Judge Orders White House To Produce Wiretap Memos

sv_libertarian sends this excerpt from the Associated Press: "A judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce White House memos that provide the legal basis for the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 warrantless wiretapping program. US District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. signed an order (PDF) Friday requiring the department to produce the memos by the White House legal counsel's office by Nov. 17. He said he will review the memos in private to determine if any information can be released publicly without violating attorney-client privilege or jeopardizing national security. Kennedy issued his order in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups in 2005 after news reports disclosed the wiretapping."

Comments

Cue Whitehouse ignoring Court....

[Anonymous Coward]

3....2.....1.....

Re:Cue Whitehouse ignoring Court....

[MillionthMonkey]

They will NOT ignore the Court at the end of a countdown. They do these things with signing statements, not descending lists of numbers like they might have done before. You can't cite a countdown in a legal brief explaining why you're blowing off a law passed by Congress.

There's this American penchant for trying to fix voting problems with signing statements, starting a few years ago. No president publicly issued signing statements, an idea imported from Lord knows where, until quite early in the 21st century.

Re:Cue Whitehouse ignoring Court....

[lordofthechia]

Pfft.... All they have to do is not open the e-mail!

Re:Cue Whitehouse ignoring Court....

[Random BedHead Ed]

Sure, but then as soon as President Bush bings up Slashdot on his Oval Office desktop first thing in the morning he'll see this story, and then he'll be held accountable for the court order by the ever vigilant Justice Department and Congress. With this story so prominantly placed, Bush will be impeached by week's end.

Unless the US government doesn't hold people accountable for crimes, but that seems kind of a stretch.

Accountability ?

[ChromaticDragon]

Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

I know the wheels of justice are often rather slow. But I do hope the courts eventually get around to reeling back in the egregious power-grabs of the current executive. I also hope the next executive doesn't attempt to maintain such.

Re:Accountability ?

[CRCulver]

Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

A Democratic administration doesn't necessarily mean a stance against wiretapping. Many of the "ECHELON" activities which came to the public's attention with the 2001 European Parliament report were instituted under President Clinton, who also was a fan of "leveling the playing" field between American and foreign businesses through eavesdropping. A good introduction to the troubling rise of violation of privacy in the 1990s, which coincided with a popular Democratic president, is James Bamford's Body of Secrets .

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Obama voted for the bill that pretty much rubber stamps Bush's current surveillance and wiretapping regime.

Re:Accountability ?

[Thrip]

... are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

I'm not holding my breath. On the one hand, the party in power generally prioritizes the things it wants to get done over the things it would like to see punished. On the other hand, if you dig too deeply into anything in Washington, you're going to find wrongdoing on both sides. And on the other other hand, presidents don't generally act to limit their own power.

There may actually be an opportunity here to break the back of the Repbulican party, but it's not clear that that would benefit the Democrats. The timesharing arrangement they've got going now seems to work out pretty well for them. How much do you think they want to face a wave of conservative activists energized to build a new party?

Re:Accountability ?

[phorm]

Or maybe the courts are just being "allowed" to draft in restrictions now because the Reps have already figured that they're not going to be in this time around...

Re:Accountability ?

[kosty]

Cue "But Clinton did it!" arguments in 3... 2... 1... -- Which, what? Makes it fine and dandy?

Re:Accountability ?

[xs650]

More likely there will be a major fire in the Whitehouse records department on the 5th.

Re:Accountability ?

[MobyDisk]

No, but it means the knee-jerk reaction of "oh, things will be better under the other party" isn't going to work either. If we want real oversight, we need to get a 3rd-party involved. I bet if we had a Libertarian executive would have a whole lot of opening of government.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"things will be better under the other party"

Unfortunately all political parties play similar games, when it comes to information control. Its just over time, if a party is in power for too long, then they end up proving the old say, "power corrupts". PR is the art of information control. They work to release bad news stories on days they know other stories in the press, will get more attention, so they can slip these bad stories past most people's attention. (A good example was when princess Diana died in the UK and one of the top UK government PR people got fired, as they were caught saying, today is a good day to release government bad news stories. Its the way PR people think). Its also interesting how many times Big Brother stories seem to emerge on a weekend, as PR people know these are slow news days. By monday, there will be other news stories in the headlines, especially next week with the election.

Re:Accountability ?

[KDR_11k]

I bet if you had a libertarian in charge he'd take money from all the same bribes and do the same things.

Re:Accountability ?

[swillden]

Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

That would risk reducing the power of the office of the president. Obama won't do that, not once it's his power that would be reduced.

Re:Accountability ?

[will_die]

No, for the simple reason that President Bush keeps top Congress members appeased on what he was doing. This has come up a few times when something has hit the news and Democrat members have said they did now know of it and then the White House would release the listing of attendees and there were the Democrats.
if the Democrats were to do anything it would just lead them to having to try their own members, so it is far better for them to stay quiet and let the rumors spread that something illegal was done.

Re:Accountability ?

[mattytee]

Considering that Obama voted for allowing retroactive immunity to the telcos, do you think he's going to call for accountability here?

It's rare for any branch that has expanded its powers to relinquish them. Usually this is done legally, by declaring such action unconstitutional.

Maybe we'll get some moderates/lefties in SCOTUS and some of the nonsense will be so declared.

Re:Accountability ?

[Repossessed]

Why do people persist in believing that there is a difference in Democrats and Republicans? They make *speak* differently, but follow the damned voting records and see how often they actually disagree.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

A Democratic administration doesn't necessarily mean a stance against wiretapping.

Democrats aren't necessarily any more opposed to wire-tapping than Republicans but there are two other things to consider here:

First, accountability. The Bush administration has been particularly egregious in its wire-tapping activities. A non-Republican President, and congress, is more likely to hold the (Republican) Bush administration accountable than another Republican president. Specifically, it's not out of the question that McCain would pander to his base and throw a few pardons to the Bush administration but it's overwhelmingly unlikely that the Bush administration will be getting any pardons from Obama.

Second, constitutional law. McCain is a former military man so his focus is on doing whatever needs to be done to "win" the "war". Obama is a constitutional scholar (he taught constitutional law at Chicago) so he's going to be more interested in the general question of how to properly apply the bill of rights in the US constitution to modern technology.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Things will be better under a 3rd-party" is just as knee-jerk a reaction.

Re:Accountability ?

[TubeSteak]

There may actually be an opportunity here to break the back of the Repbulican party, but it's not clear that that would benefit the Democrats. The timesharing arrangement they've got going now seems to work out pretty well for them.

Works out pretty well for them?
What about us?

The one thing Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on is that, with enough pork for both sides, any bill is passable.

Re:Accountability ?

[metlin]

Of course, but if you had a libertarian executive, we could all just move into wood shacks with our guns and forget this whole economy and globalization thing.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come ON. How can anyone be THAT naive? What exactly makes you think that a libertarian candidate would be any better? Really, you're just as bad as the "democrats are saints" (or also the "republicans are saints") guys - only that you call these out on their naivity, while at the same time apparently not even NOTICING the irony of your falling into exactly the same trap.

Re:Accountability ?

[MobyDisk]

Oh, come ON. How can anyone be THAT naive?

Mom, is that you? I love the people who tell me I'm naive but provide no new facts or insights.

What exactly makes you think that a libertarian candidate would be any better?

The reason that, in theory, any 3rd-party would be better is because:
- They would have no need to protect or hide the sins of their predecessor. They might even gain PR points by exposing them.
- They would have fewer ties to lobbyists
- Cycling between a greater number of parties makes it harder for them to collude with each other. Someone will always have much to gain by exposing things. Just like how capitalism works: having more players reduces the likelihood of price fixing than a duopoly or monopoly. Or like how separation of powers works (or...could work, if we had more parties to split power)

I'm sure someone could speculate on other reasons as well.

Re:Accountability ?

[MobyDisk]

...take money from all the same bribes and do the same things.

I think they would take money from different bribes and do different things. The point is not that a 3rd-party would be saintly. The point is that they would do things differently, which would help to balance things out.

Re:Accountability ?

[philspear]

I think they would take money from different bribes and do different things. The point is not that a 3rd-party would be saintly. The point is that they would do things differently, which would help to balance things out.

Or else it would just add more types of incompetence and corruption to the government.

Re:Accountability ?

[philspear]

I bet if we had a Libertarian executive would have a whole lot of opening of government.

Closed doors and government opaqueness aren't intrinsic properties of being republican or democrat, they're intrinsic properties of power-hungry politicians. Guess what: 3rd party candidates are still politicians. Someone can say they want a small government and still want to have all the power, including the power to spy on you. There are THOUSANDS of ways a libertarian politician could rationalize it to himself and other libertarians.

Re:Accountability ?

[Daimanta]

"No, but it means the knee-jerk reaction of "oh, things will be better under the other party" isn't going to work either. If we want real oversight, we need to get a 3rd-party involved."

Dem: Reps and Libs suck, we are better!
Rep: Dems and Libs suck, we are better!
Lib: Reps and Dems suck, we are better!

Re:Accountability ?

