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.
Reminds me of Nixon, "I am not a crook!", yes I broke the law but the laws don't apply to The President.
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.
So maybe this is why the "war" keeps dragging on and on? As long as we have a war going, he thinks he can do anything he wants? (and is often the case)
We had a "war" going on with Nixon in the house too. I see a pattern developing.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The subject says it all. For years, we've seen stories like this. Things aren't getting better. What can readers do about it? What are you going to do about it?
Please help metamoderate.
If it continues, it may not stop until there is a war something like the one we called 'the war between the states' among other things. Where congress has failed I see some states taking issue with the Federal government and making bold steps like several stated declaring gun bans unconstitutional, 33? states refusing Real ID, and several other very bold statements. Several localities have issued warrants for the arrest of the president and vice president. These things are not just funny party stories. It really might take only one argument like the one surrounding this story to set of a chain of events that cannot be undone.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
"He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders." - Neither did Saddam, or any of his henchmen. That was just a bit of War propaganda.
"He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country." - Um.. Yes he does. Mace is a good example. Almost all the vicious weapons, chemical or mechanical, that are used for torture today were first developed in the US.
"He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents." As far as I know, you have me there. I don't think he allows parents into Guantanamo. But he does use torture, there and elsewhere on a regular basis. In fact, he probably does arrange for this to happen on some extraordinary renditions....
"He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January." We hope. He should have been thrown from office for many crimes via the normal process already, but has managed to suppress it so far. At the least he has broken the constitution.
When I started to write this I thought it would be hard to make any kind of comparison between Saddam and Bush, but it turns out that it's quite easy. Of course, a lot of things that were said about Saddam were wartime propaganda and lies - I have little trouble believing that if the two men had each taken up the other's role they would have behaved very similarly. And of course, Saddam has not actually taken over another non-threatening country and stolen all it's raw materials.....
Do you really believe Bush would have behaved differently than Saddam were he the absolute dictator in Iraq? You do realize that's exactly what he's been trying to become since he started the war under completely false pretenses, right?
It's not acts of any one sort that make someone completely evil. It's evil that causes one to act. Bush doesn't need to kill his own citizens at home to keep the people in line. Americans are so f***ing scared of their own shadows that Bush only has to invent bogeymen.
Bush is trying to diminish FISA's control over his actions for good reasons.
FISA was established when the nation was not at war. The idea was that the CIA wouldn't engage in domestic surveillance because the FBI is supposed to do that. If the FBI wanted information the CIA had, it had to go to the FISA court to get it. That barricade made sense when it was established but had the side effect of hobbling legitimate inquiries. To wit, after the Cole bombing, the FBI had solid information that Al Qaeda was behind it and they had good information that Al Qaeda was established here in the states. They asked the CIA what the CIA knew and the CIA refused to divulge that they knew two Al-Qaeda operatives were in San Diego. The CIA had tracked them while following a meeting in Malaysia. The CIA didn't divulge that information to the FBI until late in the summer of 2001. The CIA justified its failure to pass the information on, despite being asked point blank in several meetings, to "The Wall", a reference to the barrier established by the FISA court.
After 9/11 when the 9/11 commission looked at why we missed several signals that could have thwarted 9/11, the FISA court played a dominant role. We're at war and Bush is trying to win it. He views FISA as an impediment to that goal and like presidents before him, i.e. Roosevelt and Lincoln, is pushing the boundaries of the Constitution.
Whether Bush is right or wrong comes down to a lot more than 'rules are for other people, not us.'
The Next American Civil War is going to be much bloodier than the first one was.
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my Father! Prepare to die!
So does snailmail. Congress conveniently set up a huge pit that eats snailmail sent to them and spits it out weeks later, by which time it is no longer relevant. They don't give a shit about their comstituents. They even have responded to messages I've sent them thanking me for my support -- when I'd written in AGAINST the issue at hand!
i am a soviet space shuttle
The Constitution is clear, ""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."
Congress decides what the jurisdiction of the courts is, and this is a check written into the Constitution - unlike FISA. Congress "stripping power," to use loaded, biased phrasing, is exactly what Article III empowers Congress to do.
One could make the argument that FISA itself is unconstitutional. After all, can, by mere act of law (as opposed to constitutional amendment), Congress actually limit presidential powers?
So by merely passing a law (FISA), Congress can "strip" the president of powers, but by constitutional power under Article III, it cannot "strip" a judge of jurisdiction? Not to mention, the whole power of judicial review, "stripping" congress and the executive of powers by the lone unelected branch, is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. Who is "stripping" whom again?
Furthermore, is it really the position of Slashdotters that, prior to FISA's passage, the president had no powers to monitor spies and terrorists? That seems to be the logical extension of the argument of this judge and those here hailing him.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Our system is such that we will never be able to remove the influence of rich businessmen over the government. It existed during the time of the founding fathers, and it exists today. It will exist tomorrow.
Accepting that the government will never care about your opinion unless you are a wealthy corporation or a cable news darling of the week; you're really left with just the option of organizing a grass roots campaign to boycott corporations which attempt to influence government to an extent that it really harms the public.
For example, Verizon is pushing hard for telecom immunity. If Verizon customers were gutsy enough to suck up the early termination fee and drop Verizon for its anti-consumer behavior, Verizon would eventually back down. And once a major corporation loses its money, they lose their power.
The problem is, Americans bitch and moan about everything, and yet do nothing, because as previous responses have suggested, we are easily appeased with shiny objects. Consider the Wal*Mart effect on local economies. People will complain, and yet the same people will still shop at Wal*Mart because of the low prices.
Another example: Abercrombie & Fitch and a number of other trendy apparel companies are linked to the sexual exploitation of asian women who work as slave labor on the island of Saipan. I suspect that even if someone were able to get the media to cover this, teenager girls and boys will still buy A&F products.
I guess this is just one more reason not to trust Wikkipedia and an example of how it can fool you. First, These guys seemto think we are at war, they said the AUMF does activate the president's war powers. "First, while we assume that the AUMF activated the President's war powers, see Hamdi v. Rums-feld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004) (plurality opinion), and that those powers include the authority to convene military commissions in appropriate circumstances,"
The Hamdi V rumsfield case decided by the district court said "There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use." and "In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of "necessary and appropriate force," Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here."
Again, the look like their saying we are at war. It should also be noted that the government lost their position in this case on the supreme court level and the court still maintained that the AUMF took us to war.
Regardless of whether or not congress actually use the words "declare war", the Supreme Court is willing to give the words used the same weight as a declaration of war. It is the supreme court that will be the final arbitrators on it and regardless of the impression that wikkipedia want to give you, the SCOTUS is the correct opinion to follow.
Just because someone shows integrity doesn't mean he's one of the good guys.
That is exactly what it means. An opponent is someone showing integrity and approaching the system from their own different position. The bad guys are the ones undermining the system entirely. You may be politically opposed to this judge (and I would guess that I am as well, if he was a Bush nominee), but he's still one of the good guys.
We can come together as a country and kick the criminals out, even if we aren't all of the same political bent. In fact, we basically must, if we hope to return the Republic to the people.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."