State Secrets Defense Rejected In Wiretapping Case

knifeyspooney writes in with an Ars Technica report that a federal judge has issued a strong rebuke to government lawyers attempting to invoke the "state secrets" defense to quash a lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping. This is not the high-profile case the EFF is bringing against the NSA; instead the case is being pursued by an Islamic charity that knows it had been wiretapped. "At times, a note of irritation crept into [Judge] Walker's even, judicial language. At one point, he described the government's argument as 'without merit,' and characterized another as 'circular.' He also seemed impatient with the Justice Department's refusal to provide any classified documents addressing Al Haramain's specific claims for review in chambers. 'It appears... that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act,' wrote Walker."

Comments

really?

[n3tcat]

fucking finally

Re:really?

[truthsearch]

George W. Bush:

Great president?

Or greatest president?

...

Ok, I'll put you down for "great'.

Re:really?

[CaptainCarrot]

If you want the Constitution to protect your freedoms, then you have to allow it to protect even those you're certain are doing wrong. And yes, we're even willing to let pragmatics take a backseat to freedom. The government has always been a more clear and present danger to the people than any real-world terrorist threat. The framers of our Constitution knew this, even if they never specifically had terrorists in mind. That's why they were primarily concerned with limiting the government, not granting it vast powers (which it has largely arrogated to itself anyway.)

Re:really?

[ElBeano]

You and the parent poster have both gone off the deep end, just at opposite ends. If you are certain that someone is "doing wrong", i.e. you have probable cause, they are forfeiting certain of their rights. The duty to protect them stops when they are a threat to other, innocent parties. You betray your absolutistism when you say, "The government has always been a more clear and present danger to the people than any real-world terrorist threat." Really? Always?

Then the parent poster has the audacity to say, "Wether they found any substantiating evidence of this or not doesn't matter. What matters is they were following a lead and they had to react quickly." When and where does this approach stop? There are no safeguards, no civil liberties at all if the government merely suspects something.

Re:really?

[iluvcapra]

You and the parent poster have both gone off the deep end, just at opposite ends. If you are certain that someone is "doing wrong", i.e. you have probable cause, they are forfeiting certain of their rights.

And what rights would those be, homeslice? If the police have PC to arrest you and they put you in holding, you lose freedom of movement, but that isn't a constitutional right. An innocent person has all of their rights intact until they're proven guilty, and even then, in prison, they retain a semblance of most of them. As a matter of principle, a prosecutor can send you up the river with full and damning evidence and at no time are any of your legal protections forfeit. They were designed for people under suspicion. If nobody was ever under suspicion then your probably wouldn't need a Bill of Rights.

I think you are confusing certain "rights," like and privacy with "Constitutional protections."

Re:really?

[CaptainCarrot]

Yes. Really. I suggest you read the Federalist. If I've gone off the deep end, then so did Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, and the other founders. Our Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights that was soon added, was designed to limit government for precisely that reason. They had a recent, violent example of an overreaching government they wished to avoid ever repeating.

The real threat to us from terrorism is virtually nonexistent. In terms of actual risk, the threat from terrorism is miniscule compared to any number of risks we routinely assume without even blinking. It's not worth yielding the tiniest fraction of our freedom in order to combat it.

Re:really?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you are certain that someone is "doing wrong", i.e. you have probable cause, they are forfeiting certain of their rights.

And that's how the government justifies invasive searches of YOUR home, or using the net to hack into your PC and peruse your files. Because they are certain that YOU are a criminal and you've forfeited your rights (to be secure in your person, papers, and home). How do you like that thought of the government searching your home or PC & treating you like a criminal *anytime* they feel like it?

This is what you are advocating.

Re:really?

[aegisvirgae]

I think you are also confused. There is a constitutional right to movement. Read Crandall v. Nevada.. In modern Constitutional law theory this would fall under substantive rights protected under the 5th and 14th amendments. They are rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." For an overview of some of these legal theories see: Palko v. Connecticut. They had their most recent iterations by the court in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Raich v. Gonzalez. The right of movement is required in order to allow for free persons to participate in government. You have to be able to get to D.C. sometimes to petition for grievances.. (million man march anyone?). Perhaps before you go about with derogatory terms like "homeslice" and then name a specific freedom that is constitutionally protected by fundamental process and claim it isn't "a constitutional right" you should at least perform a cursory study in the jurisprudence of fundamental due process. However, I have no qualms about the rest of what you said. Criminal Procedure jurisprudence is indeed designed for people under suspicion but not yet proven guilty.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, the fact that you have created a paradox with this statement is support for this statement.

So it turns out that logical or semantic absolutism is possible, just likely to cause paradoxes.. That's hardly news though, religions have been 'studying' this effect for millennia.

Re:really?

[adf92343414]

Dude, cite your source (Stephen Colbert, in case you've forgotten).

Re:really?

[iluvcapra]

I dunno, I think "homeslice" is pretty neutral... :)

Your point on the right of movement is enlightening, even if certain folks on the SCOTUS are originalists and don't recognize "substantive due process."

Right though you may be, I don't think you actually propose a defect in my argument. A person under investigation loses no rights.

Re:really?

[aegisvirgae]

Indeed. That's is why I said I take no qualms with anything else. There actually is a constitutional right to movement. Other than that.. I agree with you.

Re:really?

[ElBeano]

No, that is not what I meant. When the constitutional protections are fully in place, you can't invade my home or listen to my phone conversations without a warrant. What is a warrant, if not a limited sacrifice of the right to privacy? Constitutional protections (ideally) still apply, but the state and its law abiding citizens have an interest in convicting the guilty and mitigating the danger posed to society. I am certainly not favoring warrantless wiretapping or searches of homes. I agree that the threat of terrorism in the homeland is overblown. Nevertheless, probable cause has a legal definition that properly applied allows for some balance between rights of accused parties and the state's/citizen's mutual interest in pursuit of the guilty.

Well?

[chaboud]

It appears... that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act,' wrote Walker

Unless he's willing to put the attorneys in jail for failure to comply (and end up gitmo'd), there's not a lot that he can do.

I still have my fingers crossed, though.

Re:Well?

[oodaloop]

Unless he's willing to put the attorneys in jail for failure to comply (and end up gitmo'd)

I'm really tired of seeing this crap. Has even one political dissident been sent to GITMO? Last I checked, and I've been to GITMO mind you, only enemy combatants detained overseas and their affiliates are in GITMO. Please stop all this nonsense about being "gitmo'd" for disagreeing with the government already.

Re:Well?

[DrLang21]

Has even one political dissident been sent to GITMO?

How should we know? The DoD has never released an official complete list of names of those who are and who have been detained in GITMO, let alone a list of what they were detained for.

Re:Well?

[Doc Ruby]

You checked at Guantanamo on just why each of the prisoners there was imprisoned?

Dick Cheney, is that you?

Re:Well?

[KeithJM]

only enemy combatants detained overseas and their affiliates are in GITMO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner) They did try to send an American citizen, not in the military, arrested in the US, to Gitmo. He was held as an "enemy combatant" for 3.5 years before civil liberties groups got him a trial. I'm not saying I'm sad he is in jail (he was later found guilty), and I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be hard to believe there was at least one US citizen that they arrested in the US and sent to Gitmo without anyone noticing.

As it is, even with the press aware of this guy's situation, he sat in jail for 3.5 years without being charged with a crime. A US citizen, arrested in the US by the US government. That doesn't creep you out at all?

Re:Well?

[hairyfeet]

Not only that but we know now that there are other places overseas that the feds can take you, and they even have a name for it, torture taxi. And let us be honest here: With all the shit pulled by the US government in the last 30 years you frankly would have to be nuts to take their word at face value on ANYTHING. I personally trust the government about as far as I can throw my overfed corrupt congress critters.

And as we have seen in the past, anytime they start waving the flag and claiming "national security" it means they have been pulling some seriously lowlife shit that they KNOW that even the most diehard Neocon will have trouble swallowing. Or can you give me a reason why this JUDGE shouldn't be trusted with "national secrets" in PRIVATE so he can render a fair and just decision?

Re:Well?

[commodore64_love]

Yes it does "creep" me out.

As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Citizens should not fear their government, but instead the government should fear the citizens, to hold it accountable." Or maybe it was James Madison. Or John Adams? I don't know; it was one of those highly intelligent guys from the Age of Enlightenment. They knew quite well that government could not be trusted, and had witnessed citizens randomly disappearing into prisons without trial.

It's a shame that in just two hundred years we've come full circle and returned to an era of disappearing citizens (like Jose Padilla). It's time to start reminding politicians that they should fear us, just like Jefferson stated.

Re:Well?

[fishyfool]

He can have their license to practice law reviewed by the state bar, and the bar can revoke their privilege to practice law. If, as a lawyer, you piss off a Federal Judge by not doing what the court asks of you, that can be the penalty.

Re:Well?

[Archangel Michael]

The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.

So, until this changes, or people get smart enough to ... you know ... stop voting based upon who is going to give them the most, (or alternatively taking from others more "rich"), it isn't going to change.

I don't fear wiretaps, I fear idiot constituents who are willing to screw me over to feel better about themselves.

Re:Well?

[Maxmin]

Another list of Guantanamo detainess, compiled by NYTimes.

Re:Well?

[Wraithlyn]

Yeah, assuming politicians will abuse power is the exact same argument as assuming the existence of God. </sarcasm>

The entire concept of the US system of government (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc) is PREMISED on the assumption of politicians abusing power.

The FACT is, since 9/11, the US govt has been trying to assert the right to detain "enemy combatants" (which is vaguely defined) without legal recourse, or anyone even knowing about it. That is a cause of legitimate concern. "Gitmo'd" is just shorthand.

Re:Well?

[commodore64_love]

PLEASE NOTE: The government doesn't actually "give" anything.

All it does is steal money from one person's wallet, and transfer it to another person. It's like having your own personal mafia shakedown man, and his name is "Congressman ______". No wonder he keeps getting reelected. Many people, those lacking morals, enjoy having Congressman _____ steal money for them, and all it costs them is a single vote every two years. What a bargain.

TRIVIA:

People receiving welfare, food stamps, and housing assistance get an average of $20-22,000 a year; that's a better income than working at a store.

Re:Well?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The Padilla case saddened me yes, though I wouldn't go so far as to say creep. On the one hand, he was guilty as fuck.

First off he was an American citizen, and the Supreme Law of the Land requires all citizens are entitled to a speedy trial. The persons who refused to obey that law should be charged with Constitutional treason.

Second, I'm sure you'd feel differently if the person denied a trial was YOU. Once precedent has been set to deny one American citizen his rights, then you can start denying other citizens their rights. Including me and you.

Re:Well?

[Shakrai]

The persons who refused to obey that law should be charged with Constitutional treason.

