Carter for his foreign policy actions when president, we should got to war to save him too. There is a principle of jurisdiction and whose laws you as an American citizen is subject to. The office of President of the United States of America is not subject to the whims or laws of any other country then the United States of America. If you think otherwise, you should be executed or at least castrated and forbidden to speak to children to remove the extreme stupidity you present from the gene pool. There are things at stake here that are much greater then your personal disdain for a (former) leader.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

First, one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president.

Yes, habeas corpus, torture, provisions of the Patriot Act, use of signing statements, lying to congress, hiding behind national security directives are all great mysteries at this point. It's not as if most of this information has long been in the public domain or that former members of the Bush administration have written a dozen or so books trying to justify their actions. There must be some super-duper SECRET reason only someone sworn in as president can be allowed to know before forming an opinion and plan of action to restore the Constitution. You know, some documents where W and the Gang lay down their really deep thoughts and let the new guy in on all that scary "intelligence" information that would make the rest of us just shit our pants if we knew.

Rubes like you get taken by the Carnies every single time and never have the intellectual strength to pull back the Wizard's curtain.

Only an idiot would make a claim of doing something within a month of being in office and they don't deserve to be the president.

We'll just skip the fact that every president since FDR has come in with some version of The First 100 Days Plan - or why. Let us live in your little world where the new president tests out the new desk and reads old documents for a couple of months getting up to speed. Sure, that's what happens. Really.

Second, None of the other countries would arrest a sitting or past diplomat or government official as long as the government they represented is still in power.

I'm guessing Fox News didn't cover Spain's (followed by Switzerland and Sweden) efforts to extradite former Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity, including genocide and terrorism, during Pinochet's rule in Chile? What a surprise! Too busy covering Anna Nicole Smith?

One of the most fundemental (sic) rules of diplomacy is that you don't endanger the lives of your heads of states or diplomats by doing something with another countries (sic). The only exception to that is for spying

Cool. Education by Hollywood movies and Tom Clancy novels. So much easier and quicker than the real thing!

Why do you think that neither the UK, US, or any of the other countries that went to war in Iraq prosecuted Saddam for war crimes and it was left to the new Iraqi government to do? Because you don't fuck with present or past officials of other countries over something they did as that official and expect your officials to be safe.

Let us try to get our little heads around your thoughts.

We went to war with Iraq against the wishes and advice of the UN and most of the world, killed a million or so people while displacing many millions more, broke the society and contributed to starting a civil war. But we were afraid that the Iraqis (and the world) would be oh-so-mad at us for executing a former dictator we didn't do THAT. It would be SUCH a breech of protocol.

This is so clueless on so many different levels, including the real reasons Iraq executed Saddam, I can't properly insult you. Your reasoning has moved beyond the realm where simple language could express adequate contempt.

if the response from any sitting president is less then all out war, I will be the first to lead the charge of impeachment or assassination on him....any leader of official of the United State of America...deserves the full unfettered protection of the United States.

Glad to see you have your priorities straight. They may be war criminals but they are OUR war criminals, eh? Your impassioned stance makes Americans everywhere ever so proud.

I wouldn't assassi

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

Yes, habeas corpus, torture, provisions of the Patriot Act, use of signing statements, lying to congress, hiding behind national security directives are all great mysteries at this point. It's not as if most of this information has long been in the public domain or that former members of the Bush administration have written a dozen or so books trying to justify their actions. There must be some super-duper SECRET reason only someone sworn in as president can be allowed to know before forming an opinion and plan of action to restore the Constitution. You know, some documents where W and the Gang lay down their really deep thoughts and let the new guy in on all that scary "intelligence" information that would make the rest of us just shit our pants if we knew. Yes, they are all known. And there has been a case made for their neccesities. Of course most of what you listed has already stopped so I guess your candidate of choice could just enter office and claim they already stopped torture, lying to congress, hiding behind whatever and so on. However, you sitting on the outside claiming they are bad and should be done away with is nothing close to knowing if they are actually needed or not. It has nothing to do with knowing what the alternatives are or the real state of the agencies out there. If you think all of them should have something done about them then at least allow the opertunity for the situation to be assess properly so in six months after their termination and undoing you are sitting here crying about some attack that we couldn't defend against but you somehow think something should have been done. Get real.