[davebaum]

Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

Probably not. Obama has been running on a message of unity, and pursuing injustices committed by the current administration would just polarize the country further. Yes, it would be nice to see some justice, but at this point the big question is what to do going forward. There are lots of big problems to deal with, and digging up old dirt is unlikely to fix anything.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not holding my breath. On the one hand, .... On the other hand, .... And on the other other hand, ....

Wow, it would be so cool being able to type with both hands while playing with yourself with the third one.

Of course, it also leaves open the possibility of still typing with one hand while using the other two .... Naah, no one needs to do that.

Re:Accountability ?

[Beardo the Bearded]

I'm pretty sure that Echelon has a far worse bark than bite.

I haven't changed my sig (which is also my email sig) since 1998.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, for the simple reason that President Bush keeps top Congress members appeased on what he was doing. This has come up a few times when something has hit the news and Democrat members have said they did now know of it and then the White House would release the listing of attendees and there were the Democrats.

First, let's get the language stuff out of the way -- "apprised of", not "appeased on".

Now, down to business.

Yes, the top leadership is brought in on the discussion, but it's always on the basis that the information goes no further than the room in which it's discussed. And always on pain of being criminally prosecuted for releasing the information elsewhere.

It's much he same as when an NSL is issued to your ISP to gather information about you (just envelope information) or to actually collect your communications. The ISP must cooperate, but will be sanctioned by law if he reveals to you that you're being monitored.

If all your subsequent communications suddenly consist of poems about "fuzzy little lambkins" it will be assumed that your ISP tipped you off and his ass will land in the cauldron with yours.

Re:Accountability ?

[MobyDisk]

Or else it would just add more types of incompetence and corruption to the government.

Good point, we should just have a single party, or better yet, a King, so that there is only a single type of incompetence and corruption. (/me sticks tongue out) :-)

Re:Accountability ?

[jo42]

Don't worry your geeky little head. McTard is going to win on Tuesday.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the lame duck time is the optimal time to reduce White House powers, as a Bush has no political incentive to keep FISA or other acts, and would actually reduce presidential powers if he felt safe about doing so.

It's a small window of opportunity, but I hope people can think of some way to take advantage of it. Although the next president coming up would certainly be better than Bush, I doubt any president's ability to resist temptation with warrantless wiretapping.

I mean, wiretapping people with no consequences at all for the the White House? All it takes is some stupid low-level intern to listen in to conversations without cause (and with no legal requirements), find something politically important, and report it up the line.

Sure, the stupid intern would be reprimanded, but the illicit information would be out, and would anyone ever know? From there it's a short step to informally encouraging the behaviour, but publically giving token reprimands, just to provide deniability.

Re:Accountability ?

[VJ42]

More likely there will be a major fire in the Whitehouse records department on the 5th.

Don't worry, they're just celebrating; "Remember, Remember the 5th of November" didn't start with "V for Vendetta. :D

Re:Accountability ?

[v1]

Has the presidential pardon ever been used for anything besides the president shielding his friends after having been caught in patently illegal activity?

What was the original justification of the presidential pardon? I would assume it was a P.R./international relations thing somewhat like diplomatic immunity?

Re:Accountability ?

[digitalchinky]

Echelon is a pretty old buzz word that has not been used by anyone within the UKUSA setup for at least 20 years now, but your sig still serves the greater purpose none the less.

So long as ones name isn't ~in~ any of the end product reports, then sure, the bark is worse than the bite :-)

---
Disgruntled former Defence Signals Directorate drone, no longer willing to exchange secrets for beer or carbonated diet beverage.

Re:Accountability ?

[philspear]

Grah!!! Reducio ad absurdum (or something latiny like that), bane of my existence!

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

of course he did - he was running for president.

Re:Accountability ?

[Foobar of Borg]

What was the original justification of the presidential pardon?

It is largely a hold over from the days of monarchy where the king could pardon whomever he pleased. Actually, having the executive branch embodied in a single man is also a hold over from monarchies, and was done largely so we could deal with the Crown Heads of Europe at the time. It seems like a pretty silly idea to keep around today...

Re:Accountability ?

[Foobar of Borg]

of course he did - he was running for president.

Unfortunately, that probably is the main reason. If he voted against it, imagine how shrill the Bushbots would be shouting "HA! LOOK! Obama wants us all to be killed by the big, bad terrorists! Vote for us, or you will all die!" Of course, now they are being shrill and psychotic anyway, but oh well...

Re:Accountability ?

[sumdumass]

SO your saying that Obama is living a lie and he is doing it only to get elected?

It takes stones to stand up for what you believe in. Especially when it might become unpopular or damage some benefit your seeking like higher office. I think you just make the case for why everyone should Vote someone other then Obama. At least McCain stuck by his guns on Immigration, torture, club Gitmo, and several other things that didn't win him any favors.

Re:Accountability ?

[markkezner]

Pot and kettle.

Re:Accountability ?

[Foobar of Borg]

McCain has thrown away his dignity on a lot of things. He went from calling the fundamentalist right-wing Christian leaders "agents of intolerance" to actively seeking their approval and then selecting someone like Palin as a running mate. He voted with Bush so many times it's not funny. He's been using a smear campaign that tries to pin every little thing possible on Obama. Yes, Obama has been a disappointment on some things. But, McCain has been far, far worse.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. Wouldn't it serve the Democrats means to air as much republican dirty laundry as possible? I mean, even if obama changed nothing, you can pretty well count on everyone hating bush more and the republicans by association as more violations are brought up.

Re:Accountability ?

[jonadab]

> Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest),
> are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

You might see that. However...

> But I do hope the courts eventually get around to reeling back in the egregious power-grabs
> of the current executive. I also hope the next executive doesn't attempt to maintain such.

Good luck with that. Obama may be from the other party, but he's still a politician, running for the office of US President, trying to get elected to said office, on purpose. If you really think he's going to voluntarily give up power, I've got an invention you might be interested in investing in, which recaptures the spent fuel from the exhaust of a motor vehicle, uses the heat of the exhaust to recharge the fuel, and channels the resulting usable gas back into the fuel tank.

Re:Accountability ?

[jamstar7]

Yes, the lame duck time is the optimal time to reduce White House powers, as a Bush has no political incentive to keep FISA or other acts, and would actually reduce presidential powers if he felt safe about doing so.

Except everything Bush has done for the last 8 years has been to increase the power of the Presidency by executive orders and rubberstamped legislation. It's all about control, and he increased it.

I mean, wiretapping people with no consequences at all for the the White House? All it takes is some stupid low-level intern to listen in to conversations without cause (and with no legal requirements), find something politically important, and report it up the line.

Sure, the stupid intern would be reprimanded, but the illicit information would be out, and would anyone ever know? From there it's a short step to informally encouraging the behaviour, but publically giving token reprimands, just to provide deniability.

Except that 'upstream' is their bosses and party leadership. No way they'd let that info out. And they wouldn't let just any intern work there, they'd select 'em for political reliability, since they're being groomed for Party leadership someday.

Re:Accountability ?

[jamstar7]

I don't think so. I'm thinking it'll just increase the noise in the signal to noise ratio to the point where nothing in Washington is listened to.

Oh, wait...

Re:Accountability ?

[jamstar7]

Funny, from my old civics classes back in the Stone Age, it was the job of the Federal Courts to rein in the government when it got out of hand, and the job of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of any law in any case brought before them. Of course, now that the SCOTUS is packed with neocon sympathisers...

Re:Accountability ?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. your just not paying attention. Both parties are using smear campains attempting to pin every little thing on each other. Some smears have more facts to back them up then others and they don't just get dismissed like the others do. Start paying attention to what Obama is actually saying.

As for McCain being worse, you mean your not allowed to ever change your mind after making a statement? Let's see, you say one thing now, then 4 years later, you say another, and that means you were living a lie right? Well, I don't seem to think so but contrary to what you might want to think, changing your mind and holding a different position now then you have held in the past isn't the same thing as the OP was saying where Obama Supposedly voted in a manor opposite of what he believed just to get elected.

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the lame duck time is the optimal time to reduce White House powers, as a Bush has no political incentive to keep FISA or other acts, and would actually reduce presidential powers if he felt safe about doing so.

How stupid are you, anyway?

Bush put all this shit in place. So what if he takes it out? What makes you think that's the final, irreversible word? What's to prevent any subsequent president from reinstalling it? Especially as Bush did most of his cowardly assault on the Constitution by secret executive orders.

Re:Accountability ?

[AndersOSU]

It's a lot more nuanced than that.

The idea of a single chief executive is really useful when decisions have to be made fast, especially in wartime. The founding fathers thought a lot about how to properly balance government, and basically decided that congress was to be a slow and deliberate body, and the executive was to be able to make quick decisions. (it's also more nuanced than that, but I think my version is closer to the mark.)

That it worked well in 18th century diplomatic circles was a happy side effect.

Re:Accountability ?

[Twanfox]

Your statements are true only if you assume the following:

1) That after that party is elected once, they're never elected again. After all, you can't say that they have nothing (potentially) to hide once that third party is elected the second time into office.
2) That lobbyists have no quick and easy methods to find their way into the sitting room with whatever president is in office (and they probably do).
3) That a third party isn't just a front for the same ol' people we used to know as Democratic or Republican. These people are usually businessmen as well as politicians. Never heard of front companies?