You might want to actually read the Constitution and see how it defines treason before you go suggesting that refusing to obey a law constitutes treason.....

Once precedent has been set to deny one American citizen his rights

That precedent wasn't set. His case eventually wound it's way through the court system and the Government had to try him or let him go. He choose to accept a plea-bargain. Seems like it worked just fine in this case, albeit at the glacial pace of the judicial branch.

Re:Well?

[jasenj1]

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexis de Tocqueville

I think Congress has known this and been operating on it for a while. We're really starting to see the fruits of this.

Re:Well?

[commodore64_love]

ALSO: "A government large enough to provide everything you need, is also a government large enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrats

The party certainly has strayed far from its founder's original ideals (small government, individual independence, minimal taxation).

Re:Well?

[digitalunity]

You wouldn't know if a US citizen was sent to gitmo.

First - the military controls what names appear on their lists. Who is to say they couldn't send a US citizen to gitmo and list them under the name of a wanted Moroccan?

Second - the Bush(jr) administration is an easy target for conjecture since they have a history of erosion of civil liberties and are one of the most secretive administrations about national security matters.

Third - perhaps you haven't heard of extraordinary rendition. There is nothing to say the federal government couldn't 'disappear' someone if they wanted to. If you need any evidence, look at the Maher Arar case where a Canadian was intercepted at JFK international, rendered to Syria by the CIA and tortured in Syria. If the US had sufficient cause, they could do this to an American. If its done in secret and can't even be challenged in a court of law, how do you know the "sufficient cause" bar hasn't been lowered?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900835_pf.html

The law must be reviewed, executed and challenged under the light of day or it will slowly erode our liberty.

Re:Well?

[commodore64_love]

>>>You might want to actually read the Constitution and see how it defines treason before you go suggesting that refusing to obey a law constitutes treason.....

No. YOU should learn English 101, because it you read what I wrote, I did NOT say they committed treason. I said they SHOULD be charged for treason (i.e. the appropriate laws need to be passed to hold gov't officials accountable when they violate the constitution). I even proposed a new amendment in another message.

Also: I was not discussing disobeying any old "law". I was discussing disobeying the U.S. Constitution, which is a high crime or misdemeanor, and also a violation of the oath these officials have sworn. IMHO they committed a crime against the People's Supreme Law, and they should be punished. Instead they get no punishment, which is not how it should be, when an official disobeys constitutional law.

>>>That precedent wasn't set. His case eventually wound it's way through the court system

Only because of vigilant persons that demanded justice. Had those persons taken the laid-back do-nothing approach "oodaloop" favors, that citizen would still be in detention w/o trial. And that would have established the precedent that the government can imprison ANY citizen without trial.

Also: We have no way of knowing what other American citizens are currently sitting in jail. I suspect Padilla is not the only one to be unconstitutionally detained by Caesar Bush.

Re:Well?

[DrLang21]

I think it's safe to assume that when a public institution becomes aggressively private, they are likely up to no good. With continually changing stories being the status quo, it's no wonder when people don't trust a damn word that comes from the Bush administration or the military.

After some further searching, I see that there was an official complete list releases (I will assume that the list was in fact complete). However, that still does not answer the question of why they were detained. We are detaining "illegal enemy combatants" and ignoring the Geneva Convention under the guise that they are "illegal". This gives rise to the assumption that there is such a thing as a "legal" enemy combatant (I would love to know what that means). I don't blame the military, they're just doing what they're told, but this administration has eroded the moral high ground that the US was once able to lay claim to. Imprisoning enemy combatants and treating them as less than our own soldiers is reprehensible. If we are on a so called "War on Terror", then these men (and women?) are POWs and should be treated with dignity as such.

Re:Well?

[oodaloop]

Legal enemy combatants wear uniforms under the Geneva Conventions. Non-soldiers, meaning everyday citizens like you and me, are forbidden to engage in combat. So people who fight without uniforms are combatants, but not legal combatants covered under the Geneva Conventions. If Al Qaeda wanted legal protection under the Geneva Conventions, all they would have to do is wear a patch. Touchy subject, and I'm not saying we reacted properly, but the Geneva Convention is pretty clear.

Re:Well?

[oodaloop]

So because you disagree with the administration, it's OK to accuse them of things they haven't done. Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm

I've seen several people here in slashdot refer to the government hauling American Citizens off to GITMO, without a shred of evidence this has ever happened. Shorthand or not, it's not accurate. If it were false accusations against someone you supported, would you be so non-challant about it? And see my other post about illegal enemy combatants and the Geneva Conventions. It's probably not as vague as you think it is.

Re:Well?

[Glimmerdark]

when for awhile there, every other week we'd hear about another 'secret operation' that was conducted without anyone notification or approval.. it becomes difficult to assume the best of a particular situation. However, it really is likely that there are no, and likely have never been any US citizens there- it would be far simpler to strip the citizenship of an individual beforehand, far less red tape that way. there's been so many changes in homeland security law lately that i'm not sure if it's currently the case, but at least at some point if there was reasonable suspicion of terrorist activities, one's US citizenship could be suspended/revoked. of course, we haven't heard any issues of that happening either. maybe we'd be more forgiving or optimistic if we heard about any of these issues through a method other than someone slipping up and saying something they weren't supposed to.

Re:Well?

[T.E.D.]

look at the Maher Arar case where a Canadian was intercepted at JFK international, rendered to Syria by the CIA and tortured in Syria.

The "best" part of that story (not mentioned in the article, but gone over in detail in Jane Mayer's The Dark Side), is that the guy was totally innocent of any involvement in terrorisim. So why did the US government pick him up?

Well...it turns out that another suspect who was being tortured happened to know the guy, and threw his name up to his torturers to make them stop for little while.

Doesn't it just make you proud to be an American?

Re:Well?

[stubob]

As a side note, it's not enemy combatants that the govt. is trying to define. That is clearly defined in the Third Geneva Convention as

"Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces" or "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions" consisting of carrying arms openly and wearing identifying insignia (among other things).

The problem is the gap between the Third and Fourth conventions. The Third deals with treatment of Prisoners of War, the Fourth deals with treatment of Civilians in time of war. The government's argument is that a terrorist is neither a civilian or soldier, and not protected at all by the Geneva convention. So it's really not a vague definition of "enemy combatant," but rather the vague definition of "unlawful combatant," which isn't covered explicitly by the Geneva conventions.

Re:Well?

[blueskies]

Conditional probability that they are lying about this too?

Re:Well?

[DrLang21]

it really is likely that there are no, and likely have never been any US citizens there

Yasir Esam Hamdi, born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Re:Well?

[WindowlessView]

The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.

What does this post even mean and what does it have to do with the issue on hand?

Are you seriously arguing that the American people have been bought off by Social Security, Medicare and home interest deductions? This is why they are seemingly so willing to give up their rights?

Or maybe you mean the poor and the immigrants? You know, the ones most likely to take it on the chin on a daily basis from a budding police state?

The weakest, most underfunded do-nothing government in the world can crush you like a bug if it feels like it. (See Zimbabwe.) They don't need to buy people off.

People may vote like idiots but the reasons are a hell of a lot more complicated than government checks.

Re:Well?

[qbast]

You seem to be forgetting about fifth convention that deals specifically with spies and saboteurs. So why invent weird classifications like "unlawful combatant"? Direct quote from convention: "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

Re:Well?

[qbast]

Yes, especially 5th convention is pretty clear that even spies and saboteurs (I'm sure they always wear patches ...) are protected. Yes, they can be executed, but only after fair trial. Oh, and "such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity".

Re:Well?

[Sj0]

I don't know why you're either surprised or upset about it.

Your government has openly sent Canadians to Syria so they can be tortured. They've openly defended torture. They've trampled all over the fourth amendment by allowing wiretapping without a warrant. They've suspended fundamental freedoms of the legal system that have existed for centuries, such as habeas corpus. They've refused to try criminals from the war in Afghanistan in a court of law, instead forcing them to defend themselves in military tribunals where they're not allowed to see the evidence against them.

Given all this and more, it's such a small jump to the accusations being made, it's almost not worth assuming they're innocent. They've sent foreign people from friendly nations to Syria to be tortured. It's a small jump to sending citizens to be tortured. They've shown disdain for the constitution wherever it doesn't let them act like dictators, it's a small jump to openly disregarding it. They've taken away legal rights, it's a small jump to think they'd take a way a little more. They've created kangaroo courts to punish their enemies without need for due process, it's a small jump to ignoring the courts altogether.

Re:Well?

[chaboud]

So why invent weird classifications like "unlawful combatant"?

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

All it took to answer your post's question was your post (with some mark up).

Re:Well?

[JakartaDean]

How should we know? The DoD has never released an official complete list of names of those who are and who have been detained in GITMO, let alone a list of what they were detained for.

Is that true???? I mean, I know the guantanamo detentions have violated many American laws and common law, but I didn't know that the public wasn't even allowed to know whose rights had been violated. That just adds another level of disgustingness to the whole thing.

Re:Well?

[oodaloop]

Had those persons taken the laid-back do-nothing approach "oodaloop" favors

What the fuck are you talking about? I disapproved of how Padilla was treated and said so. Don't lump me in with everyone you hate just because I said one thing you disagree with.

Re:Well?

[Wraithlyn]

I've seen several people here in slashdot refer to the government hauling American Citizens off to GITMO

I don't give a flying fig whether the people they "dissapear" are American Citizens(tm) or otherwise, and the fact you're hinging your argument on the distinction is telling.

Do you remember when the term "extraordinary rendition" was NOT part of the common vernacular?

From Wiki:

June 2006 report from the Council of Europe estimated 100 people had been kidnapped by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on EU territory, with the cooperation of Council of Europe members and rendered to other countries, often after having transited through secret detention centers ("black sites") used by the CIA, some sited in Europe. According to the separate European Parliament report of February 2007, the CIA has conducted 1,245 flights, many of them to destinations where suspects could face torture, in violation of article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

The two most important words in the above paragraph are "kidnapped" and "secret".

Oh, but these people aren't American Citizens, so who cares about their rights under Geneva, eh? If the govt says they're Bad Guys, that's good enough for me, no due process required.

For the record, I don't think the judge here will be "gitmo'd", and I think the OP's comment to that effect was tongue-in-cheek. But your apologist stance of "Gosh, they'd never do that to an AMERICAN" doesn't fly.

"First they came for the foreigners, and I said nothing, because I was not a foreigner".

Re:Well?

[Perky_Goth]

So is capitalism.

Is this the "charity" in question?

[FooGoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramein

If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

I can't see why the government should be able to avoid the audit requirements we've set down in law (both for criminal investigation, and separately for intelligence) regarding those wiretaps.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Chris Burke]

If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

Yeah? Well if the Feds had gone to the trouble to show a judge why they wanted to tap them, then they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[TooMuchToDo]

You can't go all "24" on someone just because. Show your cards to a judge, then do whatever is necessary. It's about time some judge bitchsmacked them with the constitution.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[77Punker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramein

If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

Then they should get a warrant, even a bullshit retroactive FISA warrant.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[slugtastic]

What if all the information they had about them was that lonely wikipedia page? I dont think the judge would consider it as evidence...

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[truthsearch]

Why not? Wikipedia is infallible. It's not like just anyone can go and edit it.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[olddotter]

But get a warrant. I'm not against wire taps. But the US is not supposed to be a police state.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[nschubach]

I think that's the point of going to a third party with the evidence and asking if it would be alright to setup a wiretap... If a Judge only saw speculation from a Wiki, they'd likely turn it down. However, if the feds presented images, documents of action, and other incriminating evidence then I believe they'd be allowed to tap to gain more evidence or accomplices.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Chris Burke]

What if all the information they had about them was that lonely wikipedia page? I dont think the judge would consider it as evidence...

Too true, lol. Personally I've always maintained that their failure to seek warrants was ipso facto proof that they didn't have any decent evidence. Why would you take the risk of circumventing the law when the FISA court is ready and willing to retro-actively rubber stamp your warrant, unless you know you don't have enough to satisfy even the rubber stamper?

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Fed 1: "Oh shit! I just accidentally emailed the secret call logs to info@al-haramein.com!"
Fed 2: "Aren't they that outfit who collects used clothing for inner-city youths?"
Fed 1: "Yeah, but you know. Their names sounds terroristy, plus how else are we going to justify our budget to the intelligence committee?
Fed 2: "Crap. Well, go make a Wikipedia page about them. Make it real scary. Lotsa bad guys, and make the UN hate 'em too. And put 'Al Qaeda' in there too, for good measure."
Fed 1: "Man, if the boss finds out about this..."
Fed 2: "Chill out, man. We're omnipotent. We'll just tell CNN and Fox News to stay quiet and everybody will forget about it as the next news cycle rolls around."
Fed 1: "Good plan, chief. What could possibly go wrong?"

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[runningman24]

The most interesting excerpt from wikipedia" "Three individuals whose conversations were intercepted, Suliman al-Buthe, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, learned of the eavesdropping when U.S. officials accidentally delivered logs of phone calls to them.[12] Al-Buthe, who had been the Foundations U.S. director, moved back to Saudi Arabia. Belew and Ghafoor were two of the Foundation's U.S. lawyers." I would really like to hear the full explanation of how that got screwed up. Far too often, government ineffiency and stupidity is all that protects us. Apparently, someone in the government can eavesdrop on your conversations at will, and the only way you'll find out is if they're kind enough to deliver a transcript. I understand more and more what Carlin meant when he said "You have no rights." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[cberman]

Yeah, cause US government says that they are terrorists means that it must be true - and they also have weapons of mass destruction hidden in their building too, right?

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Kindaian]

I specially like the "circular" argument.

Arrest terrorists because they work for an ONG, then close down the organization because for sure they are a bunch of terrorists. After all, all those terrorists worked for them no?

And then, yup... they are true terrorists see... they worked for a true terrorist organization...

Interesting argumentation.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[ThinkTwicePostOnce]

Uh, the question isn't whether to wiretap them or not! Pay attention!

The question is whether to get a warrant from the courts before wiretapping, or whether to just
ignore the courts altogether and wiretap with no warrant.

People who fail to understand this difference are ...

Well, I thought twice and decided to let you finish that sentence yourself.

Note also, rules like this are not just to protect innocent people: recall that power corrupts! So does secrecy.
Requiring court approved warrants protects our leaders from the corrupting influence of excessive power. Once
hooked, people make crazier and crazier excuses for why they need even more. See the pattern?

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[mapsjanhere]

I think it was more a case of "we don't need no stinking warrants anymore". An institutional mindset assuming that "we're at war" automatically removes all constitutional protections; not unexpected if you look back in history at the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, or the mass detention of natural born (but of foreign origin) citizens during WW II.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[msimm]

To set a precedent. Radicals have and will continue to seek power in this and every other country. By attacking our rights they attack our first line of defense.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Chris Burke]

I think it was more a case of "we don't need no stinking warrants anymore". An institutional mindset assuming that "we're at war" automatically removes all constitutional protections; not unexpected if you look back in history at the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, or the mass detention of natural born (but of foreign origin) citizens during WW II.

I definitely see that, the whole philosophy of our executive branch for the last eight years has been "We're the good guys, so whatever we do is automatically good", but I see the progression of arrogance as follows:

1) Decide suspect is a Bad Guy.
2) Try to find probable cause to get a warrant.
3) Fail.
4) Conclude warrant requirement is getting in the way of catching Bad Guys.
5) Begin wiretap.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[iluvcapra]

Well FooGoo, since you're a committed kiddie pr0n aficionado maybe they should be tapping your phone as well.

What, you were just kidding in that post? Well, maybe, but what do you have to hide if we just need to make sure...

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[b4dc0d3r]

Your sarcasm is counterproductive. It's not supposed to be a police state. Hopefully this case will pull back the expanded powers a little, and everyone in this country at least should be on that side, because it would probably not be possible to "undo" these expanded powers without this case.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Cornelius the Great]

What, have you been asleep since Sept 10, 2001?

Why, what did I miss?

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Shakrai]

Why, what did I miss?

Not much. Bush lived up to his promises of a humble foreign policy free of nation-building, reformed our educational system and changed the way that Washington works.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[hedwards]

I don't know, perhaps it's when they received a copy of the transcripts delivered directly to their email account. Because I'm sure that the network switches do that on their own from time to time.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[cbiltcliffe]

My question is, "How exactly did the charity KNOW they were wiretapped?" Sounds fishy to me.

Because the government told them that they were.

Why not get a warrant in the first place? Maybe there wasn't time.

If they didn't have time to spend two hours going to the courthouse and getting a judge to look at some papers, then we would have seen a whole lot more stuff blown up by now....

Maybe some of our judges can't be trusted.

Maybe some of our politicians can't be trusted. Maybe the DHS can't be trusted. You can "maybe" till you're blue in the face, but it's purely speculation. Maybe the sun will go nova tomorrow, and all this will be moot. It's a ridiculous argument, but it's theoretically possible. You're wanting to give up your freedoms to that theoretical possibility?

Maybe the evidence came from a source that had to remain anonymous. I'd guess the last "maybe".

And maybe that source is threatened now because of judicial interference in something they should stay out of.

You mean judicial interference in something they are legally required to be involved in?

Ever heard of sealed evidence? That's what they do when there's something that's so sensitive it can't go into general court files. The judge looks at it, decides the case based on it, then it gets locked in a vault. Nobody else has to see it. Nobody else can see it.

I'm sure if there was a source who's life was threatened, or something similar, if their anonymity was lost, then the evidence could be sealed.
As it is, these bureaucrats/politicians/DHS agents are no better than the schoolyard bully who beats kids up because he's "sure" that they had something to do with the snowball that got thrown at him.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[ScrewMaster]

You can't go all "24" on someone just because.

That's a great turn of phrase. I'm sure Jack Bauer would get a kick out of it.

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[osssmkatz]

They were wiretapping privileged conversations between a client and an attorney. That is blatantly iilegal, and they should have stopped immediately.

"First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a terrorist."
"Then they came for me."
And there was no one left to speak up.

Part of the reason lawyers work is that they can keep things confidential. That means you do not wiretap their phones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... for a source discussion.

--Sam

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[sproot]

So, trial by wikifiddler now?

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Jason Levine]

Why not get a warrant in the first place? Maybe there wasn't time.

If they didn't have time to spend two hours going to the courthouse and getting a judge to look at some papers, then we would have seen a whole lot more stuff blown up by now....

And even if they didn't have time beforehand, for whatever reason, they can seek a retroactive warrant up to 72 hours later. What kind of crisis does it have to be that you can't spare one guy to put together a warrant request and run down to the courthouse THREE DAYS after you started your wiretap?

Re:Is this the "charity" in question?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I doubt a 200+ year-old piece of paper would make a very good weapon.

A 2x4 on the other hand...

Its good to see ...

[olddotter]

Its good to see checks and balances, checking and balancing.

Just the fact that things are being reviewed does the constitution good.
 

Re:Its good to see ...

[slugtastic]

I thought the same and felt kinda happy, until I read He who knows comment.

Re:Its good to see ...

[Dolly_Llama]

One of the scarier things about the Cheney philosophy to governing was that he knew the judiciary was so slow. In a presidential term of four years, scandals at the very beginning just might work their way through by the end of the first term. Sometimes faster as in Watergate, but usually slower.

The executive also has the huge luxury of using tax dollars and the federal bureaucracy to lean on their political opponents. If they decide to do X, all it takes is an executive order and it's done. To overturn the decision, barring an act of congress, opponents have to undertake the lengthy and expensive litigation. And Cheney chose to litigate EVERYthing, using the entire weight of the federal bureaucracy, stonewalling at every turn, whereas the opponents would be forced to pick and choose court battles.

Re:Its good to see ...

[Ihmhi]

Maybe we need more judges, then. I don't think a few years could be considered a "speedy" trial.

Re:Its good to see ...

[Shakrai]

Maybe we need more judges, then

Yes, that's what the United States needs. More lawyers.

(My apologies in advance to NewYorkCountryLawyer ;)

Re:Its good to see ...

[vuo]

Fight: U.S. Marshals vs. the NSA. Who would win?

Re:Its good to see ...

[Killjoy_NL]

NYCL isn't a lawyer, he's a hero :)
(one of mine anyway)

National Insecurity

[jerep]

The Justice Department has repeatedly sought to block the suit by invoking national security concerns.

I really don't feel secure from so much government secrecy, seems like it's their argument to everything for the past few years.

It's like saying Windows is secure because it's running secret proprietary code under the hood.

Re:National Insecurity

[philspear]

No, don't you see?!? Terrorists are a forgetful bunch. If the courts order the feds to turn over their wiretaps, the terrorists are going to read the conversations they've had and will enact their dastardly, forgotten plans!

"Oh man! I totally forgot Osama wanted me to blow up that bridge! Thank you, NSA, for reminding me!"

It is essential for national security that we not release the tapes so the terrorists aren't reminded! We have to keep their plans secret from them! /joke

Re:National Insecurity

[jerep]

Are you saying the American government is a terrorist group? Nobody in there seems to remember what they used to say before going out and saying the exact opposite a few years later.

Maybe the NSA just wanted a cheap way out of demolishing a bridge, who knows, all those golf parties do cost a lot of money.

Re:National Insecurity

[garett_spencley]

Past few years ? It's the oldest trick in the book. Do whatever you want, classify the evidence and protect it by claiming that releasing the information poses risks to national security. By the time the documents finally are declassified you'll be long dead so who cares.