Rubes like you get taken by the Carnies every single time and never have the intellectual strength to pull back the Wizard's curtain.

Are you attempting to say your a carnies? I never said I supported those program, I said you are a fucking idiot for thinking something should be done about them without the ability to assess the situation. 1 month is entirely too short. 6 months to a year would be close but even then it might not be enough time. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water because you don't understand why they are using soap.

We'll just skip the fact that every president since FDR has come in with some version of The First 100 Days Plan - or why. Let us live in your little world where the new president tests out the new desk and reads old documents for a couple of months getting up to speed. Sure, that's what happens. Really.

Would you be willing to admit that a month is significantly less the 100 days? 100 days is more like a little under 4 months. And further more, we are talking about highly secretive programs here. We are not talking about the usual everybody knows everything about legislation. Are you too daft to really see a difference?

'm guessing Fox News didn't cover Spain's (followed by Switzerland and Sweden) efforts to extradite former Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity, including genocide and terrorism, during Pinochet's rule in Chile? What a surprise! Too busy covering Anna Nicole Smith?

I wouldn't know if they covered it or not, I don't watch them. However it seems like you might want to look into a more accurate news source. First off, you don't consider that their efforts failed, the UK wouldn't extradite him, he was released and went back to chili. Next you don't consider all of the diplomatic problems it caused with th UK and Spain in the area. In 2000 Chili passed legislation extending immunity to any ex president for anything they did while in office. That was challenges and he was charged with elements of the Caravan of Death situation. He was later dropped from those charges. That was the first and last time it has ever been done. My point still stands.

Cool. Education by Hollywood movies and Tom Clancy novels. So much easier and quicker than the real thi

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

As for insulting me, I think if you look hard enugh, you can be true to form and find a way to insult me. I mean after all, I disagree with something you want to believe in. That alone should be enough for asshats like you to go off on a tangent with not constructive information.

Oh, you gutless little bitch, trying to play the victim. Read back. Who started this by responding to my original post calling me an idiot at least half a dozen times and ending with "you should be executed or at least castrated and forbidden to speak to children to remove the extreme stupidity you present from the gene pool." Now you are going to get all whiny on me and pretend to be so high minded and, boo hoo, you simply disagree with me. PISS OFF.

Yes, they are all known. And there has been a case made for their neccesities.

When did Bush explain to the American public why he lied to Congress? I definitely missed that. (And don't try to weasel with that "we had bad intelligence" crap. Even you aren't stupid enough to swallow that.)

When did he say he would no longer use signing statements as an attempt to (unconstitutionally) evade enforcing laws he didn't like? Missed that too.

Of course most of what you listed has already stopped so I guess your candidate of choice could just enter office and claim they already stopped torture

No, it is claimed that water torture has been stopped. Stress positions, isolation, temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc., remain as popular as ever with your crowd.

However, you sitting on the outside claiming they are bad and should be done away with is nothing close to knowing if they are actually needed or not.

It has nothing to do with me or where I (or anyone else) is sitting. The vast majority of experts agree that torture is pointless and counter-productive. The military, given the chance to decide on their own, doesn't want anything to do with it. It is only the arm chair pussies like Rumsfeld and Cheney who wanted it. The new president, be it Obama or (especially) McCain isn't going to spend a split second even considering it, no less six months. That's "getting real".

Are you attempting to say your (sic) a carnies (sic)?

You are nothing if not funny - in a 3rd grade kind of way.

