Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging FISA
Wired's Threat Level blog reports that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit contesting the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Recently passed by both the House and Senate, FISA was signed into law on Thursday by President Bush. The ACLU has fought aspects of FISA in the past. The new complaint (PDF) alleges the following:
"The law challenged here supplies none of the safeguards that the Constitution demands. It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents without identifying the people to be surveilled; without specifying the facilities, places, premises, or property to be monitored; without observing meaningful limitations on the retention, analysis, and dissemination of acquired information; without obtaining individualized warrants based on criminal or foreign intelligence probable cause; and, indeed, without even making prior administrative determinations that the targets of surveillance are foreign agents or connected in any way, however tenuously, to terrorism."
... that both Obama and McCain support this measure. Is this a reflection of middle America's concerns?
there are people who still believe in the Constitution out there. They have my support.
i'm glad to see someone still loves the constitution, but the aclu will fail as always
I am half tempted to tell those solicitors for presidential campaign donations that I gave their $150 donation to the ACLU instead.
...such complaints by the surveilled would be connected tenuously to terrorism.
It permits the government to monitor the communications of U.S. Citizens and residents
The aclu seems to think that a us phone number confers us citizenship / permanent residency upon the answerer. Since the bill allows instant tapping of calls to/from joe terrorist's known overseas number and some number in the us, it really isn't so unreasonable.
The constitution is not a suicide pact; there, I got in my cute truism, now you can post your cute truism like the one about trading freedoms for security is deserving of neither or somesuch.
And be VERY specific about WHY you are doing so.
Money is all that most of them understand. Money gets them elected. Money gets them re-elected.
Therefore, regardless of whether the law itself is Constitutional, it can't be reviewed by the courts.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If this winds up going to the Supreme Court over the Right to Privacy, it could give them an excuse to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Leaders are guilty of nothing
They're perfectly insane
But if they'd point the finger at themselves
Who would be left to blame
Point the finger at yourself
There's no choice in freedom
There's no voice in freedom
We don't have a choice
Anymore anyway
Freedom, buy in
Freedom, sell out
Freedom, betray
Freedom, lay down
Freedom, corrupt
Freedom, opinion
Freedom, give up
Freedom, give in
People have been trading freedom for security for decades now - whether it's in the form of expanded FISA powers, or in the form of restrictive gun control, Social Security, etc. People set up the slippery slope whenever they decided that the Constitution should be ignored for their benefit, and now we all pay the price.
being prosecuted after the fact.
The criminal justice system is woefully inadequate for dealing with military issues, much less with illegal enemy combatants (no uniforms, clear chain of command, prefers to attack civilian targets, etc). To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane. The executive branch sets and is held accountable for military policy. If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab. We're headed for judicial dictatorship if the ACLU has their way.
I'm starting to see how Constantinople fell.
I'm curious how many people here have read the legislation instead of reacting to sound bites on TV. I mean, it does increase protection over what has been afforded since 2007, and while not the ideal of increasing protection back to pre-2001 levels, it at least restores some freedom.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Just because something makes sense doesn't make it constitutional. Congress can't make an end run around the Constitution. Don't like the way the Constitution prevents such and such? Amend the Constitution.
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means. But is there a legal definition of "terrorism" already? Something that clearly defines what a terrorist is, and under which someone can be charged for being terrorist?
We have clear definitions of "rape", what has to be done to make an indecent assault become "rape". We are quite clear what is "indecent assault". Murder, in all it's gradations from criminal negligence causing death to first degree premeditated murder, it is clear. We know what someone has to do to become murderer. Or rapist. Or thief.
But what does someone really have to do to become a terrorist? Be scary? Then everyone celebrating Halloween may be a terrorist. Being foreigner, and having ideas that oppose the American culture? Can't be enough to be a criminal.
It is really high time to define: what is a terrorist. Then, and only then, we can make this kind of laws actually work, without all kinds of unintended(?) side effects. Then also the risk of being thrown in jail just for being "a terrorist" without clear accusations can go. And of course, only when we define "terrorist" we can accuse people of actually being one, and judge them accordingly.