A 1990 episode of Star Trek TNG titled "The Hunted" touched on this issue.

Picard: "A matter of internal security: the age-old cry of the oppressor.

Re:National Insecurity

[Like2Byte]

Releasing the tapes gives the org (an alleged terrorist org) the opportunity to review their own security apparatus and make changes where applicable. Such as: If a conversation from a certain number released certain information at a certain point in time, it would allow the org to do several things:

1) Remove the communication device from service. (ie: get replacement hardware that has not been compromised.)
      Bad for the US as intel is now harder to come by.
2) Determine if the person using said comm device is a traitor to their cause and kill them.
      Bad for the US as intel is now harder to come by.
3) Use alternative means to deliver communiques.
      Bad for the US as intel is now harder to come by.

See a theme anywhere in there?

I'm not saying the US did everything by the book - it should have. I'm just pointing out that 'reminding' terrorists isn't on the agenda or even part of the problem.

Re:National Insecurity

[jerep]

I highly doubt those 3 cases would ever apply, if "terrorists" are caugh in such a way they won't ever have a chance to fix their problems before they're jailed and tortured without any trials.

Governments have a margin of error they can play within and still succeed, which is very large. Terrorists have none, they make a single error they're out.

The patriot act and national security are more harmful to innocent people than to terrorists, for without them both there would be no reason for terrorism in the first place.

Re:National Insecurity

[philspear]

You know... it's always disturbing to me when my jokes get modded insightful, or when my serious posts get modded funny.

Re:National Insecurity

[philspear]

I'm just pointing out that 'reminding' terrorists isn't on the agenda or even part of the problem.

woosh. And here I thought I was being silly putting "/joke" at the end of my post.

Re:National Insecurity

[scorp1us]

I read the other day at discovery channel of all places, of how feasible it would be for terrorists to use infected blood-sucking insects to attack non-muslim populations.

When will we stop dreaming this stuff up? Eventually the report discredited it as a viable infection method, but still, why GIVE THEM IDEAS? Of course, because the possibility is non-zero, we need to spend millions on preparedness and additional studies...

Re:National Insecurity

[Doc Ruby]

Before the Bush era, such tricks were infrequent. Throughout the Bush era, they were the primary government operating principle.

Prior to Bush Jr, they peaked during the Reagan/Bush era. Prior to that, they peaked during the Nixon era.

See a pattern?

Re:National Insecurity

[Jherek Carnelian]

Don't be so arrogant as to propose 'whoosh - what a jerk. he missed the joke.' I got the joke...found it wasn't funny.

So, every time someone makes an obvious joke that you find unfunny your response is to take it literally?
Bet that makes you the life of the party.

Re:National Insecurity

[commodore64_love]

Yes I see a pattern.

Denial of Democrats. Ye willfully ignore the wiretapping & nonlegal tactics that Clinton, Carter, and LBJ had performed during their administrations. Also Truman and FDR liked to ignore the law. FDR even went so far as to threaten the U.S. Supreme Court since they kept declaring his laws "unconstitutional".

Talk about subversion of the People's Supreme Law! "The Constitution and the Supreme Court be damned." - FDR

Re:National Insecurity

[philspear]

Wait, maybe HE is joking now, in which case you would be a hypocrite!

Re:National Insecurity

[Jherek Carnelian]

Wait, maybe HE is joking now, in which case you would be a hypocrite!

Or he could just "wooosh" me.

Re:National Insecurity

[TempeTerra]

Was that meant to be sad world-weariness or wry irony? You need to be clearer! I don't know whether to mis-moderate you Funny or Insightful!

Re:National Insecurity

[Wilden2003]

You keep forgetting the correct tags on your text.

<funny>I don't!</funny>

See how that works?

Re:National Insecurity

[ScrewMaster]

Was that meant to be sad world-weariness or wry irony? You need to be clearer! I don't know whether to mis-moderate you Funny or Insightful!

I believe you meant "misundermoderate."

Re:National Insecurity

[poopdeville]

We obviously need a stronger judicial system. I suggest creating a judicial office to maintain a small army of judges and attorneys to constantly investigate and audit every government official, essentially at random, though paying particular attention to certain important positions. Also, I suggest that any elected government official found guilty of a felony while in office should be hung.

I might have to behave myself for four years, but this might become my platform.

Re:National Insecurity

[UnknowingFool]

The judge is not advocating that the information be released to the charity right now. The judge is saying the the federal government has to show him the evidence and they can't hide behind the excuse that it is "state secrets". If there is any merit to the government's suspicions, then they can keep wiretapping.

Re:National Insecurity

[Glimmerdark]

to your first point. why would there be a 'device'.. they can wiretap through the service provider. hence why the bill providing immunity to the telco's for complying with illegal tap requests was passed.

Re:National Insecurity

[mpe]

Governments have a margin of error they can play within and still succeed, which is very large. Terrorists have none, they make a single error they're out.

It's not so simple. Since there are plenty of terrorists which many governments arn't especially interested in. As well as those which governments are activly supporting.

The patriot act and national security are more harmful to innocent people than to terrorists, for without them both there would be no reason for terrorism in the first place.

That in itself would not stop the US Government being a major sponsor of terrorism nor would it ensure that law enforcement would be equally interested in persuing all (or even all not backed by as major government) terrorists.

Re:National Insecurity

[mpe]

The agencies need to get off their ass, get back to doing "real" intel and do HUMINT.

The only way you will get this is by having effective oversight. Which would include the likes of warrents requiring work to obtain and requiring to be renewed every few days.

Now only if the US can pass a privacy article like most civilized countries have.

Who's going to actually enforce that?

Re:National Insecurity

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, the pattern is comparing some possible (but not even mentioned) privacy invasion by Democrats to vast, deep and continuous invasions by Republicans that not only violated the Constitution, but necessitated the creation of FISA, only to violate FISA millions of times.

FDR didn't make laws - he was the president, and could only sign ones passed by Congress. He didn't "threaten" the Supreme Court, though he did try to increase it from its stalled small size to one large enough to cover the work demanded of it, rather than ignoring so many essential cases.

The pattern is repeating some Republican talking points, without bothering to back them up, as false "balance" between aggressive and sometimes irresponsible Democrats and the treasonous Republicans who always have carved out new categories of invasion.

Re:National Insecurity

[ScrewMaster]

You know... it's always disturbing to me when my jokes get modded insightful, or when my serious posts get modded funny.

"Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world." -- Lily Tomlin

Re:Consider the litigant

[Chris Burke]

I think it has more to do with standing. These people know that they had been wiretapped (apparently the feds accidentally gave them a copy of the call logs, lol). The EFF doesn't know who has been wiretapped, I'm not sure they have direct proof that anybody has been, so their case is much more difficult.

whos next

[He who knows]

I bet the judge is going to be wiretapped now.

Re:whos next

[SpaceLifeForm]

I'll bet he has always assumed he already was wiretapped.

Ok, let me get this straight...

[orzetto]

... so first we have a president whose second name is Hussein, and now Muslims are bringing freedom to America?

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[77Punker]

I welcome Muslims to America, especially if they bring shawarmas and hashish.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[areusche]

If rich white men aren't doing it, then maybe middle easterners can.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[hattz dot com]

I think that is one of the great things about this country, the liberties we love are bigger than one race or one religion.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[Samschnooks]

... so first we have a president whose second name is Hussein, and now Muslims are bringing freedom to America?

Oh, you're going all 1984 on us are you?

Well, let me tell you something, I won't fall for it! I've been educated by the boxes! The folks who yell on there tell me that War is Peace and brings Freedom. They tell me that wiretapping American citizens and violating their Fourth Amendment rights is to keep us free! They also say that Civil Liberties are for pinko Liberals who hate America and if you do nothing wrong then you have nothing worry about! Freedom of Speech is OK as long is doesn't criticize America! We are a Christian nation it says so in the Constitution and on our money - In God We Trust - there's your proof! We're at WAR! The Islamo-anti-Israel-fascists are out to destroy Freedom everywhere and we have to be spied upon to be free!

How dare you try to trick us with your educated elitist ways! Books? Hah! Get with the modern times and listen to the very wise men on Fox and AM radio!

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

"Whether my neighbor worships one god or many gods, matters not to me. His beliefs do not harm my body, my rights, nor my property so I will allow my neighbor to worship freely." = Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party

The government should not be wiretapping a Muslim compound. The government should allow them the same freedom as U.S. Christians have enjoyed these last two centuries.

Furthermore the government is obligated by the People's Supreme Law, the Constitution, to obtain a warrant *before* wiretapping. They have failed to do this, and should be immediately charged with Constitutional Treason.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

Proposed Amendment (the XXVIII)

Any Person, regardless of rank or position, found by a State Supreme Court, State Legislature, or the Supreme Court of the United States to be committing acts in violation of this Constitution shall be charged with treason, with appropriate penalties as determined by the Congress.

*
* example: illegal wiretaps or searches without a judge's warrant
* all of the persons who committed that act would be charged

Why this proposed amendment? Because I'm tired of seeing government officials violate the Constitution and "get off" without any kind of consequences. There needs to be a deterrent, with corresponding fear of punishment, otherwise these bozos will just continue breaking Constitutional law again-and-again as if it didn't exist.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[digitig]

Er, yes, and who would need to vote for the amendment? The very people it would criminalise. Do you expect turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving?

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

Technically it would be the States that would vote for the proposed Amendment, and I'm sure state representatives would enjoy the increased power it would give them over the Beltway Bandits in D.C. It would pass quite easily.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[iluvcapra]

That's not necessarily true. According to Article 5, this language could be proposed by 2/3 of the state legislatures, and then ratified by state Constitutional Conventions. No Federal Government invovlement at all in that.

Though to be honest, I don't think wiretapping somebody without a warrant is the equivalent of levying war against the United States. Hell, murdering the president isn't by itself considered treason.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[philipgar]

So under this new amendment to the constitution, a 15 year old hacker who breaks into someone else's computer and illegally accesses their personal information (or reads someone's instant messages sent on an unsecured wireless network, etc) can be tried for treason for committing a search without a warrant . . . You do know what the penalty for treason normally is, right?

Also, such a law would basically make it impossible for congress to operate at all, as laws are regularly shot down by the constitution. One goes just a little too far, or a judge redefines what one particular clause in the constitution means. Personally, I could see some good of it, any federal politician caught trying to bail out the auto industry, or redistribute income etc etc could be punished with treason for violating the constitution.

Basically such an amendment would (like most government solutions) cause more problems than it solves.

Think before you open your mouth next time.

Phil

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[dkleinsc]

Turkeys already voted for Thanksgiving back in 1941 when it became law.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[Dhalka226]

I understand the spirit of your proposal and I do support that spirit, but in reality it's not practical.

