Slashdot Mirror
Congress Tries To Strip Power From Anti-Wiretap Judge
palegray.net writes "Congress is attempting to strip US District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of his power following his ruling against the government regarding immunity for telecoms in the NSA wiretapping case. Walker was appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has attempted to enforce existing prohibitions against warrantless wiretapping. From the Wired article: 'Walker, the chief judge of the Northern District of California, affirmed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive legal method for conducting surveillance inside the United States against suspected spies and [terrorists]. The Bush Administration argues that Congress's vote to authorize military force against Al Qaeda and the president's inherent war time powers were exceptions to the exclusivity provision.' The article makes the observation that Congress seems to be having difficulties bringing itself to enforce the laws that it has previously passed regarding wiretapping, and seems more interesting in silencing opposing viewpoints."
Update: 07/06 16:15 GMT by SS: As several readers have noted, the vote would only limit Judge Walker with respect to this particular case. His other responsibilities would be unaffected.
Sounds like a typical case of "These rules are for other people, not us". Mr Bush seems to like that thought process.
They're not trying to "strip power" from this judge specifically; the article's title is misleading. Almost sounds like they're trying to remove him from the bench.
Not that what they're doing isn't repulsive, cowardly, and short-sighted, of course. I'm not sure who I'm madder at, fascist republicans, cowardly democrats, or the fear-driven electorate who is so terrified of terrorists they don't care what the government does. Preaching to the converted I know, so let me throw in a gratuitous go-to-hell to the the "libertarian" contingent who have been so obsessed with their own money and possessions they'll vote for anyone who promises to legalize assault rifles and lower taxes. No, not all libertarians are like this, not even most, but I've met a sizeable chunk who are basically crypto-republicans.
Congress is attempting to strip US District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of his power following his ruling against the government regarding immunity for telecoms in the NSA wiretapping case. Walker
It is misleading to say that he ruled against the government. He represents a branch of the government, an independent judiciary, and he made a decision contrary to that of other branches of government. He has lived up to his role (nigh duty) and provided the checks and balances that keep the government as a whole in check.
Republicans and Democrats have done more to strip America of her civil liberties than terrorists ever could.
Who could I vote for that would actually be elected that has any sense of justice?
The president and most of Congress are traitors to our country. There is no longer a Rule of Law. Instead, we have a kangaroo legislature that rubber-stamps any and all attempts to create a police state.
How is Bush different than Saddam?
The vote for or against amnesty not about whether telecoms participate in the future. In the future, they are supposed to get court orders -- that's the promise of the bill.
But, if they have no legal incentive to do that (i.e. they'll get sued if they don't get a court order), what's the point in going through he legal hoops and expense to get such an order?
Congress: For the Corporation, by the Corporation.
Goddamn them! Goddamn them all to hell!
That is a good way to get put on the watched list as you will be seen as 'un-American'.
Dark times ahead for us there are.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Meesa propose to giva' Senator Palpatine immediately emergency powaz!"
Somehow, I did not fail to see the sarcasm in the new Star Wars movies. Of course, the "death" of the Old Republic, happened when the North conquered the South, in a war of aggression (not sure why they call it a civil war, since it was two federations fighting each other, one to conquer and subjugate, the other to maintain the right of its member states to be independent, and the "nation of freedom" was stillborn even in 1791, for the most part because those who created its "founding document" did it with intentional flaws built in. Why, one asks? Well obviously, men who want government, want it only because it benefits them, they love power... but the power is all the more addictive when given up willingly by the dupes who think they need someone else to do their thinking for them. These people were no different. And they WERE the government, and they were fairly certain their progeny would continue to run the show (as they have).
The average plebe, regardless of where, is still just a mindless drone who hates money, hates thinking and most above all, hates getting out of his mental box (or hers, ladies I haven't forgotten about your ability to be equal to men in the endeavor of willful ignorance.) Actually judging by my observations of the "average Joe", I would wager that perhaps people DO need someone else to do some of their thinking for them, since obviously the vast majorities are unwilling to think past the divisive slogans and political campaigns.