I never said I supported those program, I said you are a fucking idiot for thinking something should be done about them without the ability to assess the situation. 1 month is entirely too short

And I am telling you that you are putz, a rube, if you think there is "secret data" that in any way justifies any of this. The reason this stuff is "secret" is to hide the illegalities. That's it. There are no smoking guns. Be absolutely sure that if there was anything substantive the Bush administration would have been on in prime time trying to scare us and let us know what good job they were doing saving us. You know, like having John Ashcroft interrupting a Moscow visit to breathlessly announce that Jose Padilla was arrested - a month after he was actually arrested. There is no there there! It's all smoke and mirrors to hide the crimes of this incompetent administration. The only people who will be looking at that stuff six months after inauguration is the new Justice Department.

Would you be willing to admit that a month is significantly less the 100 days?

You're kidding. This is the best you could dredge up? Has it escaped you that the "first 100 days" starts on the FIRST day? Or that the plan starts being laid well before even the nominating convention?

I wouldn't know if they (Fox News) covered it or not, I don't watch them. However it seems like you might want to look into a more accurate news source.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

Oh, you gutless little bitch, trying to play the victim. Read back. Who started this by responding to my original post calling me an idiot at least half a dozen times and ending with "you should be executed or at least castrated and forbidden to speak to children to remove the extreme stupidity you present from the gene pool." Now you are going to get all whiny on me and pretend to be so high minded and, boo hoo, you simply disagree with me. PISS OFF.

Actually, I started off by calling candidates who would support your ideas idiots. So you can cut your half a dozen times down quite a bit.

When did Bush explain to the American public why he lied to Congress? I definitely missed that. (And don't try to weasel with that "we had bad intelligence" crap. Even you aren't stupid enough to swallow that.)

Well, first off what did he lie to congress about? Are you talking about the state of the union address that was corrected the very next day and anyone with access to a radio, TV, or newspaper would have known that. Or are you talking about the WMDs that there was specific inteligence to support. Hell, All during the Clinton years, the idea was the same and then all the after 2 years in office we are supposed to ignore all that because france said it wasn't true. well, here's a hint. France hasn't won a war in so long, nobody trusts their positions because they know it leads to defeat.

When did he say he would no longer use signing statements as an attempt to (unconstitutionally) evade enforcing laws he didn't like? Missed that too.

How it is unconstitutional to use signing statements of the law can't be passed to cover him in the first place. You see, here is where the problems arise, You don't know what all of his signing statements are and you just assum that congress has the ultimate authority over the other branches by passing a law. Well, here is a hint for you. The roles and positions the different branches play can't be don't by another branch because the constitution gives each of those branches the power have. Congress certainly coudln't pass a law saying it is illegal for the supreme court to find any law they pass unconstitutional and then start passing unconstitutional laws. The signing statements refer only to the the executive branch and how it will be run. as preposterous as it sounds, you are sitting here coming off like they can stop another branch of the government from doing what the constitution tells them they can do. Why hasn't congress challenged these signing statements? Is it because they know their limits in power but want to incite you so you will be a tool for their agenda?

No, it is claimed that water torture has been stopped. Stress positions, isolation, temperature extremes, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc., remain as popular as ever with your crowd.

And you consider that as torture. I don't and I'm wondering why you would. BTW, we already passed a pretty comprehensive law covering most of that so I'm not sure what the problem is. Do you know this first hand or are you just repeating whatever the conspiracy kooks website told you?

It has nothing to do with me or where I (or anyone else) is sitting. The vast majority of experts agree that torture is pointless and counter-productive. The military, given the chance to decide on their own, doesn't want anything to do with it. It is only the arm chair pussies like Rumsfeld and Cheney who wanted it. The new president, be it Obama or (especially) McCain isn't going to spend a split second even considering it, no less six months. That's "getting real".

The problem with torture is that there is no definition for it that doesn't involve an interpretation of some kind at some point. All of the torture methods you listed above sound like a college kids life in a northern state. How long before the kid is guilty of torturing hi

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

Actually, I started off by calling candidates who would support your ideas idiots. So you can cut your half a dozen times down quite a bit.

Your better defense would have been to admit that you don't write well enough for anyone to discern precisely who you are insulting. Given that you have spewed insults on a couple of continents of people it is pretty clear you aren't that discriminating anyway.

