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.
You Americans should probably try to e-mail your senator or member of congress regarding this. Mr. Walker seems to be one of the good guys, I'd hate to see him go down.
Sounds like a typical case of "These rules are for other people, not us". Mr Bush seems to like that thought process.
In what I am given to understand is a grand, old Slashdot tradition, the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article. Neither Congress nor the Executive branch is attempting to "strip power" from this or any other judge. They are (foolishly, IMO) retroactively legalizing a series of illegal acts, and making moot a case or series of cases currently pending on said judge's schedule, but the judge's authority is not one whit affected by the proposed law.
Shame on Soulskill and Palegray for this false-faced spin-doctoring.
And yes, reading TFA and actually expecting the summary to at least remotely resemble the article is evidently proof that I'm new here.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
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!
He's probably an illegal. They have no concept of the law as the law has nothing to do with stealing jobs and making babies.
I've already called Homeland Security.
Lee Iacocca in his autobiography stated that people are more interested in reading headlines rather than content or Opinion.
Before any of you slashdotters start venting foam from your mouths, let us be clear on content:
1. The Congress is NOT trying to strip THIS judge from power to do anything.
2. The Congress/Senate votes on July 8th to provide immunity to Telecoms who allegedly violated law.
3. If such immunity is provided, then, and only then will this judge lose his power to apply the law to Telecoms on spying.
If the vote stalls, (any senator can bring in a "Hold") the judge can proceed on existing laws and there is absolutely NOTHING the Congress or president can do to stop him, short of impeaching him (which will invite the wrath of even Scalia and probably result in arrest of President).
The title is wrong, misleading and similar to what FOX news or Karl Rove would have done.
Shame on you s'dotters, i thought you were more intelligent and accurate than FOX News.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
"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
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.
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
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.
We're at war and Bush is trying to win it.
When did Congress declare that war? We are not "At War", we are in a NATO action in one area, and a UN action in another, but we are not at war.
This is definitely the most inaccurate headline I've ever seen at Slashdot. The trying-to-save-face Update is also droolingly inaccurate. Others have tried to say it, but I'll reiterate it in different words here:
THE WIRED ARTICLE IS USING THE PHRASE "STRIP HIS POWER" SOLELY AS A METAPHOR.
Congress is not voting on Judge Vaughn Walker in any way, shape, or form. His name doesn't appear in any bill, law, or motion in front of Congress. He just *happens* to be the judge that the warrantless wiretapping suits are in front of in the Northern District of California.
Yes, on Tuesday Congress plans to vote on the intercom wiretapping immunity bill (and it stinks like rotten fish), like they've been planning for some time. And yes, that would mean that the judge then couldn't rule in favor of this lawsuit. But they're not targetting any particular individual, and this is just the exact same story we've been reading about for months now regarding an intercom-immunity bill.
Congress is NOT stripping Judge Walker of any power whatsoever. Congress IS passing a new crappy law that coincidentally affects one of the cases in front of Judge Walker.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
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!
>> 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!
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.
I was going to write that exact comment.
Thank you for writing it. Not enough people know that, for instance, we knowingly and intentionally provided Saddam Hussein with the chemical weapons he used to kill Iranians, which chemical weapons Saddam then used against the Kurds.
Funny enough, we had him hanged for using the chemical weapons we gave him.
Aren't you proud to be an American?
:(){
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
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
One barrier? How about that Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar were in the United States? The FBI had specifically asked the CIA if any Al Qaeda members were in the United States and the CIA refused to answer. The CIA didn't divulge that information to the FBI until 9/12?
FISA serves to compartmentalize information. That's fine if you're worried about the government spying on its own citizens. Not so fine when it keeps the government from putting together information that's crucial to defense of its citizens.
We both have fears, just different ones.
That's not a bug, it's a feature. That's the "chinese wall" FISA established. The CIA and NSA can break any rules they feel need to, spy on anybody... except they are illegal agencies if they spy in US citizens and it's illegal to use their results in domestic law enforcement. They can't even admit they take those actions or domestic law enforcement would have to lock them up! That allowed them to get whatever foreign agents may be here but normal citizens would not be looking over their shoulders. The CIA can't tell the FBI anything, or the FBI would start using them for illegally spying on regular people and just pass the info under the table.
The FBI already learned their lesson after J. Edger's secret spying on politicians nearly got them shut down... They learned the hard way to run a clean ship and not touch CIA info.
Bush can NOT exercise wartime powers. Or rather, he should not be able to exercise wartime powers. War requires a declaration by Congress. Military action at the behest of the President is not war, regardless of how it's spun. If the President is able to single-handedly declare war, then use his own declaration as reason to dismiss traditional Executive restraint, the whole goddam Constitution is worthless.
Yes, I'm well aware that this is essentially what's been going on for the last 8 years. It's been drawn out enough to make it less extreme. Just a signing statement here, an executive order there. Of course, until Congress realizes that it's own power has been hijacked by the Executive, there's really not much that can be done.
Regardless, it really is nice to see the Judiciary stepping up lately. Hopefully some of our elected leaders get the message.
That's a tired old saying. You must not be paying attention.
The Supreme court already ruled on that and determined or should I say confirmed that we are at war. It was in the Hamdi v rumsfield case I believe. Congress doesn't have to say "we declare war" in order to take us to war. Make no mistake, we are at war and not in an action.
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.
I absolutely will, a little inconvenience doesn't scare me.
Such as, the FISA process is slow, and actionable intelligence might require real-time speed. What if bin Laden is on the phone right now, with a throw-away cell? By the time you can get a FISA warrant, he's hung up and thrown the phone away. Opportunity lost.
Considering that you can apply for a FISA warrant retroactively, I don't see how it can ever be called "slow". Time-traveling warrants are never late.