The GP was right, you are hopelessly naive. Most politicians have been at this game for longer than you've been watching it, and they're at least good enough at their job to convince a large number of people they're fit for the job. What is necessary is not another black-box candidate that we can willfully trust without oversight, it's that we need honest oversight no matter whom is in the White House.

Re:Accountability ?

[Random BedHead Ed]

Oh, come ON. How can anyone be THAT naive?

Mom, is that you? I love the people who tell me I'm naive but provide no new facts or insights.

I usually find that posts or e-mails prominantly employing the phrases "Oh come on," "Oh please" and the extra-whiny "Oh puh-LEEZE" can be disregarded on sight - no need to reply to the equally whiny points that follow those phrases. Noise tends to follow noise.

Re:Accountability ?

[MobyDisk]

Okay, I give up. You are right. We should continue to support the existing two parties because including additional parties would not do anything at all.

1) That after that party is elected once, they're never elected again. After all, you can't say that they have nothing (potentially) to hide once that third party is elected the second time into office.

Gotcha. A party elected into office twice is equally powerful to a party that has been elected hundreds of times. And since there is a chance that they will be elected twice, we should not try to elect them once.

2) That lobbyists have no quick and easy methods to find their way into the sitting room with whatever president is in office (and they probably do).

Okay, I see. So decades of lobbying power and influence will take effect instantly, as soon as the lobbyist enters the sitting room. (I gotta get me a room like that for meetings.)

3) That a third party isn't just a front for the same ol' people we used to know as Democratic or Republican. These people are usually businessmen as well as politicians. Never heard of front companies?

It is possible that some 3rd-party is a front for an existing party in power. So we should just assume that all 3rd-parties are fronts, and not listen to any them.

----
The problem here is not that your points are not valid, but that they are taken to extremes. Just because someone is elected twice doesn't mean they are evil from the start. Just because some 3rd-party might be a front, doesn't mean all 3rd-parties are and that they should all be ignored. Just because lobbyists will find their way into discussions doesn't mean that the lobbyists will have equal sway with new and established parties. There is a gray area here that you need to see.

Absolutism != Wisdom.

Re:Accountability ?

[Foobar of Borg]

As for McCain being worse, you mean your not allowed to ever change your mind after making a statement? Let's see, you say one thing now, then 4 years later, you say another, and that means you were living a lie right?

There is significant difference between changing your mind and crass opportunism. Although, I do admit there is a chance that McCain has genuinely changed his mind and decided to join the ranks of the fundamentalist lunatics. Either way (and for many other reasons), I don't think he is suited to be the president.

You are right in that both sides have used smears, but McCain has been far more egregious in this regard. He is using every nasty trick he can and some of his supporters are now openly calling for Obama's assassination. No, Obama is not perfect. I would actually prefer someone else. But, given the realistic assessment that there are only two viable candidates, I think he is by far the better one. You obviously disagree, but I would hope that your disagreement would stem from your views about which candidate has better policy ideas and better judgment, rather than all the garbage that we've seen hurled in this campaign. The garbage has largely come from the McCain side, either from him or from his supporters.

Re:Accountability ?

[sumdumass]

There is significant difference between changing your mind and crass opportunism. Although, I do admit there is a chance that McCain has genuinely changed his mind and decided to join the ranks of the fundamentalist lunatics. Either way (and for many other reasons), I don't think he is suited to be the president.

It's good that you have reasons for your actions. I'm not sure why McCain changed his mind or that it isn't opportunism. However, no one has said he done something specifically because of the way the other side would react which, to me at least, makes the opportunism a little less in comparison. We can disagree on this or the importance of the differences.

You are right in that both sides have used smears, but McCain has been far more egregious in this regard. He is using every nasty trick he can and some of his supporters are now openly calling for Obama's assassination. No, Obama is not perfect. I would actually prefer someone else. But, given the realistic assessment that there are only two viable candidates, I think he is by far the better one. You obviously disagree, but I would hope that your disagreement would stem from your views about which candidate has better policy ideas and better judgment, rather than all the garbage that we've seen hurled in this campaign. The garbage has largely come from the McCain side, either from him or from his supporters.

I still don't think your paying attention enough. McCain blasted one of his own supporters at a rally for making derogatory remarks about Obama. He has administered outright lies said about Obama and on one occasion told a voter that he didn't care for his vote when he said we needed to lynch Obama. You must be forgetting Obama's supporters who likened McCain and Palin to Nazi collaborators and segregationist policies of George Wallace and the murder of four little girls. Obama refused to admonish or condemn that act even after praising McCain for admonishing his supporters who got out of line. He was on national TV and was asked specifically if he would condemn those words and Obama refused to. How about the effigy of Palin being hung from a tree or roof top that no one in the media or Obama's campaign cared about more then to giggle until someone made one of Obama- then it was all about race and how McCain and his supporters are racist. You have Obama claiming that McCain would continue Bush's economic policy when he himself (most likely you too) can't even name what that policy is. It's like the trick question given to Palin about the bush doctrine, he has no doctrine to speak of and he had no clear economic policy until things started falling apart.

I can go on with loads more if you want. Here is a little article talking about some of it if you doubt what I'm saying. I'm not attempting to change your vote or anything, but you should at least know what your voting for.

Re:Accountability ?

[sjames]

True, but a Democratic administration coupled with a Democratic Congress could mean it's politically advantageous to take an anti-wiretapping stance with periodic hints to the public about how much of it the Republicans did.

Re:Accountability ?

[sjames]

No doubt sparked by an overheated shredder motor.

Re:Accountability ?

[dpastern]

baloney. Only fools would support a system where one individual can put aside the democratic processes of hundreds, if not thousands of people. Politicians are voted in by the people, for the people. Bush Jr. has abused the veto vote and so on badly. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

You'll also note that the only other governments in the world that have a similar system of an overbearing single decision maker are dictatorships. It pretty much proves what I've been saying for years now - that the US is not a democracy, but is a fascist dictatorship. I'm surprised Bush Jr. hasn't developed a Hitleresque moustache. At least Hitler had a high IQ, that places him above Bush Jr. Neither leader was responsible, both leaders were hypocrites, both were fueled by extreme right ideals, both were fueled by anti religious thoughts (Hitler - jews; Bush Jr - Muslims), both invaded countries illegally, both failed to listen to reason. Both spied on its populace, both tortured anyone that they wanted to, for whatever reason, without any legal reasoning.

Just as the world was better off without Hitler's government/regime, so the world will be better off with Bush Jr's. There's a reason why Americans are disliked the world over.

The few Americans that I know personally, neither live in the US now, and will NEVER return. Neither speak glowingly of their country, or of their leader(s), or of the US's foreign policies.

Enough said.

Dave

Re:Accountability ?

[AndersOSU]

Holy Godwin.

The American model is relatively rare, but that does not mean that it wasn't well thought out, nor does it mean that our chief executive has unchecked power. I'm not going to disagree with you that W has overstepped the constitutional limits of his power, but historically our system has been fairly remarkably resilient, with presidential power waxing and waning depending on the political climate. Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln, and FDR all expanded the power of the executive, and subsequent congresses have re-exerted their authority.

I'm not sure what model of government you consider superior, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that parliamentary governments, suffer from abuses as well. For one, coalition governments can be remarkably unstable and can be completely hamstrung if a working majority cannot be assembled. Further, to continue the theme of your post, the Wiemar Republic, a parliamentary government, legally handed power to Hitler. Finally, parliaments aren't above stunning human rights abuses, parliaments presided over Apartheid, and both sides of the ongoing Israel/Palestinian conflict.

Re:Accountability ?

[dpastern]

I didn't say that ordinary parliaments were better either. Personally, neither are great. But I'd prefer a parliamentary government without a single leader being able to overpower the democratic process of a larger group. Let's consider the Military 2006 Act - Bush Jr threatened to veto it if the act was dismissed as being unconstitutional. This has been the entire theme of the Bush Jr government - what it can't introduce in the senate, it does illegally. What does get passeed, but gets questioned by the courts, he vetoes. Great eh? That's not a government, it's a dictatorship.

Dave

"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[thisissilly]

I thought it was fairly well established that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping predates 9/11. The NSA was meeting with Qwest executives in February 2001, trying to pressure them into allowing it. They said no, other carriers buckled.

Re:"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[timeOday]

Cite?

Re:"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard it from my brother's girlfriend's mum's next door neighbour's hairdresser. His number is +1-780-361-8477 if you dont believe me.

Re:"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, there's a link in his post. If you want more, search for Qwest on Google and Slashdot. There's been a bunch of things on it in the past.

Re:"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[timeOday]

I don't know how I missed his cite. Mod me to oblivion, I deserve it.

Re:"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I came to post about. Whenever I hear this story, I'm amazed how it's always carefully and clearly reported as "post 911".

It's not even necessary to bring up when it started, but when you put that "post 911" tag on it the whole thing seems somewhat understandable. People can understand the struggle between safety and privacy (I think the wise ones prefer privacy), but this isn't an example of that.

This mass wiretapping business seems to simply be an abuse of power, and since it started before 9/11/2001. Please try to stop propagating the myth that this started as a response to 9/11.