To show one of many major faults with the plan, please answer this question: Do you have a constitutional right to own a gun? Now discuss it with others on slashdot and see if everybody can agree with you. Ask a federal judge if the US Department of Education is unconstitutional -- and then ask around here.

Not everything later determined to be a violation of the Constitution is malevolent or a power-grab, and not everything determined to be constitutional goes without question. There are legitimate disagreements about what things mean and how far they apply. There are disagreements about what trumps what when there are conflicts of power. (The president is commander and chief and Congress declares war; if no war is declared, can the president send troops off to fight? Put another way, is the War Powers Act constitutional?)

The idea that people should be able to be put in jail for these disagreements--particularly if you're including legislatures (ie, political bodies) to determine who's violated these rules--is silly.

Another major flaw: Who is responsible? Sometimes power-grabs are relatively obvious. What happens if Congress passes an unconstitutional law? Are we sewing prisoner numbers on 268 or more new suits, one for every person who voted for it? Just the people who sponsored it? What if only part of the law was struck down -- who's responsible then? Still 268 people? Whomever wrote that section? Do we need SVN changelogs for congressional bills?

And there are even more, but I think you get the point. This isn't a simple issue, and ultimately the constitution foresaw the potential for corruption and provided a means to fix it. We call them elections. If people continue to re-elect those who pass these laws, or get indicted (can you believe Ted Stevens almost won re-election?!) then we simply deserve the government we get.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

>>>I don't think wiretapping somebody without a warrant is the equivalent of levying war against the United States

No, which is why I said the punishment would be determined by Congress. Perhaps an official who willfully ignored the Constitutional law which requires a search warrant would be charged with "3rd degree treason" and he'd simply have to spend a year in jail.

The point is, he would be punished, whereas under the current system he receives no punishment. He can just continue violating 4th Amendment Law without fear of consequences.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

>>>So under this new amendment to the constitution, a 15 year old hacker who breaks into someone else's computer... can be tried for treason for committing a search without a warrant . . . You do know what the penalty for treason normally is, right?
>>>

Good point.

Replace "any person" with "any person who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and is still an active member of the government". The Constitution is intended to apply to government officials, not the non-government citizens.

Also the punishment for treason, like any crime, varies with the severity. Which is what the final clause "punishment determined by Congress" is about. Serious offenses might get death; less serious offenses might get a year in prison. Either would be better than the current punishment when an FBI agent ransacks a home without warrant - absolutely nothing. That's unacceptable to me.

>>>such a law would basically make it impossible for congress to operate at all,

(ponder)

(ponder)

I'm trying to find the drawback in this sentence, and I'm not seeing it because I, like the man who founded the Democratic Party, believe the best government is that which is least in size. Plus:

Considering Congress has made it illegal for me to grow corn or potatoes in my own backyard (because they strictly regulate how much of these crops may be grown, aka rationing), perhaps it's time to throw a few more of these Congress persons in jail for 1-2 years. It's ridiculous that Congress can regulate how much food a citizen, farmer, or otherwise may grow in his own backyard! It has overstepped its authority and needs to be reined in; fear of imprisonment would be an effective way to deter them from ignoring their Oath.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

If a cop walks into a home and starts ransacking the place without a search warrant, there's no gray area. It's obvious the SOB ignored the law. That same cop wouldn't hesitate to write out a speeding ticket if he saw me driving 80..... likewise We The People should not hesitate to throw the cop (our employee) in jail for 1-2 years for violating the People's 4th Amendment Law. There's no gray area there. We KNOW he broke the law.

>>>Do you have a constitutional right to own a gun?

What a stupid question. The Constitution is clear: "A militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed." The end. If that's still not clear enough for you, go back to the original quotes of the People who wrote that law and ultimately passed it.

"I ask you: What is the militia? It is the whole of the People of course!" - Patrick Henry. "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it need not be active... until the politicians try to take it away. Then the Tree of Liberty will be watered with the blood of tyrants. Let the Patriots take arms." - Thomas Jefferson. "The ownership of guns by the citizens reminds government officials to be wary of treading upon the People's liberties.... Guns provide a defense against thieves, and as a last resort, overthrow of a tyrannical government." - James Madison.

It is clear that the law was passed to ensure the People had guns for self-defense, to keep politicians wary, and to overthrow and install new government (as happened in 1776). Te U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this just last year.

There is no gray area here either, except for people who cannot read.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[commodore64_love]

>>>the constitution foresaw the potential for corruption and provided a means to fix it. We call them elections.

Yeah that's real effective. "What is our worst disease? Democracy." - Benjamin Franklin. "The strongest argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with a voter," said Churchill, which is why we have a REPUBLIC not a democracy. Rule of Law, not rule by phone survey. The average voter is supremely uninformed and gullible, which is why corrupt politicians keep getting re-elected (cough, Bush) and why the polling booth is not a deterrent.

Politicians secretly laugh at the thought. They consider voting to be a joke. PLUS there's no way to unelect the aforementioned FBI agent who willfully goes-around busting down doors and searching homes in violation of Fourth Amendment Law. The REAL way to fix corruption is to create law that has consequences when people violate it. Throw the agent in jail.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Inter Armas Silent Leges. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[digitig]

But the amendment wouldn't just apply to Federal Government officials, would it? It would apply just as much to State officials who abused their power in ways that violate the constitution.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[Jason Levine]

I agree. You need to throw a "To protect the children" and "to combat terrorism" in there somewhere. Then they'll vote for it no matter what it says.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[iluvcapra]

In theory it could if SCOTUS rules that the amendment can be incorporated, but I doubt they'd go for that, since the amendment the GP is talking about doesn't extend anyone any more due process rights than they already get from the other amendments, and simply ratchets up the punishment for violating someone's due process and equates it with "treason." Which is... an "idealistic" way of putting it.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[orzetto]

Fine, then call it "conspiracy against the Constitution", "betrayal of the democratic order", "attempted coup d'etat". The GP's point is that anti-constitutional conduct by the government should be harshly punished.

Re:Ok, let me get this straight...

[orzetto]

Any Person, regardless of rank or position, found by a State Supreme Court, State Legislature, or the Supreme Court of the United States to be committing acts in violation of this Constitution shall be charged with treason, with appropriate penalties as determined by the Congress.

Hi, this is Congress. We implemented your amendment tonight, and from now on whoever violates the constitution will have to skip dessert for a whole week.

Remember folks...

[Brandybuck]

Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office. There's a very good reason for limiting the power of government: malchiks and nitwits frequently find their way into office.

Re:Remember folks...

[DrLang21]

I never saw too many people on here arguing for greater Presidential powers. But that aside, I trust Obama with those powers a hell of a lot more than I trust Bush with them.

Re:Remember folks...

[CrashPoint]

It isn't whether you trust Barack Obama with those powers, but whether you trust the next George Bush (or vice versa, for the righties).

Re:Remember folks...

[SydShamino]

I trust Obama with those powers a hell of a lot more than I trust Bush with them.

...but I trust the guy who'll replace the guy who'll replace Obama a lot less with them. So let's start now to limit those powers while we have someone in office who might (I said might) be willing to voluntarily relinquish some power to restore balance.

Re:Remember folks...

[Chris Burke]

Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office.

Well I'm an Obama fan because his own and his chosen DoJ team's stances have been strongly at odds with the Bush DoJ's "creative" interpretation of the Constitution. So even though the guy I like is in office, I'll be hoping for and arguing for a reduction in executive power, thank you very much.

Oh and I'm not expecting any miracles on that account, but I am confident that the worst abuses of Bush's executive power will not be continued.

Re:Remember folks...

[bigstrat2003]

I am confident that the worst abuses of Bush's executive power will not be continued.

Right! Like the warrantless wiretaps, which Obama has done everything in his power to punish. Wait, what's that you say? He actually voted to help some of the perpetrators of that crime get away with it? Damn! Guess he's not really trying to help us out after all.

As The Who so insightfully said in 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Re:Remember folks...

[Doc Ruby]

Obama's announcement of Dawn Johnsen to run the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC, the office from which John Yoo "legalized" torture) is the best encouragement so far that Obama is reforming the uncurbed powers Bush/Cheney took for the White House. Also Leon Panetta for CIA and Eric Holder for Attorney General. I'd most prefer to see Joe Biden make his #1 job removing all the extra powers from his VP office, but I don't have such high hopes for Biden. Which is why Bush/Cheney's powergrabs were so dangerous: they're as permanent as their successive holders want them to be.

Re:Remember folks...

[Chris Burke]

Right! Like the warrantless wiretaps, which Obama has done everything in his power to punish. Wait, what's that you say? He actually voted to help some of the perpetrators of that crime get away with it? Damn! Guess he's not really trying to help us out after all.

As The Who so insightfully said in 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

He threatened to filibuster, but couldn't get enough support from other dems, he voted for the amendment to remove the telecom immunity, but it failed, and finally when it was obvious that the bill was going to pass with the immunity provision intact, he voted for it to deny his opponents "Obama opposes fighting terror" ammunition. There was lots of other things in that bill, you see, and a tough election coming up. Unfortunate, as he said himself at the time, but it may have helped him get into a position where he can stack the DoJ with lawyers who vocally oppose expanding executive power, I think that's a net win.

So Bush and his lawyers actively supported the policy, Obama fought it but gave in to political reality. If that's your level of distinction, where that makes them "the same", well, there's no help for you. Go support whatever fringe candidate who you feel embraces all your ideals, will never get elected, and even if elected would never enact any useful policy due to an inability to compromise. I'll take practical, useful change that can actually gets done, thanks.

Not that I'm completely without unrealistic ideals... I still hold out hope than an Obama DoJ could go after the telcos since after all the bill only protected them from civil liability. I won't be holding my breath though.

Re:Remember folks...

[bigstrat2003]

I'm sorry, but if you think doing evil because it's politically convenient is acceptable, then we have no common ground to speak to. Evil is evil. The only indicator we have as to whether Obama will fulfill his promises is his past performance... and his past performance is shit.

Re:Remember folks...

[Chris Burke]

I'm sorry, but if you think doing evil because it's politically convenient is acceptable, then we have no common ground to speak to. Evil is evil.

What "evil" did he do, other than not make a meaningless gesture? The bill was going to pass anyway. If it's evil to not make a pointless gesture, then why wasn't his pointless gesture of voting for the amendment to remove immunity good?

But yes, I doubt we have much common ground to speak to, since your uncompromising stance against compromises based in political reality means that no candidate you support could ever accomplish anything but meaningless gestures (as if they could get elected in the first place). I would like someone who can actually get something done. I mean God bless Russ Feingold, but I wouldn't want the man to be President.

The only indicator we have as to whether Obama will fulfill his promises is his past performance... and his past performance is shit.

