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?
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.
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.
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.
>> 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!
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
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.