Well, first off what did he lie to congress about? Are you talking about the state of the union address that was corrected the very next day and anyone with access to a radio, TV, or newspaper would have known that.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2nd sentence was a question. It's as good a place to start as any because it is utter nonsense and fiction, as usual.

Ignoring the significant evidence otherwise, let's assume the Niger uranium story made its way into the speech "by accident". You would be the only person to remember such an immediate correction. I refuse to play the game where you pull something out of your ass and I spend time proving you're lying. So show me the proof. Give me a traceable citation from January 29, 2003 to prove what you say. It should be easy, right?

On the other hand, here is a statement from the White House 2 and 1/2 months later repeating the same lie.

Or are you talking about the WMDs that there was specific inteligence (sic) to support. Hell, All during the Clinton years, the idea was the same and then all the after 2 years in office we are supposed to ignore all that because france said it wasn't true. well, here's a hint. France hasn't won a war in so long, nobody trusts their positions because they know it leads to defeat.

Wow, right out of the right wing lunatic play book. Never admit mistakes. Blame Clinton and the French, instead. Keep running that play for another election cycle or two, please!

Yup, a brilliant Bush move. Ignore the French. So what if they had much better contacts within the Hussein government than the US? They eat cheese! And ignore the Germans. And the UN. And even the British who wanted to wait on the UN. And, god forbid, don't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work - they might report there was nothing to find and we would be denied shock and awe!

And all that "intelligence". You know, the plagiarized student papers, the the forged documents, the blurry satellite photos, and aluminum tubes, among so much other fabricated material. Whoever could have seen through that? Certainly not a Yale graduate or his entire administration and military!

And now, Mr. SumDumAss, who trusts us "knowing" it leads to defeat?

How it is unconstitutional to use signing statements of the law can't be passed to cover him in the first place.

Not that I really understand that sentence but...it isn't unconstitutional to issue signing statements, it's unconstitutional to use them to pretend that the president can ignore parts of the bill to which it is attached because he issued them. The signing statement is a footnote, not a line item veto.

You see, here is where the problems arise, You don't know what all of his signing statements are and you just assum that congress has the ultimate authority over the other branches by passing a law. Well, here is a hint for you. The roles and positions the different branches play can't be don't by another branch because the constitution gives each of those branches the power ha

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

Your better defense would have been to admit that you don't write well enough for anyone to discern precisely who you are insulting. Given that you have spewed insults on a couple of continents of people it is pretty clear you aren't that discriminating anyway. It could be possible that my writing isn't clear. But that wasn't a defense, it was just a clarification. You see, I started off by calling any candidate that would seriously look into doing the things mentioned, especially within 30 days of taking office would be an idiot. However, I then started getting pissed at the type of person dumb enough to think that would be proper.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that 2nd sentence was a question. It's as good a place to start as any because it is utter nonsense and fiction, as usual.

No, it was a full sentence, and it wasn't a question, it was a question that answered itself.

Ignoring the significant evidence otherwise, let's assume the Niger uranium story made its way into the speech "by accident". You would be the only person to remember such an immediate correction. I refuse to play the game where you pull something out of your ass and I spend time proving you're lying. So show me the proof. Give me a traceable citation from January 29, 2003 to prove what you say. It should be easy, right?

Ok. lol. It wasn't jan 29th, it was more like feb 13 less then 2 weeks later with the Joe wilson editorial that started the entire plame deal. In march (7th), Mohamed El Baradei the IAEA director general tells the UN that they are a forgery. On march 9th, Powell acknowledges that the Niger uranium might be a forgery and congress had access to all that material we actually went to war. Of course all that doesn't matter because congress passed the resolution allowing the US to invade Iraq well before the state of the union speech in 2003. The congressional authority was given in October of 2002.

Wow, right out of the right wing lunatic play book. Never admit mistakes. Blame Clinton and the French, instead. Keep running that play for another election cycle or two, please!