Well I think that the stated opinions of Bush's DoJ picks were pretty well indicative of their future actions, and Obama's are a 180 degree change from that. Also while I'm not happy with the telecom vote, I don't see the performance as 'shit'. 'Shit' would be the ones who fought the amendment, and pushed for immunity in the first place. But again, it's the lack of distinction here that is exactly why I don't see anything useful coming from your point of view.

Re:Remember folks...

[digitig]

There's a huge difference between trusting him and trusting him more than Bush.

Re:Remember folks...

[bigstrat2003]

What "evil" did he do, other than not make a meaningless gesture? The bill was going to pass anyway.

He voted for something that was wrong. You say his actions are exonerated by his votes before the crucial one, but it could just as easily be a deception to conceal his true intentions. We have no way of knowing what his intent truly was on that bill, all we know is his actions... which supported it. So no, he didn't "not make a meaningless gesture", he actively supported sweeping an abuse of power under the rug. Not making a meaningless gesture would've been something like not voting on the bill... at least he would've done no harm, then.

Re:Remember folks...

[Brandybuck]

There were still people here arguing that certain crisises could only be met giving the executive branch more powers. But regardless, I don't trust either Obama with those powers either. Actually, sometimes the nice guys are the worst to give them too, because people are more willing to let him slide.

If you have a system that depends on the right guy being in power, you have a broken system. We must never give more powers to the right guys than we would trust to the wrong guys.

Re:Remember folks...

[Brandybuck]

I'll be hoping for and arguing for a reduction in executive power

If that happens without intercession by SCOTUS, it will be a first in US history.

Re:Remember folks...

[Chris Burke]

He voted for something that was wrong.

Find me a bill which contains nothing wrong. Did you miss that this was a gigantic bill, and that he did actually try to remove the bad part? Did you know that a lot of that bill was actually pretty decent and important stuff? And that just like how you can take his "Yes" vote to mean he specifically supports the telecom immunity clause even though he fought specifically against it, any of his opponents could have taken a "No" vote to mean he specifically did not support any other portion of the bill.

You say his actions are exonerated by his votes before the crucial one, but it could just as easily be a deception to conceal his true intentions. We have no way of knowing what his intent truly was on that bill, all we know is his actions... which supported it.

I didn't say he was exonerated, I said I was disappointed in it. I'm not a pure idealist who thinks I won't or shouldn't ever be disappointed in an elected official.

We do know his actions, which is that first he tried to filibuster, then he voted to remove the immunity clause, and then that when that failed, he voted for the bill in total knowing it was destined to pass anyway. What I'm asking is why are you ignoring some of those actions. If actions reveal intent, why does a failed vote for an amendment not matter and a vote for a bill guaranteed to pass does matter? The vote for the amendment was aimed specifically at the part of the bill that we find onerous, so why is that vote not crucial to the issue at hand? I just don't get this "one thing I disagree with means nothing else matters" point of view. It seems guaranteed to mean nobody can live up to the standard, and could never accomplish anything in the attempt.

Oh and LOL at deception. Yeah, and all his DoJ picks (actions matter right?), starting years before an Obama Presidency was even considered, wrote papers and editorials criticizing the expansion of executive power, all in preparation for deceiving America. Sounds like if he really wanted to deceive us he should have voted against the bill he knew was going to pass anyway, so he could have fooled you too!

Not making a meaningless gesture would've been something like not voting on the bill... at least he would've done no harm, then.

Voting against a bill you know is going to pass, not altering the outcome of reality, is the essence of meaningless! A protest vote is a meaningless gesture!

And he'd have done no harm... unless it cost him the nomination or the election, and we were free to experience the harm of a continuation of Bush policies. But at least he would have stood up for principle, right? Sorry but that's just not good enough for me any more. I want results. Like real-live affects-reality not-just-a-brave-stand-for-principles results. And your never-compromise philosophy is guaranteed never to produce them, and by extension allows others to chose what the results will be. So maybe you feel good about yourself, but the world still goes to shit. I soundly reject that utterly useless philosophy.

Re:Remember folks...

[hedwards]

The problem isn't FISA, the problem is that the President isn't bothering to adhere to it. It isn't possible to write legislation that works when the person doesn't abide by it and doesn't end up being punished either.

The relevant bits of legislation very clearly state that anybody doing wire taps has to have appropriate judicial oversight and doing so without is a federal offense. It was one of the reactions to the watergate scandal.

Re:Remember folks...

[bigstrat2003]

Oh and LOL at deception. Yeah, and all his DoJ picks (actions matter right?), starting years before an Obama Presidency was even considered, wrote papers and editorials criticizing the expansion of executive power, all in preparation for deceiving America. Sounds like if he really wanted to deceive us he should have voted against the bill he knew was going to pass anyway, so he could have fooled you too!

I merely mention it as a possibility, because talking about the man's intent is PURE speculation, and we have to account for all possibilities if we're going to wildly speculate like that. My entire point was that since we have no way of knowing his true intent (maybe pure, maybe malicious, no one can know), all we can judge is his actions... which were shit.

So maybe you feel good about yourself, but the world still goes to shit. I soundly reject that utterly useless philosophy.

Maybe, but at least if I get my way, the world doesn't go to shit. If you get your way, the world still goes to shit, just not quite as fast. Now that's what I'd call an utterly useless philosophy: actually condoning things getting worse, just because things could be worse yet. Brilliant!

Re:Remember folks...

[Jason Levine]

That's the argument I always used when confronted with people who said "Yeah, but I trust Bush to use these powers wisely." Of course, back when I said it Hillary Clinton seemed like she was going to be the nominee. Plus, she had the added bonus of automatically raising Republican's blood pressure based solely on her last name. The outcome is the same though. Even if you like President A and think he/she is completely capable of using the enhanced powers wisely, who's to say that President B, C, D, or E will have the same wisdom? It's not a matter of whether the enhanced powers are going to be abused, but when they will be.

Re:Remember folks...

[Chris Burke]

My entire point was that since we have no way of knowing his true intent (maybe pure, maybe malicious, no one can know), all we can judge is his actions... which were shit.

Glad to see you continue to stubbornly ignore the actions that revealed intentions opposite to what you assume, and refuse to even acknowledge the context of the action you find so deplorable. It really makes your conclusion "all we can judge is his actions... which were shit" seem well-reasoned and intelligent.

Maybe, but at least if I get my way, the world doesn't go to shit. If you get your way, the world still goes to shit, just not quite as fast. Now that's what I'd call an utterly useless philosophy: actually condoning things getting worse, just because things could be worse yet. Brilliant!

No, your way GUARANTEES the world goes to shit, because your stubborn refusal to compromise means you will NEVER accomplish ANYTHING to stop it from going to shit! By refusing to accept the nature of reality for the sake of your philosophical purity, you have deliberately abandoned practicality, and thus efficacy. That means the ones trying to make everything go to shit are left unhindered. Since you cannot bring about change, they get to decide what change occurs.

You just feel better about yourself because you didn't cause it directly. Because you didn't condone it getting worse. That means NOTHING to me. Nor should it to anyone who actually cares about the state of the world.

Or let me put it this way: "Your way" would have had Obama vote against a massive bill because of one clause, though the bill would have passed anyway, and failing to approve all the other things in the bill because of that one clause would have looked bad. At best, nothing at all changes, at worst he loses and McCain takes office and keeps the same DoJ that handed Bush all his superpowers -- people whose intent we know, which was to continue down the path to shit. My way: Obama votes for the bill, having already showed he was against that one clause by trying to remove it, and gets elected. He stocks the DoJ with lawyers who are on record stating that the President does not have the Constitutional authorities that the previous DoJ has grabbed, and his OLC pick is on record stating that the purpose of the OLC is to tell the President "no" when he wants to go outside the law. Oh yeah, I'm sure you think that doesn't mean anything and maybe they'll 180, but are you honestly going to tell me that this isn't better than keeping the same thugs who we know favor expanding executive power without limit?

Both our ways result in things "getting worse" via the law getting passed, because there was no option on the table to prevent that. My way then causes things to get better -- yes, it's true that sometimes in reality things must get worse before they can get better. Your way, by doing nothing and accomplishing nothing, hands power to those who are ready and willing to make things worse as fast as possible.

Your way loses.

Any way that ignores practical reality loses.

I'm sick of high-minded, idealistic, completely useless and deliberately unrealistic philosophies. We need results in the real world. Obama is going to get them. Whatever whack job satisfies your desire for an uncompromising and thus ineffective leader would not and could not. Go campaign for him and tell yourself how you're not making things worse, while the rest of us worry about getting things done.

Re:Remember folks...

[bigstrat2003]

No, your way GUARANTEES the world goes to shit...

No, sir, I believe that would be your way. My way is the one that doesn't rely on the philosophy of "Let's let the world go to shit, but try to slow it down". THAT is guaranteeing that things go to shit. You speak of real results, but you'll NEVER SEE THEM, because your way is like paying bullies not to beat you up. Sure, you didn't get beat up, but you're still poorer for it... and will continue to get poorer every day. My way is the only one that offers any actual possibility of things getting better, at the risk of things hitting bottom faster. Yours guarantees degradation at a slower rate.

So, if we pick your way, we're going to hit bottom anyway, but it'll be x + y years from now instead of merely x years from now. Sorry, but fuck that. I want to strive for actual improvement of our situation.

Regardless, I'm done here. As I said, we have no common ground to speak to. Enjoy the life of taking it in the ass with lube, and feeling great because you could be taking it in the ass without lube.

Re:Consider the litigant

[Hatta]

The cloud of suspicion, and the chilling effects that follow have affected everyone in the United States. We all have standing.

Any "terrorists" that dumb will be caught anyway.

[khasim]

Probably when they send their terrorist training film in to be made into a DVD.

All three of your points depend upon the terrorists being so stupid that they're discussing their plans on a phone system, in the clear, which is tapped.

The government isn't at any risk from losing "intel" on those cases.

Intelligent terrorists (the kind that could actually carry out an attack) would be using encryption and anonymous email accounts.

Is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or does

"women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped"

sound like a conservative wishlist? I swear that Jerry Falwell was on my TV asking for these same things. Hmm..

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[jerep]

I don't trust either parties, they just feel like two different ways of getting to the same common goal. It's just a coin toss that says tails I win and heads you lose.

They both give us a hundreds different brands of cereals to eat but only 2 political choices, how's that freedom?

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[yoshi_mon]

It would be even more funny if the right wing, who are doing a good job of making McCarthyism look tame, have the social progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.

Oh wait...the right wing has been doing that already. Go figure.

Re:Gnome users come from...

[TypoNAM]

I assume this wasn't all invented by Shampoo by any chance?

Re:Consider the litigant

[Mister Whirly]

Fail.

I know you're listening

[careysb]

Check out the cartoon at http://www.xkcd.com/525/

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[Dmala]

If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.