The rules change. The last i heard we are officially at war. ( and unfortunately will be for the foreseeable future ) During war, the federal government could even suspend the entire constitution and declare martial law, if they wanted/dare.
Not that i agree with doing it, but its an option that could make all this 'rights' stuff moot.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The government can't win for losing in this situation. Either they are impeding on perceived Constitutional protections or it fails in its Constitutional directive to protect its citizens. Which one takes precedence? I don't see any way for a compromise that can accomplish both.
As far as I know, there is no Constitutional right to privacy. The government, however, is specifically directed to protect its citizens. Courts are already spitting on the the second amendment. It says in black and white that citizens can bear arms. Period. It is not up for "interpretation". Where is the ACLU here?
If you read the Constitution, you can see that it was written in such a way that there is no need for interpretation. It was written in lay terms for the time so that everyone could understand it. Believe it or not, it actually means what it says. It's a very simple document that creates the government, sets out the responsibilities of the government and limits the power of the government it created.
I don't understand people who want to limit the ability of the government to protect us. Was the lack of communication between local police, the FBI, and CIA during the Clinton years, which led to 9/11, not a big enough eye opener?
The ACLU is a private enterprise with its own agenda and does not care about the safety of U.S citizens. It's no different than "big oil" or "big business" that it is so fond of going after. The only difference is that "big business" is after money and the ACLU and its ilk is after power and control. It, along with environmental groups, is a mouthpiece for socialist movement in the U.S. The ACLU was not elected by the people and does not represent the people. It has no respect for the Constitution, but relies on it when politically expedient.
Isn't voting for Libertarian Bob Barr an option?
We all know the word. We all have an idea of what it means
This bill has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with saying whether or not the USA can spy on people in other countries who may be talking to people in ours. Right now, this is in the cause of "fighting terrorism", but it could just as easily be used against drug trafficking, counter intelligence, quite literally, all the stuff the CIA/FBI does.
Has anyone ever thought how much the government might be interested in monitoring the communications of people from China back to their homeland? The Chinese government essentially data mines all this stuff to get an aggregate picture of how the USA works, and I think we'd like to know what picture that they see.
This is my sig.
5-4 vote is the only thing that'll preserve that bit of our constitution and freedoms.
Sometimes laws that have no chance of surviving the courts are supported as a form of pandering.
Nothing new in this case EXCEPT:
The Supreme court is corrupt and the republic has already fallen (making it just entertainment for the politically active.)
The population should be against it, so a move like this by Obama when he has a history of abstaining on this stuff is extremely interesting as to what really must be going on. We are not allowed to hear what he does; could be the CIA is feeding them more lies and Obama isn't wise enough (since he wasn't privy on the Iraq vote I never bought his line about always opposing the war.) OR certain powerful forces demand the passing of the bill and Obama serves or must kiss their ass.
No, I'm not a Hillary supporter. Hillary voted against it but I'm confident if she were in his shoes she would have voted for it FOR THE SAME CURIOUS REASONS.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.
IANAL, of course -- but when has that stopped anyone on /.?
However, I recall that it's still necessary to have an "actual case or controversy" where the plaintiff has a redressable wrong. "Maybe" and "could" don't count. Of course, the ACLU could cite the Court's ruling in the Massachusetts greenhouse-gas case to establish standing on behalf of people not yet born, but I think that only applies where a government body is acting as plaintiff on their behalf.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
for the Libertarians. Unfortunately the deck is stacked against them...won't be on the ballot in all 50 states, won't get free public tax payer money for campaigns, I'd like to see someone do something about this...lets send the Neocons repubs and ultralib dems the way of the whigs...
right?
You did say officially, didn't you?
Thought so.
is the one who deserves the worst president title. Sorry Clinton kept the economy humming after GW's dad screwed it up. I seriously doubt *anyone* will be capable of fixing the current bush's economic disaster for a decade or more. Clinton was no god, but bush is the devil.