The majority of stupid people in this country see no problem with the "us vs them" mentality because they are thinking "americans vs arabs" or "democrats vs republicans"... they don't realize its "parasites versus producers". As it has always been. Too many producers are too busy blaming other producers for their problems, while calling for more parasites, to realize that the parasites aren't necessary. As to which is which I leave it as an exercise to each reader to decide who are the producers and who are the parasites.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
E-mail just gets dumped in the bit bucket. You have to send snail mail with real paper, generally the type that includes the line "pay to the order of" to buy the, err, get the attention of a congresscritter.
Slashdot exists to make money, which in a way makes it completely hypocritical. I would wager that if the editors do any checking, it's to make sure the headlines are as sensational as possible.
Am I the only one who is bitterly disappointed with the seemingly spineless Democrats.
I have read Obama's explanation of his stance where he basically tells us to suck it up. Why are they really doing this? It seems to me that some folks broke the law and could/should go to jail. It also seems to me that the Democrats are bending over backward to make sure this doesn't happen. Are they as corrupt as the Republicans?
If Bill Clinton can be subjected to a witch hunt and impeached for what he did with a cigar (and which imho should never have been the subject of the aforementioned kangaroo court) surely Bush should be prosecuted to the max for lying to the public and congress so he could start a war. Wiretapping Americans was also illegal and should be prosecuted.
Why should people know what the intelligence community is doing? You shouldn't as you haven't got the need to know.
At least until a group of officers come to your door.
If I were an American being wiretapped, even if I couldn't get any warning, I'd at least want the intelligence forces to need a warrant for it first. Just because they work for the government doesn't mean they're incapable of mistakes or malice.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Oath of Office
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
To date the only one I am aware of that is following his oath is Ron Paul. BTW - they not only say this they sign a document to the effect. The vile contempt for the American people is what irks me most. Talk about ELITISM, these guys run amok in a town so far separated from their constituency they lose touch with reality.They begin believing the hype that they are more than just regular people.Fuck that. With our technology, there is no reason for these fat team-killing fucktards to BE in Washington, they should be home in their states meeting with the people they represent instead of going on junkets, diddling pages, hiring hookers, and paying other people to do their research.
I'm not bitter. Not at all.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Yeah, take pride the next time you need to fly and are told at the airport you can't cause you're on the watch list.
I don't care why you're posting AC
So, are you arguing that Soulskill and Palegray are too stupid to see that the article made no such assertion? Or that their attempt at an attention-grabbing headline is OK because "Wired did it first"?
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Whether Bush is right or wrong comes down to a lot more than 'rules are for other people, not us.'
um. no it doesn't. that is the very heart of why he is wrong. and this is about wiretapping without warrants, not sharing information with other agencies. there's nothing to share without properly collected info.
Name one concrete barrier to real intelligence represented by FISA.
The only reason to fear FISA is because you fear that your surveillance is without merit.
The reason there is no rioting in the streets is:
1) We mostly have decent jobs
2) Even if we don't, we have stuff we can do, like watch tv
3) When the economy is good, we feel unaffected, when it's bad we're just trying to get by
4) This won't affect our internet, tv, choice of cars, schools for the kids, mortgage or rent, and especially not our back yards.
5) the price of high-fructose-laden foods
It looks like more than one reason but it really isn't. Sadly, life is too good right now to be worried about things like our civil rights being eroded.
>> FISA was established when the nation was not at war.
What exactly would you consider a war? We were still in the throes of the "Cold War" against a billion plus Communists armed with nuclear weapons. We had just pulled out of Vietnam, and it was the warrantless surveillance of people opposed to that war that sparked the Chuch Investigations and then FISA. So whether you consider Mr. Bush's war to be an figurative, ideological struggle, or whether you consider is to be a literal, physical struggle, FISA was a reaction to exactly the same excesses.
Besides which, FISA doesn't cover information sharing between agencies. Thats an entirely different problem. FISA simply establishes a mechanism for authorizing domestic spying.
+--------------------- You idiot! I told you we were facing the wrong way!
Someone else has already pointed out that the Slashdot headline was virtually identical to the one Wired put above the article.
And as I said to that someone else, whatever the article title (usually written by a copy editor, not by the journalist who wrote the article) says, the actual article itself (written by the journalist who did the research) says nothing of the sort.