Wow, You sure are confused about things. First, I didn't blame anyone. I said that it had them buffaloed too. Can you understand why people still call pluto a planet? I mean things were a way for so long, it is assumed to be true and understandable when someone else interprets things the same exact ways. I mean it would take a moron to include all that they know after the fact when interpreting the synopsis of the facts at the time of the fact. Oh well, what ever serves your agenda I guess.

Yup, a brilliant Bush move. Ignore the French. So what if they had much better contacts within the Hussein government than the US? They eat cheese! And ignore the Germans. And the UN. And even the British who wanted to wait on the UN. And, god forbid, don't wait for the UN inspectors to finish their work - they might report there was nothing to find and we would be denied shock and awe!

Well, actually as it turns out, they did have much better contacts with Husein. It seems that they were manipulating the oil for food programs and making secrete oil deals with Iraq that made the UN sanctions ineffective. They in essence cause the war to be inevitable in two ways. The first was to defeat international efforts at using sanctions to force compliance by their secrete and illegal oil deals and the second was by declaring a veto on the use of force in the UN when we were attempting to pressure Iraq into compliance with the threat of violence. People who claim it is a war over oil probably don't know how true that are(it sure isn't being pumped into America). France's pursuit of oil turned Iraq into a situation where war was inevitable. There, Now I blames france good and proper.

And all that "intelligence". You know, the plagiarized s

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

I like the way you got your friend or other account to waist mod point on my posts with you. I guess if you can't win them with the truth, suppress their ideas so you don't have to change your world view right?

Anyways, it doesn't matter. It will all be taken care of in meta moderation (like all the other times) which means it will be longer before you/they get mod point again. You see, that's what happens when someone mods something that they don't agree with inaccurately. There are plenty of intelligent people around who will see through the charade. Good luck in life, you will need it.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

Yes, it is all a plot against you controlled by dark forces. Your thoughts are so brilliant there are no lengths people won't go to suppress them. Fear not, oh valiant one, the truth shall conquer all in the end.

Truly, you are a delusional little man. Now please stop writing to me and hold witness to how easily forgotten you really are.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

Actually, my thoughts are just a counter to your sniveling whines. It isn't brillient or novel, it is reality and the way it is. If anyone would actually look around, I know that would require you to pull your head out of you ass, they would see the same damn thing.

Let recap, you think everything you see wrong with this administration should be fixed within 1 month of someone taking office to replace them. I said that was way to short and anyone considering that would be an idiot. You mentioned the 100 days in office stuff and I pointed out the simple math problem that 1 month doesn't equal 100 days. It is more like 3-4 months. I then said that is probablty the time needed to determine exactly what is going on with all the secrecy of the programs and all, you attempted to cite some examples where a president or congress critter done things without and I pointed to you that those were in the open and all aspect of everything had been known. You said it was unaacaptable to have someone wait to figure out the ins and outs of Bush policy then I called you a moron again.

Next you where talking about another country arresting a president or vice president or their staff for stuff they did in office and approved of by the congress. I said it won't happen, you pointed out a situation where nothing ever came from it and another situation where we invaded a country. My point still stood and you stopped replying to that portion because you know you lost. I suggested that you read something about diplomacy and pointed you to the UN rules regarding it as a starter. You then declared that to be a Tom Clancy novel and beneath your presents. I called you a moron again.

You see, it isn't anything magical or insightful, it is just the way things are. What you have is opinions that aren't supported by fact which are also dangerous. I am glad that you are locked so deep into your hatred and malice thinking toward a member of the US government that it makes you look like a kook who would never obtain an office of power in the US. The reality of it is that your wrong and knowit but want to go down kicking and screaming all the way because what you want seems more important then how things are to you. You can continue calling other people delusional just to comfort yourself but we all know your whacked. You could probably seek treatment for yourself but I'm not sure any distinguished psychotherapists will want to soiled their already dirty hands with the likes of you. Perhaps they will, you never know so you probably should try.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

it is reality and the way it is. If anyone would actually look around,

Your burden is heavy indeed, little buddy. Why, oh why, can't the rest of the world see things as you do? Rave on, dear fellow, and convince these mere mortals!