I believe in Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

But Democracy has to be defended. When Italians do not respect democracy, and only cynically use the cover of our democratic rights to produce their nefarious ices and spirit them into our bedrooms and base-ball parks, then I say, we are at war. And whoever is not on my side is on the side of the Italians. So all you naysayers and humbuggers can just go and live in Italy, and see if the Italians let you have any "free democracy" that you are always bitching about here.

Too long

[jonaskoelker]

Posted [...] on 2008-11-02

Kennedy issued his order in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups in 2005 after news reports disclosed the wiretapping.

It has taken three to four years, roughly a whole term, to get a judge to dig up this bit of the current administration's {,mis,ab}use of power.

What will the consequences for the Bush et al. be, if their practices are found to be unconstitutional? Is there a real incentive to uphold the constitution if it takes so long to dig up the dirt?

Re:Too long

[n3tcat]

roughly a whole term

now you're catching on. They're waiting till almost everyone that was ever involved is out of office so that the backlash on the state is far less severe than the backlash that will happen on the individuals involved.

once bush is out of office, they don't care if the people lose faith in him anymore because he doesn't represent the country any longer.

Re:Too long

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge will never see those documents. You think the Bush Administration, after years of playing Cunctator with the Supreme Court in Gitmo, and several decades an expert at pulling Executive Privilege, is going to fall prey to a discovery order issued by a Federal District Judge? No way.

Re:Too long

[swillden]

Also, if it becomes clear that any backlash that reduces the power of the presidency will limit *Obama's* power, there's litle incentive to avoid it.

Re:Too long

[mysidia]

The district judge had best start working on drafting his contempt-of-court finding against the White house for destruction of evidence.

Either that or send an advance police force to the WH to confiscate all the paper shredders... because we well know exactly what's going to happen to those memos instead of getting to the court.

Re:Too long

[PMuse]

It has taken three to four years, roughly a whole term, to get a judge to dig up this bit of the current administration's {,mis,ab}use of power.

Oddly, the ruling issued exactly one news cycle before election day. Google News has 327 articles and counting.

Re:Too long

[pfleming]

The district judge had best start working on drafting his contempt-of-court finding against the White house for destruction of evidence.

Either that or send an advance police force to the WH to confiscate all the paper shredders... because we well know exactly what's going to happen to those memos instead of getting to the court.

The way I heard it was they sent all those documents to Arthur Anderson for safe keeping, so it should be easy to dig them up.

Re:Too long

[jamstar7]

The only ones wanting to limit or decrease the President's power are the neocons, and only if Obama gets elected. Reducing the power of the Presidency is a Not Good Thing for any career politician. If your guy can't do the job, what's the point of pushing him into office? At the end of the day, the Democrats scream "You're one!!", the Republicans scream "You're another!!" and after the close of the session, go off to drink together like the Good Ol' Boys And Girls Club it really is. Why are you expecting anything different?

Re:Too long

[riondluz]

i'm pessimistic that justice will be served; but i'm holding on to the hope that
the dems realized that any pursuit of this while GWB is in office would
result in massive pardons at the end of his term, providing they failed
to impeach him as well due to the abundance of repubs in the house.
Post-election, with a majority of dems and with GWB long-gone, they could
be more effective in getting the guilty into the dock, including GWB hisself.

Just a hope.

Re:Too long

[swillden]

Why are you expecting anything different?

I'm not. Not in any significant way, anyway.

I still don't get why this is neccessary

[txoof]

FISA - The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - of 1978 provided the president a method to tap communications without a warrant in a "Ticking Time Bomb" situation. FISA allows investigators begin surveillance without proper documents as long as the activities are reported to a judge for review within 72 hours. In any Time-Bomb scenario, 72 hours should be ample time for the investigators to gather the needed information to prove that their hasty wire-tap was legitimate. The judge will sign the warrant and everybody is happy.

In any other case, the judge will surveillance must be shut down and the records sealed immediately. This law has been so effective that out of the hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied.

This is why the Bush administrations new warrantless wiretapping is so distressing. The system wasn't broken! It worked very well. This is simply yet another attempt by the administration to do an end run around due-process. Bush and Cheney have done more to erode the constitution than any other duo in this country's history.

Lets all hope that our next president will restore some order to the land and respect the laws that provide his power. If we allow our executive to choose which laws he will follow, we're on a short trip to the disaster that won't be unlike Russia's "Democracy".

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Dr. Donuts]

Sure, if you think in terms of tapping an individual line, FISA worked. Now, what if you want to tap thousands or millions of calls simultaneously?

I suspect that Bush's primary reason for the warrantless wiretapping simply boils down to they didn't know exactly who/what/where to look and wanted to perform a dragnet on foreign calls. Something that would have been impossible to do under FISA.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Anonymous Coward]

This law has been so effective that out of the hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied.

"Between 1978 and 2004, according to the Washington Post, the FISA court approved 18,748 warrants--and rejected five." - Senator Dodd

But you're right.. it shows the existing FISA laws worked however...

From the all knowing wikipedo...

In 2004, FISA was amended to include a "lone wolf" provision. 50 U.S.C. 1801(b){1)(C). A "lone wolf" is a non-US person who engages in or prepares for international terrorism. The provision amended the definition of "foreign power" to permit the FISA courts to issue surveillance and physical search orders without having to find a connection between the "lone wolf" and a foreign government or terrorist group.[21]

So FISA now lets them spy on people linked to anything dodgy and also spy on people even if theres no connection to any illegal activity.. and thats still not enough??

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[mrscorpio81]

I would say that tapping millions of calls simultaneously is going too far to protect from terrorism, and should be rejected.

A wire tap is a tool used to pin down one guy, or see who picks up on a specific phone, to stop crime. Monitoring a million calls at once is not wiretapping, it's surveillance, and should be, would be, and is prohibited by the 4th amendment. Bush's new laws essentially nullify the 4th and Bush's actions go beyond the bill he himself requested!

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[__aajwxe560]

>In any other case, the judge will surveillance must be shut down and the records sealed immediately. This law has been so effective that out of the >hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied.

Not to nitpick, but some FISA taps have in fact been denied (granted, not many):

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

To add a thought, just because the ratio is historically so low doesn't necessarily justify as a fact that the whole game isn't rigged in the first place.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[TheLink]

What you have to decide is which is more dangerous.

If indeed Bush and friends trampled on your beloved Constitution and laws in doing so, I say they're more dangerous to you than what they claim they were protecting you from.

If they could have justified it, why didn't they just push the law through Senate et all first? It's not like they have had that much difficutly in pushing through lots of crappy laws.

The fact that they didn't even bother (and only did the retroactive BS later) shows you how much contempt they have for the Law and the People of the USA.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Dr. Donuts]

"If they could have justified it, why didn't they just push the law through Senate et all first? It's not like they have had that much difficutly in pushing through lots of crappy laws."

Because if they had attempted to change the laws, people would have become aware of what they wanted to do. Simpler to invoke "War Powers" and push through immunity after the fact for those that go along with questionable actions, rather than make your intents known and possibly have someone tell you "No, you can't do that".

It's an ugly state of affairs any way you look at it. The amount of money, legislation, rule-bending and even forging wars all in the name of "Fighting Terrorism" is ridiculously out of proportion. As is typically the case with politics, a boogey-man is used to justify increased scope and powers of the state.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[tkjtkj]

You must be joking, really! I did think this line of yours was meant to be sarcastic : "In any other case, the judge will surveillance must be shut down and the records sealed immediately. This law has been so effective that out of the hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied." Can you really be suggesting that the gov's record in this is 100% perfect?? that they never erred, never deceived the courts? never never never? in hundreds of cases?? ... especially in this present administration which has been falgrant in its lack of cooperation, even including purposefully frustrating court reviews!!! Wake up.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[txoof]

Indeed, I didn't do my research carefully enough. Thanks for pointing that out.

I think that even if FISA taps are biased, at least there is some oversight. I appreciate that there is, if nothing else, an illusion of oversight. There is a judge who is not directly linked to the investigation reviewing and vetting the requests. Under the current warrantless system, no one outside the investigation ever gets to know what's going on. There's not even an illusion of oversight. We all just have to hope that one of our acquaintances doesn't look dodgy enough to justify a wiretap on us.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Hatta]

If indeed Bush and friends trampled on your beloved Constitution and laws in doing so, I say they're more dangerous to you than what they claim they were protecting you from.

This much is obvious. Look at how many Americans died because of Bin Laden's orders. Roughly 3000. How many Americans died because of Bush's orders? Over 4000 in Iraq and over 600 in Afghanistan. How many American dollars were wasted because of the 9/11 attacks? We may have lost half a trillion dollars in GDP. But the Iraq war will cost us 3 trillion or more.

So yeah, with friends like these who needs enemies? Even if you care only about American lives and American dollars, Bush has clearly done more harm to the US than Bin Laden. And so, he should be treated no kinder than Bin Laden.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[moortak]

I fully support Bush living in a cave in Pakistan.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Look at how many Americans died because of Bin Laden's orders. Roughly 3000.

Small nitpick: Though it's true only 3,000 people died on September 11th, there were over 17,000 people in the towers at the time of impact. That doesn't include the intentions of the other two targets.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Anonymous Coward]

In any other case, the judge will surveillance must be shut down and the records sealed immediately. This law has been so effective that out of the hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied.