Unless you also wish to take an unconscionable "They did it first" policy to inaccuracy and/or dishonesty in article summaries, I see no point to your statement.
nb: If someone with mod points chooses to take me to task for my brusque tone, I'm willing to take the bad karma. As I've said before in this discussion, accuracy and honesty are far more important than karma.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Yes. There are well understood techniques for transitioning a democracy or an open/free society into a closed fascist state. You could write them down on a paper and make a checklist, and we in America are going right down the list checking those things off as if those who are behind this are reading from a fascist playbook.
Hmm... you know, I just read something about psychology, and this defense mechanism is one of the worst, leading to schizophrenia and living in an illusion. point 1-5 are starting to get drugs you use, as a replacement for the things you are missing deep inside of you.
The illusion is, that life is too good. In reality it isn't. But you would never allow yourself to accept this, because facing that reality (like: having allowed this cruelties to go on for such a losg time) is so painfully destroying your world, that you could not handle it.
Believe me. I know too good what I'm talking about, and after 10 years it still hurts sometimes, to face it myself.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It looks like more than one reason but it really isn't.
What you list is very old knowledge dating at least as far back as the Romans and generally referred to as "bread and circuses". In essence, keep the populace fed and distracted and they won't rebel.
You miss one very big innovation against dissent in modern America though - the corporate culture. The world of employment - background checks, drug tests, internet searches of what potential (and actual) employees are doing, etc. - puts a whole extra layer of difficulty and fear between citizens and their government. In most states you can be fired for any reason at all and have no legal recourse. That not only chills but deep freezes a lot of free speech and expression. Without laws to curb the corporations democracy, or what is left of it, is ultimately screwed.
Godwin's law is alive and well here on Slashdot, Baathist edition. What an idiot you are, sir. Saddam's horrors are well-documented and not propaganda. Long before Bush 43 was in office and 60 Minutes showed its anti-Bush bias, they did a huge expose on Saddam. The left wing Human Rights Watch documented Saddam's horrors as well. You can't just call any inconvenient truths "propaganda."
Forget flying: it's only a matter of time before it becomes finding employment. At least, that's what happened in the 50's.
I am officially gone from
Americans are so f***ing scared of their own shadows that Bush only has to invent bogeymen.
How is this not flamebait? So now you can say anything in anyway so long as it agrees with the anti-Bush memes on Slashdot.
The mod system here is broken.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.
"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you. Getting fired or losing your girlfriend over what you say or think is just a fact of life, and you trying to change that requires an even greater degree of control over what they exert on you.
I like you how suddenly make the switch from "employment" to "fear between citizens and government".
You can be fired for no reason at all and have no recourse? Well, duh, you can quit hiring your maid for no reason at all, too; should she be able to take you to court over you firing her? Some people will fire you over terrible reasons--maybe they are racist, maybe they just don't like you. That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.
If you want control, the person you have to depend on, protect, and think for needs to be yourself primarily.
You should probably try to RTFA and see that Congress is just going to pass the immunity law which will then take it out of the judge's hands unless the Supreme Court rules against it in the inevitable lawsuit. Yes, he does seem like one of the good guys, and thankfully they aren't doing anything to him. The law that they are going to pass, and trust me they WILL pass it thanks to the telco lobby, takes it out of his and any other judges' hands for the time being.
No specific action is being taken against Judge Walker. His name isn't in the bill, and Congress hasn't threatened to impeach him.
Basically, you are saying the government should have the right to prevent groups from being able to make their own rules and set their own standards for how they are run.
Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.
"Free speech" isn't being able to say whatever you want without any form of repercussions; it's simply the government not jailing or preventing you.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.
That's life, and expecting, and wanting, to be coddled just gives someone or something else more power over you because they're the one who puts the foot down.
No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.
Yes, they are called laws. In the same way that we no longer tolerate allowing 8 yo kids to work 12 shifts in coal mines or allow "groups" to dump toxic waste in the water supply.
Those are absolutely different scenarios than having a person agree to terms upon accepting a job. You aren't owed a job, nor are you owed their money. A fascinating concept.