Everyone on capital hill is still parroting that dot-bomb era bullshit about how selling bits is the future.
The private sector got real in 1999, and congress is preventing our recovery by helping copyright interests lay waste to anything that dares to grow in the information age.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
This used to be the way the U.S. government did it. Get some client government do the actual tapping and pass the info on to the U.S. Thus avoiding any pesky laws passed by congress. I guess this got to be too inconvenient resulting in the current controversies.
It is time to face up to the reality, that no legal sheet of paper can stop a foreign government from tapping.
Suits like this one, falsely encourage people to believe that legal pieces of paper can keep their phone conversations safe. Foreign governments and criminal organizations do not care what laws congress and the courts create.
If you require confidentiality for international communications, use end to end encryption and control both ends yourself.
Note that the last few times I flew, the planes were pretty much full. Hardly a sign that security regulations have impacted ticket sales all that much.
That has a lot more to do with the number of canceled flights, reduced seat capacity, ticket prices, and overbooking than any impact from security. As onerous as the security theater has become there really isn't a decent substitute for airline travel over long distances so it would have to get REALLY intrusive (think latex gloves) to seriously impact ticket sales volume.
It's not quite offtopic, folks... Roe v. Wade is pretty tenuous in it's basis on the Fourth Amendment (regardless on your stance on the issue, any argument that relies on terms such as "penumbras" and "emanations" to support it is pretty unstable).
Now I doubt that they stab abortion (or any other 4th Amendment issue) right off the bat if a FISA case were to come to court. But, The US Supreme Court has yet to really, truly define a Right to Privacy, because the Fourth Amendment doesn't specifically name it (it concerns security of one's homes, papers, possessions, etc... of which "privacy" is assumed to be among them, but not named or defined). Any definition (or re-definition) can shake up a LOT of cases that rely even partially on that Amendment.
Incidentally, the "F" in FISA will be a sticky obstacle... non-citizens do not share in US rights by default.
IIRC, there's a lot of legal precedent for FISA anyway... The Roosevelt administration's actions during World War II are loaded to the gunwales with examples and precedent - and that man fought with the USSC almost constantly.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
McCain abstained.
Abstaining on a bill that passes is effectively the same as supporting the bill absent some obvious conflict of interest. Since no conflict of interest exists here, McCain effectively supported the bill. If he opposed the bill he could have found a way to be present to vote no on the bill.
How exactly are you connecting FISA and Constantinople?
Furthermore, to reduce your argument to a meaningful state, you seem to believe that the rule of law is inadequate for the US Government. If that's the case, what options are left besides dictatorship?
The real problem you seem to have is that, for the first time in history, the people we trample on for resources and profit are actually fighting back. Here's an idea: remove our military forces from the middle east and see if the situation improves. However, in the language of conquistadors and colonialists, this would represent defeat.
He also hindered equipment upgrades, and now our soldiers are over in Iraq and Afghanistan using piss poor equipment.
GWB got us into an unnecessary war we've spent nearly a trillion dollars fighting and the quality of the equipment the troops have is Clinton's fault? Hmmm, think that trillion dollars could have been spent differently? Perhaps on equipment for the troops?
My biggest concern would be that these wiretaps would be used to promote one parties agenda. We have already seen how the administration has been "cleaning house" by going after democratic judges and attorneys, I wouldn't put it past them to use this to go after people who's views don't jibe with theirs. They used the National Security letters a few thousand times against people with no terrorist ties, and are not exactly transparent in much that they do, nevermind that they are taking away the right of people to have their day in court over the warrantless wiretapping that has already gone on, and new allegations of corruption pop up regularly.
Examples? I know of several instances where challenges to a law had to wait for an appropriate case, DC v. Heller being a recent example.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Yes, and nobody is trying to keep them from assembling. That doesn't give the Court subject jurisdiction, though, against the Constitution's restrictions on "cases and controversies" and the need for a plaintiff with standing.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If you knew anything about how the govt works then you would know that the military can NOT be used against the population on our soil. The National Guard is the only branch authorized.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
FISA amendments act of 2008 granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms also violates US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." I think the ACLU has a good case and I'll be watching it closely.