And that doesn't sound like a rubberstamp court to you? That's not broken? If the lawyers putting together the FISA requests are so unbeatable, they should be taken off the job and set to uncovering this administration's wrongdoings. Who the hell believes there are so many lawyers that good in any one place? They must be a world of Denny Cranes.

Actually there were a few requests denied by the FISA court, but they were all approved after "further documentation". What shit.

One of the big arguments for bypassing even FISA advanced by the Bushies was that the paperwork was "too burdensome" and terrorists would remain at large while the paperwork was pushed around. Again -- crap -- the surveillance can begin immediately with paperwork to follow in due, but not unreasonable, time. Again I say -- what shit.

Have any of you ever gotten a house loan or a refinance? There are a couple of inches of documents to deal with. Maybe twenty pages require a signature.Do you really think the whole stack is tailored to your situation? Bullcrap -- it's likely 95% or better boilerplate, little more work than putting together a mailmerge in your favorite word processor. Just input a small list of facts (names, property addresses, amounts and dates of payments, etc.) Most of the variable information is on one or two pages of disclosure fees -- prorated rents and taxes, document processing fees and the like. Once those few bits of information are assembled, it's just hit print and go get a beer while the stack of paperwork is pumped out by the printer.

Similarly, most of the pleadings to FISA is legal boilerplate certifying all required legal procedures have been followed and the like.

If we allow our executive to choose which laws he will follow, we're on a short trip to the disaster that won't be unlike Russia's "Democracy".

Since you brought it up, have you noticed that a 100% rate of acceptance is roughly the margin by which communist/fascist dictators are usually elected?

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[pfleming]

Look at how many Americans died because of Bin Laden's orders. Roughly 3000.

Small nitpick: Though it's true only 3,000 people died on September 11th, there were over 17,000 people in the towers at the time of impact. That doesn't include the intentions of the other two targets.

Shortly after the attacks, Bin Laden expressed surprise and elation that his attacks had been so successful. Based on this, even he did not expect the death toll nor the physical destruction to be so high. Until this point terrorism (of the Bin Laden type) had actually claimed very few lives.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[lawpoop]

Sir, you are much too naive.

The plan was to create a giant database of *everyone*, including every bit of electronic data available about them. Think of it as a FaceBook that includes everyone in the nation, with all your medical records, financial records, credit card records, phone calls, and emails. It was called "Total Information Awareness", and the Latin Phrase on its logo was Scientia est Potentia -- "Knowledge is Power". Therefore, Total Information Awareness means absolute power.

The wikipedia article seems to indicate that the project was simply broken up into smaller pieces, not actually ended, after public outcry.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[E 99]

FISA was a failure on several levels. 1) It established a unnecessarily high threshold of evidence required for federal agents to obtain a wiretap. One can argue about what the proper threshold should be, but these restrictions were directly tied to the intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. 2) To the degree that it is applied to constitutional executive authority, FISA was, and is, unconstitutional.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[E 99]

If they could have justified it, why didn't they just push the law through Senate et all first? It's not like they have had that much difficutly in pushing through lots of crappy laws.

If he already has the authority under the Constitution, why the hell would he want some lower law added to redundantly give him authority he already has? It's clear why the Congress would want that -- to shore up the their unconstitutional power grabs of the past. But the President has the responsibility to be a counterbalance to power grabs by the other branches.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[bill_mcgonigle]

I suspect that Bush's primary reason for the warrantless wiretapping simply boils down to they didn't know exactly who/what/where to look and wanted to perform a dragnet on foreign calls. Something that would have been impossible to do under FISA.

Right, they were building social network graphs based on call routing data from phone calls. They were looking for hidden nodes in the graph, intermediaries they suspected were there but couldn't find. In this scenario recording voice data isn't interesting nor cost-effective. It also doesn't fit FISA, was supposedly very effective, is no longer effective since it was leaked, and was probably illegal with no effective way to make it legal without spilling the beans. So, it was a clever idea with no Constitutional rationale and should have been left on the drawing board.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they could have justified it, why didn't they just push the law through Senate et all first?"

Its easier to ask for forgiveness then permission . :(

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets all hope that our next president will restore some order to the land and respect the laws that provide his power.

You can hope that the next president will do that, but the current one still has 3 months for more surprises.
In fact, if some parts of the Constitution can be ignored then it shouldn't be hard to ignore other parts. How convenient would it be to ignore "He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years"?

Secondly, if the next president is to restore order and respect for law then some exposure and punishment is required. Otherwise, what's to restrain someone else from doing similar at a later time?

We can now calculate the actual cost of Ford's pardon. He explained that it was done to help heal the nation, but it also delayed much of the constitutional debate for 30 years.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, what if you want to tap thousands or millions of calls simultaneously?

Well, first of all that has never been necessary.

Second, any potential event that would truly require such a massive wiretap (even if technically feasible) would be enough to warrant the President to leverage other powers. For example Martial Law, which would give him that ability (legally) anyhow.

Third, there is nothing that would prevent a FISA court from issue a wide-ranging 'blanket' wiretap, in limited situations.

This is, as the parent said, simply a way for the President to run around due process. The biggest giveaway is the ability to almost completely hide what was done from any review or scrutiny afterwards.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[sjames]

And it was impossible for very good reasons! It hardly matters if we protect the U.S. from the terrorists if in the process it becomes JUST LIKE the countries that the U.S. used to vilify for things like torture, mass warrantless wiretaps and various paranoid security measures.

Not exactly "accountability" or a "win"

[nathan.fulton]

The court order mandates an in camera (in chambers) review of the memos, and only those that have not been granted summary judgment. Meaning that there is still a chance that the most putrid examples of abuse of civil rights are screened out for "national security" reasons. The OUTCOME of this review will be far more interesting (and indicative of the amount of justice that will be serves) than the order for its release.

Re:Not exactly "accountability" or a "win"

[corsec67]

Unless the government pulls another "we aren't going to tell you anyways", like they did in US v. Reynolds, as depicted in the book Claim of Privilege. Even getting an in camera review is a gain, so don't overlook that.

Re:Not exactly "accountability" or a "win"

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict the outcome, a big "Fuck you" from the Bush administration as they refuse to comply with the order.

Impeachments on Nov 5th to complicate pardons...

[cpu_fusion]

... or these crooks get away scott-free in the long run.

Treason?

[tjstork]

Democrats deliberately derailed the war effort and the economy in order to get elected and you are looking for more spoils of your coup? If you want a civil war, why don't we just get on with it already. We Republicans will be happy to answer your trumped up charges with IEDs.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

We Republicans will be happy to answer your trumped up charges with IEDs.

Awesome, I can't wait for far-right Republicans to become domestic terrorists, get rounded up and shipped to Gitmo. It just seems appropriate somehow.

Re:Treason?

[nuclear_zealot]

Attacking the legal government... setting off IEDs... That would make the Republicans... TERRORISTS!!!

I like how a self-professed Republican's response to (hopefully) losing a democratic election is to call it a coup and threaten setting off IEDs. I mean, that is really high-quality irony.

How did Bush put it? "If you're not with us, you're with the Ter.. err.. us."

"Won't get fooled again!"

Re:Treason?

[tjstork]

Awesome, I can't wait for far-right Republicans to become domestic terrorists, get rounded up and shipped to Gitmo. It just seems appropriate somehow

As a practical matter, I wouldn't expect to see any right wing insurgent activity unless Card Check, Fairness Doctrine and some sort of anti-gun legislation simultaneously pass.

But, let's assume that we did.

You know what would happen, don't you? Your side would cave in like it does to every other insurgency on the planet. You caved to the likes of the Weather Underground and the Nation of Islam in the 1960s, you tried to cave into the Bader Meinhoff in the 1970s, you caved to the IRA and the PLO under Clinton, and begged to cave into Al Sadr and Al Qaeda in Iraq...

Re:Treason?

[tjstork]

like how a self-professed Republican's response to (hopefully) losing a democratic election is to call it a coup and threaten setting off IEDs. I mean, that is really high-quality irony.

It is a coup. Democrats and their left wing allies did everything they could to derail the economy and the war. America was stabbed in the back by the left wing, as usual. And the thing is, once they get into power, you are going to see them do everything they can to extend their lead, undemocratically by:

a) squelching political dissent - you'll see Obama and company try and shut off right wing radio via the fairness doctrine, use the IRS to intimidate the web and the FCC and Net Neutrality legislation to try and go after the likes of Fox and some sort of pressure will be placed on the WSJ. In a Democratic America, you'll only be allowed to argue about the effectiveness of the administration Democrat plans but not question the ideas. It will be just like Soviet Times.

b) Disarmament of the country. Any individual right to keep and bear and arms will be eroded.

c) Disempower the country. Any means of accumulating private wealth, and thus power, will be eroded. You'll see increased capital gains.

d) And no, USA PATRIOT and the DEPT of Homeland Security will NOT be repealed. You can guarantee that Biden will Reichstag Fire any sort of right wing activitiy into an excuse to grant his socialist masters even more power.

McCain's a dope, for sure, but this election is the inauguration of an occupation, not another administration, and it should be treated as such.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't expect to see any right wing insurgent activity

Of course you wouldn't.