It would be even funnier if we fight to maintain the checks and balances built into our system of government. Then Islam can spread to everyone who wishes to practice it and none of the things you describe will happen.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[77Punker]

every other country where superstition has taken the place of logic and education.

Fixed that for you! I'd be happy to edit your newsletter if you have a copy available; your website is surprisingly free of updates.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[RsG]

If any religion could do that in a modern progressive democratic state, the fundies in the States would have done it already. And in fact, in the case of the stuff about abortion, gays and women you mentioned, the religious right have already tried.

The reason they failed is that countries that have high standards of living, high literacy rates, free elections and judicial oversight of the government don't allow that shit.

Find me an example of such a country that does the stuff you mentioned. Go on, just one. Iran? Syria? Afghanistan? Come on, those are backwaters. Yeah, some of them may have wealth (oil wealth in the hands of the few for the most part), but that isn't a good barometer for civil liberty.

None of them have free elections, none of them have governments that are answerable to the courts. Nor have they ever in most cases, and in fact, the times in the past where they've been freer than in the present, were also times when the religious loonies were sidelined by the moderates (Iran is a good example of this).

It wouldn't matter if every single religious nutjob in the States changed from Christian to Muslim. They'd be the same assholes they are now, and they'd fail just as miserably to bring about the theocracy your post details. It's not the faith that matters, it's the environment in which it's practised.

Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[k1e0x]

.. or is he an elected judge?

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[DustyShadow]

federal judges are appointed, not elected

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[commodore64_love]

Judges should only have one master - the law - especially the People's Supreme Law known as the State and U.S. Constitutions.

Judges shouldn't be influenced by other considerations like fear of losing their job if they make the wrong decision. Their only role should be to read and enforce the Laws w/o arm-twisting from above or below.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[DustyShadow]

Judges also have to interpret laws that are not clear. It is impossible for their personal beliefs/knowledge to affect those interpretations. Court rulings are called "opinions" for a reason. Federal judges have life terms and as far as I know, cannot be removed unless they commit a crime.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[k1e0x]

The law is not always right, and its not always just. (Segregation and the internment of Japanese was law, MLK said it is your duty to break unjust laws.) Just because it's THE LAW, doesn't mean it right.

That being said, it's merely wishful thinking judges master is the law. State Judges work for the state and have a vested interest in the state, Federal Judges, same thing.. worse yet.. they have a, secret language (legalese) and a little club (the bar). If someone in the club goes against the club they can be disbarred, lawyers fear judges.. this is a fact. AND If anyone outside the club learns their secret language, they are forbidden from helping others and will be thrown into a cage if they try to do so. "You can't fight city hall." ..as they say, because the system is so screwed up.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[DustyShadow]

oops, meant to say "impossible to not affect those interpretations"

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[commodore64_love]

Rule of Law is still preferable to rule by tyranny of the majority. The Law and the judges sworn to uphold that law are the only things that protect minority and individual rights.

If judges stop enforcing State and U.S. Constitutions, instead kowtowing for votes or kissing the asses of politicians, than the Constitutions will be powerless and our rights are forfeit.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[Shakrai]

If judges stop enforcing State and U.S. Constitutions

They've already stopped enforcing them. Which parts of the Constitution they aren't likely to enforce depends on the political/idealogical alignment of the judge in question. A right-wing judge isn't as likely to uphold the 4th or 5th amendments. A left-wing judge isn't as likely to uphold the 2nd amendment.

There are exceptions of course but by and large judges view the Constitution through their own idealogical lens.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[commodore64_love]

>>>judges view the Constitution through their own idealogical lens.

Which is still not as bad as viewing the Constitution through whatever lens wins them the favor of the voters, or the bosses (Congress/President). There's nothing we can do to remove a judge's internal bias, but we can still remove external influences by erecting a barrier around the judges to protect them from other persons.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[Hurricane78]

Hey, your sig is outdated. In Germany, you can now easily get 10, 16, and even 20 Mbps.
In my city you can also get 100 Mbps for certain areas (constantly growing).

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[Curien]

His sig says *average*. I lived in one of the World Cup host cities, and until mid-2006, I couldn't get broadband *at all*. My employer (on a main road, in an industrial section) couldn't either; they had to buy a bunch of ISDN lines that cost an arm and a leg. Outside of the big metro areas, often the best you can get is 1.5Mb/s DSL, and that's at an exhorbitant rate.

Germany has lots of bandwidth-rich areas. But please don't assume that your experience is representative of the whole country.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[Curien]

His sig says *average*.

Whoops! No it doesn't. Maybe it should.

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[hesaigo999ca]

I find it ironic though that all supreme court judges have to be approved by the president....so this means that even though this guys shook Bushes hand, he isn't doing him any favors.....is irony not the best of all medicines

Re:Yeah, Till he gets fired.

[k1e0x]

Rule of Law is still preferable to rule by tyranny of the majority. The Law and the judges sworn to uphold that law are the only things that protect minority and individual rights.

No way.. your all confused..

It is preventing the government from being able to create law that protects rights. "Congress shall make no law.." Law is not liberty, law (or the requirement of receiving government permission to do something) is the opposite of liberty.

The Constitutionally Limited Representative Republic we live in is SERIOUSLY BROKEN today (it might be difficult to tell you what kind of government it actually even is anymore) but.. by design, it is the Constitution that is supposed to a) grant, and b) limit government power. It uses "you can only do X AND you can never do Y" logic, not one or the other but both. (The reason why this is? The anti-federalists demanded it be this way.)

Judges (who are lawyers that are employed by the state/fed) are NOT arbitrators of freedom. They can be a tyrannical as any man, and they have a vested interest in the state, like it or not they do, the state writes their paychecks. Most judges fail to inform juries of their ability to nullify unjust laws and instead instruct juries that they "..must rule on the law itself and no other factors in the case." That is wrong, a jury can rule against the law itself. (such as was done in prohibition. "Yes, your honor that man *was* running a speak-easy, and that is *not* a crime! Not guilty.") It's fitting don't you think that the people actually have the power to rule themselves on the laws politicians write for us? Too bad this is broken in two was. 1. Most people never take their case to trial giving up their 7th amendment rights, the reason why I think, is because the state prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". This makes the risk too great to go to trial, better to plea out.. right? and 2. as I mentioned, judges fail to fully inform juries of their rights and duties.. in fact judges even instruct juries on how to rule now days, this is an outrage. The judges role in a jury trial that that of a referee to make sure it's a fair trial, NOT to decide the outcome. The only reason why I can think why Judges may do this, is because they could be seen "Soft on crime" if they fail to get convictions.. that could hurt them politically.

I think its strange how you mention "tyranny of the majority" as if somehow a majority can't write a bad law that is upheld by bad judges and a bad system. They most centrally can. As I said before, the internment of the Japanese was legal, supported by the majority, and upheld by the courts. It was absolutely a violation of the Constitution and human rights, but it was legal. So you can see that law has nothing to do with morality or right and wrong despite many people thinking so.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Qzukk]

They both give us a hundreds different brands of cereals to eat but only 2 political choices, how's that freedom?

The funny thing about that is that 50% of those brands of cereals tastes like sticks and twigs, but 100% of the political parties taste like sticks and twigs.

Re:Consider the litigant

[ntk]

FYI, Al-Haramain and both the EFF wiretapping cases (the class action against AT&T, and the new suit against the government) are currently before the same court and judge, Judge Vaughn Walker. All the cases are continuing.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[Bane1998]

If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.

Wow.. You've been listening to wayyyyyy too much Hannity.

Let's look at the very first thing you said: If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA...

So many things wrong with just that first part. First of all you are assuming that's the 'liberal agenda.' Which, it isn't. That's complete hyperbole. Last time I checked, I haven't heard of any liberal memos being passed around indicating a goal of spreading Islam, or any other religion for that matter. If anything, you could say that some liberals would prefer religion was a lesser topic. Somehow Hannity & Friends take that to mean they want Islamic Terrorists running the government. Learn to think rationally for yourself.

Second of all, the 'take over' bit implies that the USA can be taken over by a religion. This could only be true if you tie your religion (Christianity, I assume) directly to your government. If you define the USA as a Christian entity, then I suppose more Islamic government officials could be defined as 'taking over.' You are mixing religion and government, which is actually expressly seperated by our founders.

As for the rest of your drivel, you are defining a religion, Islam, by the worst of the acts performed by people claiming to follow Islam. That would be a lot like me say... defining Christianity as GodHatesFags.com.

Finally, your signature, 'I prefer to buy Made In USA.' Why not be a real man and refuse to buy anything at all from outside the US and see how far that gets you? Even if you did, what exactly do you think would happen if the US stopped trading or interacting with other nations completely? I'll tell you what would happen... no one would bother loaning us any more money, or trading us oil, etc, etc.

The fact is as technology increases we are becoming more and more a global people. We're no where near that yet, look at most of Africa... But still, that's the way it's always trended, and will continue to trend. And it's healthy to be introspective and realize that across the entire earth, the USA, especially the neo conservatives, are very much in the global minority.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Doc Ruby]

No one should have the powers that Bush/Cheney seized or created. Not them, not Obama, (probably ;) not even me.

But if you can't tell the difference between how Republicans do wrong and how Democrats do wrong, you're not comparing Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush to Kennedy/Johnson/Carter/Clinton. You're saying something lazy and ignorant that equates extreme bad with merely not good.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[k1e0x]

If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.

Islam is not like a venereal disease or a knapweed. It does not simply "spread". People must choose it. I think it's pretty u8nlikley people like yourself, or liberals (whom you think your "protecting") or any other group of people will voluntarily choose what you describe any time soon.

More importantly is your desire to cede endless authority to the state. You are blindly destroying your own freedom and creating a tyranny here at home. This is the likes of something our forefathers fought against.

Don't believe me?

Fox News' Chief legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano compares the Patriot Act to the Stamp Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

Re:Fucking judge is a terroristic asshole.

[Red Flayer]

Boy, you sureley are a retard.

Did you bother to read the judge's logic as to how indefensible the claims of state secrets were? Or did you just dismiss the judge out of hand because you're a simple-minded brain-washed ex-military troll?

That need-to-know crap is just bullshit. Unless the agency in question can demonstrate the need for secrecy, then the documents in question should be made public. There needs to be an authority which can determine if there really are state secrets that shouldn't be exposed... and guess what? The judiciary IS that authority.

If anyone's an asshole, it's you -- for supporting an executive that need answer to no one.

*DAMN* I forgot not to feed the trolls...

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[Sponge Bath]

countries that have high standards of living, high literacy rates, free elections and judicial oversight of the government don't allow that

And those are the democratic underpinnings that seem to be under attack.