Infringement of the 4th is bad, and unauthorized. The law cannot stand because the just powers of government do not include the authority to infringe that inalienable right. But it is being handled (at least in part), in the way that it should be handled - the courts are now obligated to strike down the portions which violate the 4th. I say "in part" because I do not yet know what the punishment will be for those who voted to pass the law. I think censure is the minimum that can be accepted.
But the 4th is not the worst thing in this bill. The worst thing in this bill is the retroactive immunity.
Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Here's a snippet from Obama's response:
[The FISA Bill] ... removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.
Let me rephrase that: "removes an important tool for the American people to petition for redress of grievances."
Here is a snippet from Senator Maria Cantwell's response:
Congress should respect judicial review and not take away the only opportunity for redress available to American citizens for potential overreaching by this Administration.
Petition for redress is a right. Our rights come before the authority of the government and cannot be infringed by it. It is a right which the just powers of government do not authorize them to infringe. Hence these 73 people (69 Senators against, 3 not voting, and The President) have failed in their oath to defend The Constitution.
But what is worse is the particular right that was infringed. The right to petition for redress is the last peaceful step we are allowed for correcting our government. The largest group by an enormous margin on Obama's site is the anti-FISA group. That's the soapbox. We nominated a person who promised to fight immunity. That's the ballot box. And this retroactive immunity removed the jury box. There is time for this to be corrected, but it is an incredibly dangerous place for us to be. It is like the old DEFCON rating from the cold war. We are hanging at the last peaceful step. With every fiber of my being I hope that we can find a peaceful way out of this, because I cannot bear the thought of the next responsibility with which our founders charged us.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Obama was smart to vote for this, even though he opposed it!
1) It would have passed anyway without his vote
2) McCain abstained, so Obama can hammer him as being 'weak' on terrorism and bring more Republicans away from the McCain camp.
It's just like any other tactical game. If you give away something that doesn't matter (a vote on a lost cause) to gain something valuable (a weapon against your opponent) then you're playing a smart game.
I understand "chilling effect" but I don't know if it creates standing.
Well, it's all armchair quarterbacking from two IANAL types anyway. We'll see soon enough I suppose.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
You'd have to draw the line just right, but I can see how it could be done.
The actual case is that I had something (the right to be secure) which the constitution explicitly granted me. Congress took it from me by passing the present law which provides a path around the constitutional protections. It is redressable by declaring the law void and unconstitutional.
Many similar sounding cases fail because the plaintiffs can't show that the were actually personally effected (wiretapped, jailed, whatever). But were they law being runs up against a positive requirement (equal protection, security, etc.) it should be much easier to establish standing.
For example, if they passed a law saying that it was OK to cook Scientologists and eat them for dinner, any Scientologist should be able to mount a challenge against that law as a violation of their right to equal protection, even if they haven't been eaten. They have a right not only not to be eaten, but to be protected from it by the law.
Likewise, we have a right not only to privacy, but to be secure in that privacy. The present law is a direct assault on our constitutionally granted security.
--MarkusQ
It is time to face up to the reality, that no legal sheet of paper can stop a foreign government from tapping. Suits like this one, falsely encourage people to believe that legal pieces of paper can keep their phone conversations safe.
This has nothing to do with foreign governments. You are attempting to muddy the waters with arguments unrelated to the issue at hand.
Foreign governments and criminal organizations do not care what laws congress and the courts create.
So, into which category do you put the current administration? I vote for the second.
FISA was passed back in 1978 after the Nixon abuses. This bill, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, sought to legitimize the President's warrantless wiretapping program that was illegal under FISA - because that's what FISA was designed to prevent! President Nixon did the exact same thing this administration is getting away with. I guess Congress actually had the balls to rein in abuses of power back in the seventies, even with the Cold War, the Soviet Union, and the possibility of nuclear annihilation hanging over them.
It appears that Congress today has turned into a gaggle of cowards.