Oh and by the way, re: your original post, the liberals didn't do jack shit to your glorious leader's war. Bush "stayed the course" and refused to "outsource the position of commander in chief", he has personally earned every last bit of glory coming to him for it, no matter how much that fact makes you rage.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a Democratic America, you'll only be allowed to argue about the effectiveness of the administration Democrat plans but not question the ideas. It will be just like Soviet Times.

Or just like the last eight years, only in the other direction.

Re:Treason?

[Darby]

Your side would cave in like it does to every other insurgency on the planet. You caved to the likes of the Weather Underground and the Nation of Islam in the 1960s, you tried to cave into the Bader Meinhoff in the 1970s, you caved to the IRA and the PLO under Clinton, and begged to cave into Al Sadr and Al Qaeda in Iraq...

So given the groups you identify with, you have the audacity to call wanting the government to be subject to the same laws as the people "treason"?

What a dirty, cowardly little nazi piece of shit you are.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I speak for all ACs when I say, "Sir, you are retarded."

Re:Treason?

[tjstork]

So given the groups you identify with, you have the audacity to call wanting the government to be subject to the same laws as the people "treason"?

Oh fuck that argument, especially when the Weather Underground gave our President his career start.

What a dirty, cowardly little nazi piece of shit you are.

How can you call us Nazis when Bush accepted every contrary media as part of free speech, and your guys first move is to try and squelch the other side? Let's face it, Obama's "common purpose" is a lot more national socialistic than "ownership society".

How do you even live with yourself, and say the lies you say?

Re:Treason?

[KDR_11k]

Some people always believe that anything bad is the result of a conspiracy by the groups they are not part of (and which they claim have the exact opposite stance on everything)...

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what would happen, don't you? Your side would cave in like it does to every other insurgency on the planet.

MY side? I'm a moderate conservative. Your "side" makes me look bad.

Re:Treason?

[Darby]

How can you call us Nazis when Bush accepted every contrary media as part of free speech, and your guys first move is to try and squelch the other side?

In the first place, "your guys" doesn't apply. There are plenty of actual arguments to be made against Obama, including his vote for the telecom immunity act which was an act of treason. Of course, your guy voted for that too, so you're stuck with silly asinine arguments since McCain and the Republican party are far far worse than the Democrats.

I'm essentially a Classical Liberal which means I believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, freedom and all of that. You know, like the constitution lays out. So while I dislike the Democrats and their excesses, looking at just the 2 major parties, absolutely objectively, the Republicans are far worse in every area. Big government? Absolutely. Republicans win this hands down. Reagan beat FDR's record for *growth* of the government and Bush recently beat Reagan's record. Fiscal irresponsibility? Republicans again. They know no restraint and spend like mad at interest on crazy pork bullshit like Moose Fucker's bridge to nowhere. Anti-Liberty? Right, death camps, universal surveillance, kicking down doors of people's homes and dragging patriotic citizens off to jail like at the Republican convention.

How do you even live with yourself, and say the lies you say?

This is completely laughable. You are so far out on the loony fascist fringe that you assume anybody with legitimate complaints about your Fuhrer must be an Obama supporter, when disgust with the Republicans is all over the political spectrum and includes everybody *except* right wing extremists. You know, like the Nazis. That's where you fall on the political spectrum and the system that you are arguing in support of.
Arguing against your disgusting position doesn't constitute communism or even anything remotely near the left. It's called sanity. That's all it takes to see you for the big government police state fascist asshat you are.

Re:Treason?

[Jeremy Erwin]

c) Disempower the country. Any means of accumulating private wealth, and thus power, will be eroded. You'll see increased capital gains.

So, you'd prefer capital losses?

Think before you type.

Re:Treason?

[tjstork]

Your little tirade was quite spectacular, but the fact of the matter is that you ducked the question at hand. Once again, Obama and co are going to shut off free speech for their political opponents.

You argument that Republicans are "far worse" than Democrats has no basis in fact. Your charges about death camps really show where you are. If there was a Republican death camp, for sure, two things are for sure, a) it would be all over the news because the media is liberal, and b) Bush would be a hell of a lot more popular among his own party than he is now.

You are so far out on the loony fascist fringe that you assume anybody with legitimate complaints about your Fuhrer must be an Obama supporter,

Most of your complaints aren't legitimate, that's the point. They are talking points of your opposition.

Yeah, and seriously, you think Bush is a bit of a excessive guy, so you go and support a Stalinist. I mean, Bush throws in one or two guys into Gitmo, which sucks, but, the left has already far exceeded that level of constitional violations already when they tossed the japs into internment camps.

You can call me crazy, but when this Obama buddy of yours goes and does the Fairness Doctrine, brags to private donors about all the coal miners he's thrown out of work, mandated bilingual content for everything, thrown 50,000 people into prison for copyright infringement so his masters will be appeased, raised capital gains taxes and killed investment in the USA, THEN, silences his political opposition, you tell me how great your buddy is.

Puhlease. One year from now, Democrats will be rationalizing everything they did, and it will all be ten times as much as what Bush did.... Democrats -don't care if the free market or private sector exists-, don't you get it?

Re:Treason?

[BlueStrat]

Both of the political polar extremes disgust me. I'm not voting for Obama, but it's not because of any of the garbage being spewed by either side, or that he's black. I wouldn't vote for Obama if he were running as a conservative Republican, Libertarian, Green Party, or any other party. He just doesn't have enough of a political/legislative/executive track record to be POTUS IMO no matter what he promises.

It would be like a major corporation taking some guy off the assembly line after a year on the job and making him CEO. It doesn't matter what kind of promises he makes, or how well and fast he worked making widgets. He's simply not demonstrated the competence and judgment to be CEO.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Treason?

[Darby]

You can call me crazy, but when this Obama buddy of yours

I'll leave you to your loony echo chamber rants. You obviously aren't talking to me.

Re:Treason?

[Foobar of Borg]

If you want a civil war, why don't we just get on with it already.

Considering where "Bush Country" is, I don't think you drooling hillbillies would want another Civil War. You will lose even worse than the last time, and for similar reasons. Although, seeing Atlanta burn to the ground for a second time does have a certain aesthetic appeal to it.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

For all our sakes, please take up smoking again, your insane rants rants are getting worse.

Re:Treason?

[Falconhell]

Your irrational fear is palpable in your post, it would be amusing if it wasnt sad. Now switch off your computer and go back to watching FOX news, and let the adults talk in peace.

Re:Treason?

[MadUndergrad]

America was stabbed in the back by the left wing, as usual.

Wow, NAZI much? Holy shit, you've Godwinned this thread so hard it's not even funny.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not voting for Obama, ... It would be like a major corporation taking some guy off the assembly line after a year on the job and making him CEO.

You seem to be forgetting that the alternative is Palin. That would be like taking the bum passed out in the back alley and making him CEO.

Re:Treason?

[sumdumass]

No, the alternate is McCain. If something happens to him, it is then Palin. Either way, with McCain, your not going to have 4 years of Palin as you would with Obama.

That doesn't even start to mention that Palin has at least took the training courses, she is the executive of Alaska right now.

Re:Treason?

[sumdumass]

He mean capitol gains tax. I read it that way and didn't realize what you were talking about until I went back and look.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, with McCain, your not going to have 4 years of Palin as you would with Obama.

Going with our current analogy, I'd rather have four years of the guy off the assembly line than three years of the bum from the back alley.

That doesn't even start to mention that Palin has at least took the training courses, she is the executive of Alaska right now.

If we want to get serious about the analogies, Obama is the guy who was a member of the board of directors of the company for about three years who has a magna cum laude degree from Harvard "business school" and who taught "business administration" at the university of Chicago for 12 years. Palin is the guy who was formerly the CEO of another company that made similar products but that had 1/500 as many employees.

Re:Treason?

[jonadab]

Umm, I'm pretty sure YHBT. Just saying.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats deliberately derailed the war effort and the economy in order to get elected and you are looking for more spoils of your coup?

Coup??? That would be the Newt Gingrich "Contract on America" coup, right? Well, that sure turned out well

If you want a civil war, why don't we just get on with it already. We Republicans will be happy to answer your trumped up charges with IEDs.

Oh, excellent -- the Republicand are already rehearsing their baby-will-cry tantrum -- "By God, if we go down, we'll take the country with us. Waaaahhhhh." Talk about treason.

That should be pretty successful, shouldn't it, just like when Newt and his fellow numbnuts declared they'd bring the government to a screeching halt. Another wildly successful gambit by the Grumpy Old Party.

Buncha fucking losers.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a coup. Democrats and their left wing allies did everything they could to derail the economy and the war. America was stabbed in the back by the left wing, as usual. And the thing is, once they get into power, you are going to see them do everything they can to extend their lead, undemocratically by:

Yeah, well -- it'll take a lot of activity to roll back the massive waste of money and the civil rights abuses of the past eight years.

Jesus Christ, you can be sure we don't even know the half of the ways we've been cornholed by the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Mueller, Tenet cabal and their bastard successors in this administration.

Another prophetic captcha: scrutiny

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moose Fucker's bridge to nowhere

Aww, c'mon -- that's a little harsh, isn't it? Really, she voted for it and she took the money, right? But then she blew the money on something entirely different, huh? I mean, that's about as honest as you get with a Republican -- agreed?