Let recap,

Dear, dear. All this self-serving work gone to waste on someone who won't play with you anymore. A pity, for such a good tale it is. You emerge like a hero. Nay, a god!

but we all know your whacked.

Bah-bye now. And don't forget to turn up the a/c in the trailer a bit when your imaginary friends are over.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

Why, oh why, can't the rest of the world see things as you do?

It seems as the rest of the world does see things my way. I mean you yourself admited that none of the candidates would do anything within 30 days. You attributed it to the wrong reasons out of yourr disdain for anyone who doesn't agree with you though. BTW, I think that's a pretty messed up way of thinking. If anyone doesn't agree with you, there is something wrong with them? Get some profesional help soon.

Bah-bye now. And don't forget to turn up the a/c in the trailer a bit when your imaginary friends are over.

Interesting context. Do you think everyone live in a trailer and has imaginary friends? I mean if you do, it doesn't mean anyone else does. It doesn't even mean it is normal. You need to get that help I told you to get.

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[WindowlessView]

You have spent at least the last three messages in a desperate attempt to have the last word by shamelessly trying to summarize the discussion to make your position (and you) seem sensible. Regardless of how much you twist the text, or try to put new words into my mouth, you convinced no one. The record is right here.

And here is the killer - you never knew who you were dealing with or how soon events would make you look so incredibly foolish.

Remember this in my original post: (1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?

To which you replied: , one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president.

Read it and weep for you ignorance. Vow to never shoot your mouth off without thinking again. Then be a man and apologize to me.

Obama asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office

Of course you probably won't do that. Like your buddy Bush, you won't learn from your mistakes. You will just attack Obama (and me) and generally act like a weasel. Why not just surprise everyone be take the adult road?

Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here)

[sumdumass]

You have spent at least the last three messages in a desperate attempt to have the last word by shamelessly trying to summarize the discussion to make your position (and you) seem sensible. Regardless of how much you twist the text, or try to put new words into my mouth, you convinced no one. The record is right here.

Anyone questioning the order of events or what has been said have the ability to go back and look. Memory might be failing but the record is there.

Remember this in my original post: (1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?

To which you replied: , one month in office is way to early to undo something that another president has done without knowing exactly why it was done and how it effects your position as president.

And if you read on, you would see that I also said with all the secrecy surounding the stuff he has done in that area, a president going in will have no way of knowing the reasoning behind it, if we can actually perform the functions that were intended without the stuff, or if it is actually needed. You can also look at see where I said I have no problem with undoing the things that you have a concern with, 1 month is recklessly too little of time to understand the consequences of why they are there and what would happen if they weren't.

Bush didn't wake up in the morning and say lets take this civil right away from someone. The choice was made after weighing a lit of information we simply don't have access to. It his actions weren't the best that could have been made, then change is in order. If they are the best at the time, then other changes are in order before anything should be undone. You don't remove the bandage covering a wound and replace it with any old rag of keep it uncovered because you don't like the color of it. If you want to change the color of it, you find something just as effective but less offensive and then change it out. When the wound has healed off, you then take the bandage completely off. This of those infringements on civil liberties as dressing for a wound.

Read it and weep for you ignorance. Vow to never shoot your mouth off without thinking again. Then be a man and apologize to me.

Apologize for your recklessness in the expectations of potential leaders? Why should I. My point still stands, 1 month is way too early, and only a fool would attempt to do something as callous as that. If I need to apologize for treating you like an idiot, then I do. But I won't apologize for my position.

Of course you probably won't do that. Like your buddy Bush, you won't learn from your mistakes. You will just attack Obama (and me) and generally act like a weasel. Why not just surprise everyone be take the adult road?

Do you not understand that 100 days is a lot more time then 1 month? I thought I already pointed that out to you once. And if you read the article, Obama took my position and said the first thing he was , well let me quote it from the article that you linked to, "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution,"

Do you see where there is a "review" of what done. There is no commitment to overturn the stuff in 100 days, just review them to see if they are constitutional. Of course the goal is to undo them them but with the review, to understand them, other measure can be put in place before they're overturned. If Obama claims he would simply remove them without looking at anything else, then he is a fool. This has nothing to do with supporting Bush either. It takes a moron to blindly commit to something like that without the proper understanding of their purpose, intent, or effect.