Israel=General Ripper US=Buck Turgidson
Actually, it is a LOT worse than you say.
Here is some information collected from numerous places:
There is evidence that whoever controls the U.S. government is planning to declare martial law. That's a top-rated story on Digg.com.
Search for "martial law" on digg.com or reddit.com. There are hundreds of links.
Cheney's company Halliburton is building prisons. There has never been an adequate explanation why. Do a Google search.
The U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security committee is not allowed to see the martial law plan.
According to the New Yorker Magazine, the Bush administration has already started another war in Iran. See President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran.
Bush and Cheney and their friends and families and associates are oil and weapons investors. Weapons investors want war all the time. Oil investors want to restrict the supply of oil, so that the price will rise.
The war with Iran has the same purpose as the war in Iraq. It will allow whoever controls the U.S. government to restrict the flow of oil even more, making the price go even higher.
The war with Iran is extremely unpopular with U.S. citizens. It is said that whoever is doing the planning will do terrorist acts in the U.S. and blame them on Iranians. That will allow the declaration of martial law. It is said that the planners have put a lot of time into passing laws that allow them to have more control and that they will not allow Barack Obama to become president because he would undo their work.
The U.S. government has manipulated the facts in other cases so that it will be allowed to start a war. One example is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August."
...not gods.
Whatever the founding fathers intended, two hundred-plus years of American law has placed a completely different spin on the 4th amendment.
Which is the only way for the Constitution to remain viable, since the human beings who authored the Constitution had no idea what the world would be like in the 21st century. We can conjecture what the founding fathers might have though about FISA, but that's as meaningful as chicken-bone voodoo. Unfortunately for Originalists, Thomas Jefferson did not write a missive on whether email traveling through servers in the US requires a judicially issued warrant.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I don't like the ACLU- at all. Their communist roots and goals are not even close to being in line with me or this country. But they are occasionally right by accident, as it is in this case.
Monitoring/invading/eavesdropping/stalking without a warrant is pretty much what separates us from the socialist toilets, dictatorships, and European countries of the world. It is completely illegal. No matter how much the executive branch wishes the Constitution didn't exist, it does- and it is the Supreme Law of the land.
The FISA bill has no check or balance. It observes no warrant or oversight by another branch of government. It is completely illegal. It is in fact laws like the above that inspired our founders to overthrow the government, and start a new one.
1) I do not support torture
changes to...
2) Who the fuck are you, where am I?! DEATH!!
McCain's tune-changing has been going on for years...he's flip-flopped more often than Obama. Besides, at least Obama can remember shit...like who the players are in Iraq, and what the fuck he voted on.
Blar.
We are a nation of laws. Those that break the law should be held to account. The Bush administration has flouted one of the bedrock laws of this country and Congress' reaction to these crimes is to retroactively make them legal.
Can you tell me exactly what freedoms are being restored by this new FISA law? Does the new law guarantee that this president or the next wont use this as a precedent to allow him to ignore any provisions (of any law) that he doesn't like?
This is not the perfect being the enemy of the good. This law is just a smokescreen.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
They were already hit by the bad foreign policy and idiotic travel restrictions after 9/11. Remember when all those tax dollars were just handed out to them? Remember when the profitable private corporations didn't save for a rainy day and the US citizens gave them free money to keep operating?
Now they're feeling the economic pinch resulting from poorly waging ill-advised wars.
So they're going bankrupt AGAIN.
I suppose they'll get bailed out again...on my dime...yay!
Blar.
Find me an independent candidate and an active people and we'll be in business then! ;-)
-Matt
P.S. Seriously folks, the two-party system (and its extensive range of funders) has this wrapped up -- they pick your candidates. You want change you really have to change the two-party system - there's no way around this at this stage.
You dare to mention the ACLU and the Constitution in the same sentence?
The ACLU doesn't give two shits about the Constitution, and they never have. Thanks to the ACLU's reaction to the D.C. v. Heller decision, many more people are finally realizing that the ACLU's true purpose is to champion causes of the Left, and nothing more.