Re:Treason?

[jamstar7]

Oh and by the way, re: your original post, the liberals didn't do jack shit to your glorious leader's war. Bush "stayed the course" and refused to "outsource the position of commander in chief", he has personally earned every last bit of glory coming to him for it, no matter how much that fact makes you rage.

Of course he wouldn't outsource the position of Commander In Chief. That would mean he'd have to give up the job, and he wasn't gonna do that without a fight. He wasn't impeached because the opposition didn't have the votes, and if they did come up with them somehow, the Party would have just screamed "This is the Democrats' revenge for Clinton! They're with the terrorists!" or some such nonsense to cloud the issue to where nothing could be done, just like they did to Clinton.

FWIW, Clinton should have been impeached (and he was) for perjury. Who cares what blowjobs he got in the Oval Office? The precident was set that the President is somehow above the law, and we've been living with the repercussions of that for the last 8 years. It's not going to disappear overnight regardless of which meatpuppet 'wins' the election. Clinton was out of line for lying under oath in a court of law, something that me & thee, John Q Citizen, would have done jail time for. Bush was out of line for the wiretapping, the lying to start the Iraq War, and a whole bunch of other things. They're both politicians, therefore they're both suspect. Neither Obama nor McCain is a saint, either. THEY'RE both politicians, too. So are Palin and Biden. See the mess we're in now?

Re:Treason?

[jamstar7]

How can you call us Nazis when Bush accepted every contrary media as part of free speech, and your guys first move is to try and squelch the other side? Let's face it, Obama's "common purpose" is a lot more national socialistic than "ownership society".

Ah, yes, the 'Free Speech Zones', far away from the cameras. Yes, let's get protesters away from the action so we can spin 'no opposition' to anything a politician says.

From what I read in the Constitution, the 'Free Speech Zone' is defined as any place inside the borders of the United States, or its possessions or embassies (embassies are considered as being part of the national soil of the country who runs them). The point of protesting something is to be seen, to remind a politician like they used to do with a Roman they were honoring by a parade. They had a slave in the chariot with him constantly saying "This too is fleeting. This too will pass." Tended to help keep the Roman grounded. We need something to keep our politicians grounded. 'Free Speech Zones' ain't it.

Re:Treason?

[sumdumass]

If we want to get serious about the analogies, Obama is the guy who was a member of the board of directors of the company for about three years who has a magna cum laude degree from Harvard "business school" and who taught "business administration" at the university of Chicago for 12 years. Palin is the guy who was formerly the CEO of another company that made similar products but that had 1/500 as many employees.

Member of the BoD of what company. Obama was never a board of directors member of any company unless your talking about charities with 15 employees. His senate experience is not executive experience which Palin has. Obama has never presided directly over an organization with more then 15 employees. NEVER-

You seem to be full of shit. It's no wonder why your posting AC. It seems that you know you making false statements (even if your just repeating them) and don't want them associated with your name.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't read any of tjstork's posting history, have you?

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows all the anti smoking propaganda is a socialist plot. This gentleman is therefore not a republican, he is just another snot nosed whiney socialist in disguise, trying to undermine the rule of law.

Re:Treason?

[volpe]

It is a coup.

The coup occurred in 2000, and was a multi-faceted effort. There was, for example, Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush's co-campaign chair and Florida's corrupt secretary of state, who oversaw the illegal purging of tens of thousands of legitimate Black voters. There was the manufactured mob of republican congressional aids flown in from DC to scream and pound on the doors of the canvassing boards, yelling "stop the fraud" in response to efforts to count the ballots accurately. And finally, there was the U.S. Supreme Court itself, with its "states rights" advocate judges, who overturned a Florida state Supreme Court ruling regarding Florida state election law, with special bonus points going to Justice Clarence Thomas, who considered the matter thoughtfully and fairly before casting the vote that would allow his wife to continue her work for the Bush transition team.

Re:Treason?

[Foobar of Borg]

Member of the BoD of what company. Obama was never a board of directors member of any company unless your talking about charities with 15 employees. His senate experience is not executive experience which Palin has. Obama has never presided directly over an organization with more then 15 employees. NEVER-

GP was using a business/government analogy, which should have been blatantly obvious if you had bothered to read the whole post. "Member of the Board of Directors" = Senator, "Teaching business administration" = teaching constitutional law

You nick is certainly appropriate this time.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

He just doesn't have enough of a political/legislative/executive track record to be POTUS

Oh, great. And if anything happens to McCain, who do you expect to step in and shove their hand up Palin's ass and move her mouth in a presidential manner? Real responsible, Johnny-my-boy -- that's everyone's idea of "Country First".

Let me repeat -- McCain has no real executive experience. Riding a disabled jet into the ground and spending five years in near-solitary confers no executive experience. Nor, for that matter, any realistic, formal foreign affairs experience, either.

Personally I'd rather have a lawyer with knowledge of and respect for the Constitution in the WH. At least he'll have a VP with deep knowledge of foreign affairs close by, not some dizzy bitch who thinks living in a state with vistas of Russia and Canada constitutes foreign affairs credentials.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

You argument that Republicans are "far worse" than Democrats has no basis in fact. Your charges about death camps really show where you are. If there was a Republican death camp, for sure, two things are for sure, a) it would be all over the news because the media is liberal,...

Horseshit -- it's not all over the news because this fascist Republican cabal in the White House rules by secret executive order which invariably tries to cut out any semblance of court supervision. Like the CIA unaccounted-for flights to countries less squeamish about torture and the warrantless wiretapping, where the emphasis was turned to "plugging the leaks" (remember Nixon?) rather than addressing the buttfucking they were giving the Constitution.

... and b) Bush would be a hell of a lot more popular among his own party than he is now.

Well sorry -- the cockbiter is so successful at running a secret government that the rank and file of the Republican party isn't in on the excesses of their Fuhrer, either.

Re:Treason?

[sumdumass]

Lol.. You can't make the logical conclusion that Obama's experience qualify him to be on the BoD of a company over Palin's experience in an analogy or not. The truth still holds true that in all his experience, he has never presided over more then 15 or so people until his campaigning. And even then, the exact number is in doubt until this current campaign. If anything in an analogy, he would be the department shift supervisor of Palin's management staff at some business. At least in Palin's experience, she has actually told a congress what to do and they listened to her enough to get it done.

Re:Treason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush accepted every contrary media as part of free speech

You mean "Free Speech Zone" Bush, who makes sure anyone wanting to exercise a Constitutional right of protest gets herded into a "free speech" ghetto two miles away?

Fuck that shit -- with only the most circumscribed exceptions, every motherfucking square inch of America is a free speech zone.

Read the Constitution, you bloody fucks -- "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". How goddamned clear can we make it for you asshole simpletons?

Fuck the lying bastard warmonger commander-in-thief.

If they don't, it'll go to the Attorney General!!

[smchris]

Oh, right. Never mind.

Oh right...

[tjstork]

This is why the Bush administrations new warrantless wiretapping is so distressing. The system wasn't broken! It worked very well. This is simply yet another attempt by the administration to do an end run around due-process. Bush and Cheney have done more to erode the constitution than any other duo in this country's history.

Except for democrats shredding the commerce clause to enact their agenda... I mean, there's nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the right to regulate the environment, for starters. And of course, I didn't see Bush tossing muslim americans in camps the way Roosevelt did both the Japanese. For that matter, when did Bush ever try and pack the Supreme Court with extra judges the way Roosevelt did...

Re:Oh right...

[jamstar7]

And of course, I didn't see Bush tossing muslim americans in camps the way Roosevelt did both the Japanese. For that matter, when did Bush ever try and pack the Supreme Court with extra judges the way Roosevelt did...

Ever hear of Camp X-Ray? Or doesn't that count? And there's no need to pad the court with extra judges when Bush could pack the vacancies to get what he wanted when the Reagan Era judges retired.

Re:Oh right...

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, I didn't see Bush tossing muslim americans in camps the way Roosevelt did both the Japanese.

I don't think people were as sensitive to racism and racial profiling then. That all happened before the civil rights movement.

Not to mention that interning Saudi Americans would enrage our Saudi allies. The Japanese weren't our allies before Pearl Harbor.

Re:Impeachments on Nov 5th to complicate pardons..

[Bayoudegradeable]

Swearing in won't take place till early January, just ahead of the presidential inauguration on January 20. Don't expect any action on Nov 5 :)

Too many wire taps?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The Stasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi), East Germany's secret police, ended up collecting so much information on its citizens that it was impossible to process and analyze it all. "Some calculations have concluded that in East Germany there was one informer to every seven citizens."

Sure, the NSA has all kinds of wizz-bang gadgets to sort and process their stuff, but I wonder if the same thing is happening with them?

Re:Too many wire taps?

[Immostlyharmless]

Which is exactly why having access to all this information makes us MORE vulnerable to another terrorist attack, not less. Look at how much information the FBI already had on the 9/11 hijackers. They *literally* had the American populace calling them on the phone and saying "I think we have some terrorists here."

They still couldn't figure it out. Somehow now with a deluge of information of the sort they now have access to, they are going to do any better? Me thinks not...

Re:Too many wire taps?

