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.

Comments

You Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:You Americans

[jopsen]

That is a good way to get put on the watched list as you will be seen as 'un-American'.

I hope that's a joke... Otherwise you should take pride in being on such a list!

Re:You Americans

[multisync]

you should take pride in being on such a list

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.

Re:You Americans

[b4dc0d3r]

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.

Re:You Americans

[Stew Gots]

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.

Re:You Americans

[dkleinsc]

Forget flying: it's only a matter of time before it becomes finding employment. At least, that's what happened in the 50's.

Re:You Americans

[MindlessAutomata]

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.

Re:You Americans

[Stew Gots]

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.

Re:You Americans

[palegray.net]

I probably could have worded the title a bit better, but here's what it boils down to:

1. Congress passes laws protecting Americans from warrantless wiretaps.
2. The government (NSA) works with major telecoms to engage in illegal wiretapping.
3. The government tries to justify it by waving the "time of war" banner around.
4. A federal judge rules on the illegality of it, and is interested in hauling the telecoms into his court to explain themselves.
5. Congress then proceeds to strip this judge of his power in the case by removing his ability to influence the situation.

So there you go.

Re:You Americans

[Keen Anthony]

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.

ptbob

[ptbob]

Sounds like a typical case of "These rules are for other people, not us". Mr Bush seems to like that thought process.

Re:ptbob

[v1]

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.

Re:ptbob

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:ptbob

[Macrat]

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)

What do you think the "war" was created for in the first place?

Re:ptbob

[rpillala]

To complete this pattern you should read A People's History of the United States. Here's a sample from page 238 at Google Books:

Under the deafening noise of the war, Congress was passing and Lincoln was signing into law a whole series of acts to give business interests what they wanted, and what the agrarian South had blocked before secession. The Republican platform of 1860 had been a clear appeal to businessmen. Now Congress in 1861 passed the Morrill Tariff. This made foreign goods more expensive, allowed American manufacturers to raise their prices, and forced American consumers to pay more.

Zinn continues on to describe a Homestead Act that allowed people with means to buy up land in the west for a low price (if you had means), and the government's gift of tens of millions of acres of public land to railroads.

Apparently giving business interests what they want is no longer enough, or the people in power need more power to deliver on the promise of all that lobbyist money. The quotation names the Republican party but I think it's well agreed these days that both major parties are equally likely to be owned by lobbies.

False article summary

[jeiler]

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.

Re:False article summary

[irtza]

I always thought the user number was a dead give away.

ok looking at my #, "always" is a bit longer than the time that I have held this view

Re:False article summary

[0xdeadbeef]

the article summary (and title of the summary) bear little, if any, resemblance to the "fine" article

*ahem* The headline of TFA: "Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to Strip His Power"

Re:False article summary

[jeiler]

No, probably not, and probably, respectively.

1. Judges cannot arbitrarily re-arrange court dates.

2. It wouldn't matter if the judge could re-arrange his schedule. The Telcos would ask for a continuance (based on the disruption of schedule), and if the judge refused to allow it, any decision handed down would immediately be slapped silly on procedural grounds.

3. Bush supports Telco immunity. If nothing else, he'd probably just pardon those convicted.

He is the government

[debrain]

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....

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans and Democrats have done more to strip America of her civil liberties than terrorists ever could.

People wonder why I don't vote...

[Dog-Cow]

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?

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[dreamchaser]

How is Bush different than Saddam?

He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders. He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country. He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents. He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

There is a much longer list. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan at all. I think he's made numerous blunders and our country is weaker for it. Rampant spending, ill advised military operations that are governed by the State Department more than the Pentagon (if you're going to fight a war, fight it to win). That list goes on and on as well, but to compare him to Saddam is disingenuous at best.

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.....

Re:People wonder why I don't vote...

[copponex]

He doesn't feed people feet first into plastic shredders.

Instead, he authorizes war and they're blown up, crushed, finished off by treatable diseases, or flee their homes to live in squalor in refugee camps. He only presided the capture of 80,000 suspected terrorists, and only 150 have officially died in custody.

He doesn't use chemical weapons against citizens of his country.

The same members of his current administration authorized the sale of those weapons knowing full well what they'd be used for.

He doesn't have women raped and children tortured in front of their parents.

The lawyer (John Yoo) in charge of formally defining torture said that crushing a child's testicles or raping an infant shouldn't be illegal when trying to extract information from terrorists. They haven't, to public knowledge, done that yet, but they think they should be able to.

He's going to be out of office via the normal process come next January.

Hopefully he won't start a war with Iran before he's finally removed from power, whether directly or through our client state, Israel.

That list goes on and on as well, but to compare him to Saddam is disingenuous at best.

No. Our government supported Saddam Hussein, with money and weapons, during the worst of his atrocities when his father was vice president. The same group of people oversaw the war in the gulf, and returned for round three to complete the destruction of Iraqi society in order to establish control over the resources of that area.

When virtually the same administration supports a tyrant and then accuses him of being a tyrant as an excuse to decimate an entire country, there's no reason not to make the comparison. Were it not for American support of Saddam in the 80s, the Shah from 1953 to 1979, and our continuing support of Saudi Arabia, there may have been freedom in the middle east long ago.

Saddam simply did our dirty work for us, namely, suppressing the Shia minority and keeping Iran in check and Saudi Arabia less worried about an uprising in their own state. Now we're employing the same tactics in Baghdad for the surge, where one hundred thousand mercenaries, including Sunnis no longer allied with al Qaeda, have been given free reign to "establish order."

Re:I thought...

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Lets be clear on content

[freedom_india]

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.

Why are the Democrats doing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Except they are in violation of their oath

[Sfing_ter]

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.

Re:Meesa thinka... ahem...:

[Sj0]

I disagree.

Anyone who would vote for Bush Jr. twice is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports perpetual budget defecits we're going to leave to our grandkids to pay back is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports tax cuts and rebate cheques while we're 500 billion overdrawn every year is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports war against relatively innocent nations, first on the basis of dishonest 9/11 rhetoric, then on dishonest WMD rhetoric, then on dishonest "He's a very bad man. Aren't you glad he's dead?" rhetoric, is wilfully ignorant.

Anyone who supports demolishing our freedoms in order to attack terrorists who supposedly hate us for our freedom is wilfully ignorant.

These wilfully ignorant people, they are supporting policies which are having a massive negative impact on the entire world and her people. Tens of thousands, maybe millions of people are dead because of the actions brought about by their wilful ignorance. More Americans are dead because of these ignorant policies than were killed on 9/11.

These people are my enemies.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's more complicated than that

[DarthBobo]

>> 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.

Please mod parent flamebait

[unassimilatible]

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.