Yes, Heller was a 5-4 decision. But the important point is that all 9 Justices (in the opinion and the dissents) agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual, not a collective right. In other words, the ACLU's position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right was unanimously refuted by the Supreme Court.
The ACLU could've excused themselves from the whole Heller debate by pointing out that many organizations exist to defend Second Amendment rights. In other words, they could've simply said that they were going to leave the task of defending Second Amendment rights to already-capable hands. But no; the ACLU just couldn't resist weighing in on Heller by taking a dump on the Constitution--the very document they claim to so stridently defend.
The ACLU is beyond contempt. It serves only to intercept donations that, if not for ACLU's hypocritical existence, might have actually gone to organizations that do defend civil liberties, instead of to a muckraking mouthpiece of the Left. They do not deserve respect (let alone support) in any form.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
It may get to the point where you really wish you'd done something earlier. yeah but at least the ACLU is trying
The ACLU Sucks...
Anything they are against is probably something that is good for America.
I don't know if it's justified but I have more respect for someone who says they were wrong than someone who says, "I never said that."
When has Bob Barr ever sought to limit the number of babies that women can have?
Yah, the very game he claimed he wasn't going to play.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Lets just say that I think it can be done, but not violently, with weapons, etc. Rather, you'd need to overthrow the foundation of our current government, which means our economy. I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal. But if revolutionaries want to have a shot in the dark of causing major changes, then they're going to need economic support, and working with the US dollar is just making them a part of the system they're trying to overthrow.
As far as implementation, I'm sure it's possible to have something like a freenet bank where accounts can be verified, so there's only a limited amount of currency in the system, and then you'd need alternative markets that support the currency.
In my opinion, it's completely ethical, just illegal, but I guarantee you: they'll attack first.
Yeah, you hate Clinton's booming economy, the giant surpluses he managed to accumulate, and the huge respect the world had for the U.S. at that time.
You prefer the economy we have now, which is going into the toilet. You love doubling the cumulative national debt during the years of Bush II and the Republican Congress. And you enjoy being despised even by our allies.
I would laugh at you if the looming Republican economic crash weren't so grim.
Obama was smart to vote for this, even though he opposed it!
Not necessarily. Obama's fundraising involves getting a lot of small donations from people who are excited about him as a candidate, because they think he represents a new kind of politics and/or they're sick of the Bush administration's abuses (like warrantless wiretapping).
If he tarnishes his brand by doing stuff like this, he pisses those people off, and the money dries up.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I cannot vote for any candidate that voted in favor of this and now I'm not sure what to do.
Like you I used to support Obama. But now that he's sold out I can't support him now. Hde was supposed to be for change but all I see is the same old stuff.
I'm no longer voting for the lesser of two evils as they both are.
The last tyme I voted for the lesser of two evils the candidate I voted against had the election stolen so he still won, Bush in 2000. This year I'm voting for Bob Bar.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Pick up your rifle.
Travel to see a senator.
Shoot with rifle.
Never shoot another human again.
They'll never find you.
If enough people feel the same way, then the government will die. If you cut off the head, the body dies too.
If enough people feel the opposite, then nothing will change.
Heard of them?
I think the fourth is covered.
For a US example, look at electrical and phone service in rural areas. It wasn't profitable for companies to offer service in those areas at a price consumers were willing to pay, but We The People decided electricity and telecommunications were important enough that people in those areas should have them anyway, so out came the subsidies.
Ah but phone service wasn't subsidized with general taxpayer money. Those who had phone service paid a tax which was then used to fund service in rural areas. This tax was the Federal telephone excise tax.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That sounds like apologia. I'd be careful with that; it's dangerous stuff.
Retroactively justifying a false move, that is. That's what Bush/McCain's people, do. That's Neocon thinking. You can spot the difference between a Righty and a Lefty very easily by watching for this behavior; the Right are incapable of seeing reality for what it is and must have their soothing lies in order to be happy. They don't care if the world goes into the crapper, (in fact, I suspect on some deep level, that's actually where they want it so that it can't hurt them or scare them by being alive and uncontrollable), whereas the Left will criticize a flaw when they see one, no matter who happens to perpetrate it. --We're talking in absolutes, of course; there are many shades in between. But essentially, as one who attempts to observe reality objectively, it is my opinion that Obama deserves criticism for going along with a bad bill.