[dpilot]

Which after having done any test engineering, which I have, or reading practically anything by Bruce Schneier, which I also have, then you see that the percentages are against you on mass dragnets like this.

If you're looking for say, a dozen terrorists, looking through 120,000,000 phone calls, that's well under 1 part per million. A really good false positive rate might be 0.01%. That's still 1 part per 10,000 - you're looking for 12 terrorists in 12,012 hits. That's even assuming that your dragnet is 100% effective, that it's 12,012 hits and not 12,011 or 12,006. (12,000 false positives and 12, 11, or 6 true positives.)

This just isn't even a good way to start the job. Intelligence on the ground is, then you can refine your wiretaps and such before you even start, so you're not sifting through so much information. Oh, and FISA would be just fine for that scenario.

Re:Too many wire taps?

[Anonymous Coward]

But... if 9/11 was prevented, the public wouldn't have been in a state of panic and the U SAP AT RIOT act would have never gotten through.

Re:Too many wire taps?

[DirePickle]

On the other hand, they'll have enough information that if someone comes to them and says, "I want to destroy X person's life," they will happily be able to supply all of the dirt necessary.

Re:Too many wire taps?

[digitalchinky]

You do realize just how staggeringly large the public communications infrastructure is don't you? Not even the multi-billion dollar budgets of all the worlds 3 letter agencies combined could put a tiny dent in those kinds of data rates.

Slaving a collection system to a single pipe is one thing, but what does it get you? You still have to break it down to component parts - voice or fax in the clear is largely a thing of the past, an expensive waste of bandwidth for the telco, now everything is buried a few multiplexers deep, is compressed, or is just doing esoteric crap like using VOIP to send a v.26 modem across the wire plugged up to the stops with ancient teletype.

I guess my point is that hard drive space is finite, and even with a comparatively small data stream of only a couple of Mbps, one could easily envisage such a transmission being able to saturate a serious amount of hardware through the sheer variety of geeky things that people can do just for the hell of it.

Add encryption in to that mix...

Re:Too many wire taps?

[jamstar7]

You do realise how much money the government has at its disposal, don't you? Throw a few hundred billion at the problem, they'll get results. And the contractors will make a killing. What's a couple trillion more dollars worth of deficit at this stage of the game? The US is already so bankrupt now that our great great great grandkids will be in poverty or hyperinflation.

Friday : Heinlein

[Anonymous Coward]

IN the book Friday, Friday would give the Government all the information they wanted, except it would be wrong just to fuck them up. Pay too much tax. Transcribe a number wrong. Mark the sex wrong on a form. Etc....

mod 30wn

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not SLING you can eyes on the real and the Bazaar over a quali7y In posting a GNAA

Re:Impeachments on Nov 5th to complicate pardons..

[swillden]

Impeachments come from Congress, not from the President, so the date of the swearing in is irrelevant, except that, per the GP's point, if they're going to happen they need to happen BEFORE Jan 20. However, you're right that nothing will happen on Nov 5th.

Records? What records?

[Nimey]

You assume they've been keeping records of the interesting parts.

Who does the judge think he is?

[Anonymous Coward]

In merely looking at the communications, he himself is violating the attorney-client privilege. The reason the law exists in the first place it to protect that privilege and no judge should be allowed to determine whether or not it is warranted.

Re:Who does the judge think he is?

[Jeremy Erwin]

That's a broad construal.

Re:Who does the judge think he is?

[jjohnson]

The Department of Justice is not the lawyer for the White House--they have White House Counsel for that, and their work is privileged. Any work produced by the DOJ on request from the White House is, by definition, not privileged. It's a request to a third party to produce a legal opinion. The memos are the equivalent of going to the EFF and asking them to produce a 'friend of the court' brief; the fact that you requested it and they didn't doesn't create the attorney-client relationship, so privilege isn't an issue.

this is my guess on why the FISA immunity passed

[Trepidity]

There's lots of speculation about telecomm lobbyists and whatnot, but I don't really think the degree of lockstep on this issue can be explained simply by AT&T dollars. Moreover, if they just wanted to shield AT&T, they could've allowed investigations to go through, but capped damages for anything that AT&T could show the government had ordered them to do to a very nominal figure, or even agreed to have the government cover the damages.

They pretty clearly though, in both parties, didn't want this investigation happening at all. My guess is that that's because, if it were fully investigated with subpoena power and whatnot, we'd find out that both a number of administration members broke the law, but also that a number of Congress members from both parties either broke the law or knew about law-breaking.

Re:Impeachments on Nov 5th to complicate pardons..

[/dev/trash]

Congress will be lame too. Ya know. But either way, drop this impeachment shit, it ain't gonna happen. Bush is gonna retire rich and fat somewhere and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

nixon wants his 18 minutes back

[v1]

we've already seen what happens when you subpoena evidence like that. "accidents happen".

Yeah, sure

[Legion303]

I predict it will play out something like similar demands have in the past:

GWB: Fuck you.
Federal judge: Yes sir. Sorry to have bothered you.

What about preior to 9/11

[witherstaff]

Qwest lost pentagon contracts for refusing to illegal wiretap when it was asked to in February 2001 . The 9/11 attacks are a strawman argument for the executive branch grabbing as much power as they can.

As to impeachment, Pelosi has said impeachment is off the table for quite awhile. Kucinich has tried to start impeachment hearings but they got killed in subcommittees. The two parties may bicker at some level but they wouldn't actually want to oh, follow the law or anything when it comes to trampling personal liberties.

Re:What about preior to 9/11

[sumdumass]

Qwest lost pentagon contracts for refusing to illegal wiretap when it was asked to in February 2001 . The 9/11 attacks are a strawman argument for the executive branch grabbing as much power as they can.

Well, the only person who claims that is the former CEO at Qwest and he did so in his trial for securities fraud. No one at Qwest has stated the same things or even confirmed the story about losing contract. The government denies it.

As to impeachment, Pelosi has said impeachment is off the table for quite awhile. Kucinich has tried to start impeachment hearings but they got killed in subcommittees. The two parties may bicker at some level but they wouldn't actually want to oh, follow the law or anything when it comes to trampling personal liberties.

Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she knows there is a chance that Bush's Constitutional defense is actually valid. It is more convenient for her to keep the issues unsettled so the dems can attempt to gain political advantage from it then to force a resolution that might ultimately reduce the power congress has over the administration and loose the ability to jack the politicking around. This is also why they passed a law allowing the warantless wiretaps as well as giving another that expanded them while providing immunity to the telecoms retroactively. Actually, it isn't retroactive immunity, it is a vehicle to certify the applicability of existing immunity but we won't argue facts when so many people think otherwise.

Re:What about preior to 9/11

[hpa]

Pelosi took impeachment off the table because she knows there is a chance that Bush's Constitutional defense is actually valid.

Pelosi probably took impeachment off the table because there is no way it would get the necessary two-thirds majority in the half-Republican Senate.

Re:What about preior to 9/11

[KovaaK]

Actually, it isn't retroactive immunity, it is a vehicle to certify the applicability of existing immunity but we won't argue facts when so many people think otherwise.

I'd like to see more people quote that line whenever the argument of "but Obama voted for telecom immunity too" comes up. Hell, that was his official statement about why he voted for it... but it seems like most slashdotters have given up on this statement. Thanks for confirming that I'm not crazy, and that this bill actually did have merits to being passed (not that I wouldn't have preferred a rewrite without the telecom immunity).

Re:What about preior to 9/11

[sumdumass]

If the case was really there and the American people supported it, she would have gotten the votes. Democrats crossed the isle on the Clinton impeachment.

Re:What about preior to 9/11

[sumdumass]

Well, you have so many constitutional scholars on here and they only see red. I have argued this point in the past and it always ends up with something transferring to the equivalent of I don't want to believe that.

This law provides a good faith defense for the telecoms at the time of the first wire tap known to of happened. If a government official presented them anything that was official and the telecoms took them at their word, they have a complete defense against any actions. The problem that arose is that Bush Classified all the documents pertaining to the actions and if the telecoms presented them as their defense, they would be in violation of a criminal law and could face jail time if it was enforced. The telecom immunity bill created a vehicle where a secrete court reviewed the information and certified if the government represented the authority to the telecoms or not or if there wasn't a tap pertaining to the names involved. If this was true, then the court couldn't hold the case and had to dismiss it when the secrete court certified it to them. If it wasn't the case, then it proceeded as usually.

If that was Obama's official statement at one time, then he would have been correct. What I heard was him eventually saying that he voted for it because he would become president and could control how it was used. Of course he could have been talking about other provisions in the same bill that gave the administration more power to tapp.

We're not crazy, just rational and paying attention.

"Buckled" say what?

[Irvu]

As I recall those who went along were paid well for their participation. So I question the use of the term "buckling" which suggests force was applied as opposed to selling their soul for 30 pieces of silver plus overtime which is what really happened.

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

GWB lawyer: see signing statement #289
GWB: Fuck you
Federal judge: Yes sir. Sorry to have bothered you.

There, fixed that for you.

Sprint Ad: Priceless

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Well, what the counsel said was "Give the documents to the Feds", but what the floor staff heard was "Rip the documents to shreds".
Clearly, it was all a case of bad cellular.