There are als

Related interview

[proxima]

On the Media had an interview (transcript and mp3 download available) last week with Internet Archive co-founder Brewster Kahle. about his personal experience with the national security letter. Interesting stuff, but perhaps not much new if you've been keeping up with this.

A good excuse for civil disobedience.

[Cracked Pottery]

The law is written to keep this method of inquiry as secret as possible. While there are occasional instances where this would be warranted, e.g. the hot pursuit of dangerous criminal, the volume of these requests is so large that these cases are most likely comparatively rare. The most common effect of this provision is therefore the concealment of abuse.

Until there are cases where criminal convictions are challenged on Constitutional grounds, we will not learn just how much abuse, for example how often are instances of these letters used to uncover political information about lawful activities. Tools such as this are so dangerous to freedom that severe sanctions should exist for frivolous use.

The Constitution

[jd]

is, in fact, just part of a secret government conspiricy. The REAL constitution is in the archives of Torchwood, in Cardiff, and reads: "Nyah! What's up doc?"

Asking for it...

[erudified]

Asking for it...

Not gonna get it.

This all feels so Unconstitutional

[hyperz69]

So I asked for a copy of the Constitution under the Freedom of Information act. I received a Letter starting with "We The People" followed by a long continuos black line....

Workaround?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

How are these delivered?

I mean, could I just make sure a friend of mine opens any mail I get from the FBI?
He wouldn't be constrained by what he saw, and by that point I wouldn't have been notified not to include him on anything.

Re:Workaround?

[jamstar7]

You're forgetting the part about no third parties are allowed to know of their existence in your case. You just sent yourself and your buddy to prison

Re:Workaround?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

No, I didn't forget.

If I haven't yet been notified this is one of those notices, then I'm not covered by it, right?
I just can' tell anyone about it after I see it.

How do I know that the next think I get from the FBI is an NSL?

no

[Anonymous Coward]

the us constitution does not list american rights.
it lists american rights that the government can't trample on or take away. the constitution's sole power is to limit the government of the united states and it's employees, everywhere in the world.
haliburton mercenaries in iraq are as much bound by the constitution as the congress of the usa.

Re:no

[wellingj]

I see your point and agree.
But when you look at the principle of it all, I see protection of individual's inalienable rights and the restraint of government power as two sides of the same apple.

Scathing Reports!

[argent]

Thank God, something is being done. As soon as Undersecretary Sternwheeler drafts a Sternly Worded Protest we'll get Magnan and that young fellow of his to deliver it to the FBI!

Re:Scathing Reports!

[mshannon78660]

Glad to see someone remembers Keith Laumer - wish I had mod points right now!

The other way around

[Britz]

Actually in China (and many other places) people are pretty comfy with the government dictating the actions of the people.

And we have been telling them that this is wrong for ages.

Re:just for fun, we could enforce ammendment 10

[NemoinSpace]

Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe most people in the U.S. have never read it. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -Shakespeare was right about the lawyers.

Know many on the hard left have your back

[mrraven]

I see you're a Ron Paul Libertarian but know many of us on the hard left have your back if it gets any worse. Many of us on the left are entirely disillusioned with sign waving peace marches which are ignored by the Cheney presidency with a reaction of "so?" If we don't all hang together, surely we will hang separately a wise founding father once said.

Like you I don't believe it's the proper time for violence but if say John McCain were to say put Blackwater troops on the streets to engage in gun grabbing after an attack on Iran I can easily see that changing...

Keeping your powder dry is an insurance policy not an immediate call to violence can you really not see that NPR listening gun grabbing "liberals."

rootoftheworld calling

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? You guys are dealing with paper and documents??!
whens the last time you heard of a major political turnover via petions? the system is as is because the some of influences (READ POWERS) is greater than those opposed to current parameters. Of course a couple of AK-47s couldfixthat