-FL
our failed government institution
It has not failed. It is succeeding in doing exactly what weapons and oil investors want.
Here is some information collected from numerous places:
There is evidence that whoever controls the U.S. government is planning to declare martial law. That's a top-rated story on Digg.com.
Search for "martial law" on digg.com or reddit.com. There are hundreds of links.
Cheney's company Halliburton is building prisons. There has never been an adequate explanation why. Do a Google search.
The U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security committee is not allowed to see the martial law plan.
According to the New Yorker Magazine, the Bush administration has already started another war in Iran. See President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran.
Bush and Cheney and their friends and families and associates are oil and weapons investors. Weapons investors want war all the time. Oil investors want to restrict the supply of oil, so that the price will rise.
The war with Iran has the same purpose as the war in Iraq. It will allow whoever controls the U.S. government to restrict the flow of oil even more, making the price go even higher.
The war with Iran is extremely unpopular with U.S. citizens. It is said that whoever is doing the planning will do terrorist acts in the U.S. and blame them on Iranians. That will allow the declaration of martial law. It is said that the planners have put a lot of time into passing laws that allow them to have more control and that they will not allow Barack Obama to become president because he would undo their work.
The U.S. government has manipulated the facts in other cases so that it will be allowed to start a war. One example is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on 2 August."
If we could get everyone to stop paying taxes that would do it. Fat chance of that though.
His support for the Patriot Act
Bob Bar only supported the Patriot Act even after he added sunset clauses to it.
his support for a constitutional ban on the rights of gay couples to marry
He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is the essence of Libertarianism, the idea that centralized decisionmaking is rarely best for either individuals or society as a whole. Barr simply doesn't get that.
Actually he does get it, he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment saying it's a violation of states rights. Personally I oppose it too but not because it's a states rights issue I oppose it because it's a human rights issue.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It would be nice to move to a country consisting of Washington and Oregon
Oh, you mean the Republic of Cascadia?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'm suggesting the use of alternate currencies, which I realize is illegal.
You'd better tell all these communities with their own local currencies in the US what they're doing is illegal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Odd. Where are all the typical /. posts proclaiming hatred of lawyers now?
America's revolt against the crown is an anomaly. Can you name a revolution that didn't end up with more of the people enslaved or dead than free?
I've seen gradual change work in my lifetime when I was certain America had lost it's way. It reversed decades of damage to your rights. I suspect few here know what I'm referring to but I'll leave you hanging so others can tell you or you can ask me for it.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
If enough citizens were dedicated to the point that they would take part in or support a revolution then I think you could change things without the revolution.
Unfortunately, unfortunate because people are apathetic, I agree. If enough people demanded it they could have better representation. The problem here is not everyone agrees with what's better.
People's attitude to jury duty and voting is probably a reasonable indicator of how successful you could be.
I was called for jury duty twice. Both tymes I was hoping I'd be picked to sit on a jury where I could use jury nullification to say a law was bad, such as the drug laws. Forget being picked for a jury, I didn't even go through questioning for jury selection.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Bullshit, the ACLU doesn't love the constitution, they love their specific pet bits of it. Always have.
Example?
The Second amendment:
"Heller Decision and the Second Amendment".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well the ACLU only loves specific parts that fit their agenda.
"ACLU Dream Team by Leslie Sacks"
While I agree on the sentiments, you realize don't you that ACLU stands for "American Civil Liberties Union"? Their mission isn't so much about what happens in other countries. The Sudan isn't in or part of the USA. Neither is Colombia.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Congress will pass a law outlawing lawsuits against FISA related laws. The Democrats, fearing to be tagged as "soft on Errorism", will include an amendment to let the President use the Bill o' Rights to wipe his ass with, which by now of course, will be retroactive.