And I am suggesting that political speech protections should be extended to prevent retribution from employers. These protections were less necessary in the past because corporations didn't have such a strangle hold on the government nor were the private actions of citizens so easily tracked. Now both those conditions are all too true and greater protections are required.
Again, this "gimme" mentality is frightening: you are not owed the job, it is not something you are "entitled" to, they offer it to whom they want, when they want, much like you call up the plumber when you want and on your terms (and what they agree with).
I find it strange when you talk about business getting a stranglehold on government, when that's really a different issue and your solution is... more government? What do you think is going to happen?
No, that's life as you apparently are willing to accept it. The many combining forces to fight the powerful few isn't coddling, it's the only viable method of equalizing the situation. You may think you are Rambo however most people are mature enough to know how ridiculous a notion that is.
It has nothing to do with Rambo; it has more to do with not accepting communist principles and the idea that that world is supposed to work exactly as I want it to all the time.
I'm not owed a job, or anything, from anyone; if worst case scenario they don't like who I am then that's business and I go elsewhere. The fact that the government and business are in bed or that someone can look up what you put on your own myspace profile for the world to see are really different issues altogether.
Maybe you should be more careful about your own reputation if it's so sullied you cannot find a job, or be a little smarter with what you say to people.
And a concept you came up with all on your own since it has nothing to do with anything I said. A classic attempt at a straw man argument, though perhaps you knew that already.
Under no circumstances do you deserve a job or should a job be rightfully yours; anyone offering the job, thus, can hire (and fire) for any reason whatsoever. You have no "right" to a job, from anyone.
And all of this has what to do with legal protections against being terminated (or not hired) for political activities? I am not arguing that anyone is "entitled" a job. I'm arguing that their politics (like race, gender, age, etc) should not be considered in hiring or as cause for termination. It's not that radical an idea.
Because once again, the job is not yours for the taking, it is a position offered by someone else, and they can choose and discriminate in any sense they see fit, be they only hire friends or people they personally like, or people that can do the job the best. It matters not; it's their job to offer.
Additionally, it's nearly impossible to tell why you got fired most of the time; usually the reason is simple: they no longer need you, or you are incompetent at your job.
You find it strange because you either have never engaged in political activity or haven't thought about the current environment. Or both.
Business controls the political process through money, not numbers. The other 90+ percent of the population has its vote (numbers) and its willingness to invest energy in the political activity. Through (political) employment discrimination business has cast a chill on people's willingness to invest their private time and energy in political change. The act of exercising your rights as a citizen could cost you your livelihood. So business not only perverts the system through its cash but also the sword it wields over people's income. That's unacceptable and a danger to democracy itself.
Short of killing business executives, how would you expect to redress the situation if not by the power of government? All efforts thus far to limit the influence of money on the political process have failed and as long as money is considered speech (and corporations considered "persons") it isn't going to change. At least by preventing business from engaging in political employment discrimination some manner of balance can be maintained.
People keep voting in one half of the criminals--"the people" are truly the gatekeepers in the end, not business--and then business, they are continually patronized by "the people". You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. You want it all, a nice car, an easy life, but are unwilling to accept the tradeoffs and unwilling to take responsibility for yourself, just like the rest of the country, or even the world, is. You want an easy answer and that's praying to the gods (in this case, the government) to save you. Of course, they won't... and in this case, can't, without putting people on an even smaller leash.
By "communist principles" you must mean commitment to democracy, multi-party voting, political activism, and a balance of power through equal votes and legal protections.
Sorry but your effort to paint people as ingrates for wanting to remove the corporate foot from their necks just isn't working for a lot of us.
Thank you for your whitewashing of Marxism 101 with rather vague "happy sentiments" like "democracy", "political activism", "a balance of power", etc, but you've said rather nothing there.
If the corporate foot is on your neck, you put it there. You are NOT a slave to your workplace, despite what you probably tell your friends ("I'm a damn wage slave! This is intolerable!") and they are not a slave to you and do not have to hire you on their terms, whether it's considered more "ethical" or not (and by this I mean hiring you because you are a Republican/Democrat/etc.. in some aspects, it's more than understandable, who wants to hire a petty Marxist that probably