But it just makes me wonder if that's not another reason the military is lowering its recruitment standards by allowing more criminals in. Small numbers for sure, but getting bigger. It might be easier to get those types to blindly follow any orders.
There were some criminals in when I was in too, though mostly to escape jail. "Serve tyme in the military or in jail" sort of thing. Actually most were good at following orders though I wasn't, I'd ask "why" and "how" and if I thought it was stupid I'd say it. I guess my first CO, Commanding Officer, liked that because he frequently asked me if I wanted to go to this school or that school. For instance one school he sent me to was for Explosive Ordinance Disposal, EOD, after which I was one of the designated EOD experts in the unit. He also asked me if I wanted to take college classes, they offered classes on post and helped pay for them. I went in the military to save money to go to college so I took one class, but had trouble taking more.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The actual case is that I had something (the right to be secure) which the constitution explicitly granted me.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, rights are unalienable.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The US Supreme Court has yet to really, truly define a Right to Privacy, because the Fourth Amendment doesn't specifically name it (it concerns security of one's homes, papers, possessions, etc... of which "privacy" is assumed to be among them, but not named or defined
Though people may not know it privacy has a basis in the First Amendment as well. I don't recall the case now but in the early 1800s the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment included the right to anonymity in the free speech clause. The ruling said something to the effect that if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they couldn't truly have free speech because what they say could be held against them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If the voters disagree, they can elect a different executive promising a new policy which, sadly in my view, means we'll be swearing in President Obama this January. No such recourse exists for when our unelected robed masters go on a power grab.
Actually Article II Section 4 provides recourse: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Judges can be impeached. Alcee Hastings is one such judge that was impeached.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Thanks for the link, I saved it locally as well as bookmarked it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Perhaps the Clinton Administration should have upgraded and done better job to provide our Military with better equipment before handing the next administration the Department of Defense.
GWB had TWO YEARS with a republican controlled congress during which he vetoed precisely ZERO bills to get any equipment he desired requisitioned. The problems we have in Iraq are ones of leadership, not equipment. Even if there were/are equipment problems (which I'm in no way conceding that they are - and understand I have family in Iraq at this moment) then the leadership (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld) should have realized that and NOT GOTTEN US IN A NEEDLESS WAR.
Where in the Constitution does it guarantee me the right to not be under government surveillance without a warrant?
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Bob Barr has basically recanted his previous stances, and is now a staunch Libertarian.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Are you going to abstain? Vote for wacky Cynthia McKinney in the Green party?
Politics is nothing if not compromise. I'm saddened tha Obama compromised himself so early in the game with this FISA thing...but I'm going to wait until the election and then process all the data.
Blar.
I wrote a rather "strong" email to the Obama campaign expressing my displeasure at Obama's vote in favor of the FISA bill.
The campaign's response:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.
We appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Obama for America,
---
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
----------------------
Paid for by Obama for America
DUI check-points? Everybody loves those, it keeps them 'safe'. Suspension of Habeus Corpus during war-time?
I dunno...constitution is already in tatters or twisted by freaks.
Blar.
The Constitution is a program written in a horrible programming language called "English" which is overly vague and interpretive. "English" was replaced 100s of years ago with a cryptic language called "Legalese" by the experts claiming it was easier for them to work in but many people think they just wanted it for job security.
The constitution is not about liberty, its about government structure and limitation; the 'bill of rights' and amendments are plug-ins and some of those deal with liberties but most of those also deal with government limitations.
Ron Paul isn't as much for liberty as he is for strict constitutional observance (for example, Ron Paul is sometimes ok with limiting liberties within the confines of the constitution and the ACLU tends to put liberty 1st nearly all the time.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I've spoken to a number of people who had never considered the concept of jury nullification, but where quite interested when told about it and its historical role. Its something that really ought to be widely understood, so educating people about it is just as important as being ready to use it yourself.
Yea, I've posted info about jury nullification a number of tymes on the net. Googling slashdot I get 5 results, though I'm sure I've posted more than that.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?