This article points out the struggle judicial oversight is having in the face of executive excesses. US election procedures are creaky, inconsistent, and prone to gaming. Literacy, particularly scientific literacy is often marginalized and disparaged here. I'm less worried about our falling standard of living as we are still pretty well off.

If these trends continue too far then the government won't allow that shit, it will require it.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[Clandestine_Blaze]

My impression of your post is that it was tongue-in-cheek. I mean, I don't really think that you lay there at night worrying about this.

Anyway, for a militant form of any religion to spread in the United States, either people have to allow it to happen by adopting the culture, the Government has to recognize and integrate such religion within the institution, or there has to be a militant force that overthrows the government and military. I cannot fathom any of those happening in the United States.

Some will claim that this is already happening with extreme right-wing, fundamentalist Christianity in this country, but I hope not. I have nothing personal against any religion out there, but I hope that it can remain a personal preference. The Government needs to be run through the will of the people, the strength of unity, justice, logic, and reason -- not ancient texts.

There are plenty of Muslims here in the U.S., just like Jews, Christians, and others, that are moderate and keep to themselves. I think the majority would be like that. Heck, if you travel to some parts of New York where there are Orthodox Jewish communities, they tend to keep to themselves as well. So do the Amish. Parts of California and Michigan, which has a large Muslim population, doesn't seem to have any problems with any of what you mentioned.

But seriously, the scenario that you describe couldn't happen without force. What you described actually DID happen to my ancestors in Iran - first when what was left of the Persian Empire was overrun by Muslim forces and Zoroastrians were either killed off or fled to India around the 7th Century. And again in 1979 under the guise of a "popular" revolution. For a few years, the people of Iran were totally free to live how they were before, but slowly the new Government started pulling back civil liberties. Iran's fall from a completely Western-like country didn't happen over night. I don't blame Islam itself for any of this, just those that used it as a weapon to gain power and control over a population.

This is just my personal feeling, but this is one of the main reasons why I support the Second Amendment in America. In Iran, weapons are banned, and the people have no way to protect themselves from a Government that is out of control: a Government that no longer represents the will of the people. Of course, with freedom to bear arms needs to come personal responsibility, but the freedom needs to be there.

Re:Consider the litigant

[MrNaz]

Yea, those Muslims keep getting preferential treatment these days. Damn them and their powerful lobby groups.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[Jherek Carnelian]

Find me an example of such a country that does the stuff you mentioned. Go on, just one. Iran? Syria? Afghanistan? Come on, those are backwaters. Yeah, some of them may have wealth (oil wealth in the hands of the few for the most part), but that isn't a good barometer for civil liberty.

Take that one step further - religion has nothing to do with it, being a "backwater country" is the common theme, not religion. For example Rwanda - 90+% christian or to a lesser extent Sri Lanka - 85%+ Buddhist and Hindu and Burma - 89% Buddhist.

Re:Gnome users come from...

[FlatWhatson]

And here I was thinking Ketamine was a KDE thing!

Re:Fucking judge is a terroristic asshole.

[shentino]

Not to mention that having a case pending in court should grant you a need-to-know for any evidence that happens to be classified.

What about the H-bomb case where they had 2 hearings, one public and one in camera?

They gave the defendant's attorneys in that one a security clearance.

Re:Fucking judge is a terroristic asshole.

[shentino]

I dunno...having a pending court case would sound like need to know for me

Re:Consider the litigant

[gary_7vn]

The really truly terrifying thing is that you seem to believe this. Tell that to the Muslims who just got kicked off a plane because one of them said, Oh, look, we are next to the jets. Their preferential treatment included missing their flight and several hours in detention.

Things are looking up for balance...

[EdwinFreed]

If Dawn Johnsen, Obama's appointment for head of the Office of Legal Counsel is any indication, our president-elect is very much behind limiting executive power.

Let's first remember that Bush installed John Yoo in this office, author of the infamous "the President can torture anyone he wants" memo.

In contrast, Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana, has been an extremely harsh and very outspoken critic of the expansion of executive power under Bush. Writing for Slate, she said:

I want to second Dahlia's frustration with those who don't see the newly released Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) torture memo as a big deal. Where is the outrage, the public outcry?! The shockingly flawed content of this memo, the deficient processes that led to its issuance, the horrific acts it encouraged, the fact that it was kept secret for years and that the Bush administration continues to withhold other memos like it--all demand our outrage.

And here is what she had to say about Bush's violation of FISA:

I'm afraid we are growing immune to just how outrageous and destructive it is, in a democracy, for the President to violate federal statutes in secret. Remember that much of what we know about the Bush administration's violations of statutes (and yes, I realize they claim not to be violating statutes) came first only because of leaks and news coverage. Incredibly, we still don't know the full extent of our government's illegal surveillance or illegal interrogations (and who knows what else)-despite Congress's failed efforts to get to the bottom of it. Congress instead resorted to enacting new legislation on both issues largely in the dark.

Given this I am fairly optimistic that we'll see at least some reversal of the executive power grab that took place under Bush.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Qzukk]

All US brand cereals that are sold in Sweden taste like sugercoated suger. Is that the other 50%?

Probably. It seems that the cereal for kids are all sugar-coated sugar. When I was a kid, though, I loved Grape-Nuts (which have neither grapes nor nuts) when I could get my parents to buy them (being "healthy", they were more expensive than frosted flakes, and came in a much smaller box). Now that I spend my own money, I buy the generic brand version.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[dedeman]

Can you name any country that has been "taken over" by Islam in the last few hundred years, that hasn't had a majority Muslim influence prior? From what I've heard, Qatar and the UAE are pretty secular/liberal. Besides, these all sound like characteristics of countries that have been "overrun" by Christianity too. Nice partisanship though. It has nothing to do with the original story.

Re:Any "terrorists" that dumb will be caught anywa

[TempeTerra]

All three of your points depend upon the terrorists being so stupid that they're discussing their plans on a phone system, in the clear, which is tapped. The government isn't at any risk from losing "intel" on those cases.

Those are details though, you're missing his point about strategy. Regardless of the technology used, knowing which sections of your communications have been compromised lets you immediately fix those leaks and furthermore make some inferences about what methods your opponent is using. If a 'charity' knows that their conversations with churches, public figures and a foreign extremist religious group have been tapped but certain other conversations with a chemical supplier and an arms dealer have not they have a lot of information about what the Feds know about them and which of their contacts are compromised.

I vaguely recall (wikipedia does not quickly confirm or deny) that when the Allies broke the enigma code in WWII they didn't act on all the advance warning they had of German attacks because it would be too obvious that the German commmunications had been intercepted, and the Germans would change their code. Or maybe I'm confusing Cryptonomicon with history, I hate it when that happens.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[dgatwood]

The funny thing about that is that 50% of those brands of cereals tastes like sticks and twigs, but 100% of the political parties taste like sticks and twigs.

No, no, you got it all wrong. 50% of the political parties taste like sticks and twigs. The other 50% taste like twigs and sticks.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[digitig]

The only compromise that is reasonable is a limited government.

And who has the power to impose such limits? Only the government. Damn.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[Alsee]

Then Islam can spread to everyone who wishes to practice it and none of the things you describe will happen.

You're not exactly likely to convince him with that argument.
He likely considers keeping people from praying to the wrong invisible sky-wizard to be more important than preserving our system and our freedoms and any of that other stuff. I mean really, what's the point of freedom and liberty and democracy when you pray to the wrong sky-wizard, and in His infinitely benevolent infinitely merciful wisdom He gets jealous and tortures you for all eternity?

-

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[jackbird]

Can you think of a set of checks on executive powers that would have prevented Bush and Cheney from doing what they did?

A modern-day Woodward and Bernstein, backed by principled editors?

Re:Any "terrorists" that dumb will be caught anywa

[Shakrai]

that when the Allies broke the enigma code in WWII they didn't act on all the advance warning they had of German attacks because it would be too obvious that the German commmunications had been intercepted

You are indeed correct. And even when they acted on the advance warning they had to take precautions. Example: During the campaign in Africa we used our code breaking abilities to locate German supply convoys. Before attacking them the Allies would arrange for a scout plane to "discover" the convoy in question. The Germans took the bait and assumed they were located via aerial reconnaissance.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Brandybuck]

No, the people can limit the government. But it takes an informed people willing to get off their butts and stop it. Yeah it's difficult, maybe even impossible, but it's still worth attempting.

Triumph of the Sky Wizard.

[tjstork]

He likely considers keeping people from praying to the wrong invisible sky-wizard

Actually, no. My point is more like, anyone with half a brain should fall in line with a sky wizard to worship and get on with the program. Sky wizard is going to win. Of course, I'd like it to be my christian sky-wizard, because I like my culture and want it to dominate, but ultimately some sky wizard is going to win and secular liberalism is going to lose.

Historically, organized religion has a pretty strong tradition of triumphing over other cultural systems. Male domination may not make the women happy, but it is pretty damn good evolutionary trait. Darwin doesn't care if women like their babies or not, only if they have them.

And logically, too, what's really to lose in following a sky-wizard. If there is no God, as you allude, there's nothing wrong with it, and its just evolution, so anything you can do for your culture to triumph is really on the table. If there is a God, then God sanctions your behavior with his Sky-wizardful mercilessness, and there's still nothing wrong with it.

What you don't get is this. Freedom comes from an ideology, yes, but it is also based on wealth. We are entering an age where people are going to be poorer, long term, because well, there's a cap on natural resources, soon to be caps on energy consumption, and, there's just going to be less and less to go around. For a time, you can make this argument that we should all equally accept less, learn to share, and what not, so that we can all put up with each other, but at some point, Sky-wizard is going to come along, and say that's a bunch of crap, let's just wipe out everyone who doesn't believe in our sky wizard, however many billions that is, and have the whole planet to ourselves, in much richer fashion.

Oh, and please, go on and bleed your heart about how terrible christianity is because its adherents do not follow the teachings of christ. There's plenty of "christians" that are more pagan now anyway - the old Catholic habit of making pagan gods saints to introduce people to christ has now the effect of people of christ being introduced to pagan gods. And I'll tell you, the pagan sky wizards have no "turn the other cheek" stuff to slow them down.

It will be just like Roman times, where Empires are made and formed with all the religious zeqal but without the judeao-christian conscience.

Re:Triumph of the Sky Wizard.

[Dmala]

Actually, no. My point is more like, anyone with half a brain should fall in line with a sky wizard to worship and get on with the program.

That's exactly the problem, the people with half a brain worship their sky wizard and the rest of us with a whole brain have to put up with their shit.

Of course, I'd like it to be my christian sky-wizard, because I like my culture and want it to dominate...

See, this is where I lose the thread. I guess I just don't have the aggressive monkey-gene that gives people the need to dominate. Personally, I'd be happy to just do my own thing and let everyone else do the same. That's kind of why I like the basic principles of the American system of government. It's just a shame that the monkey-gene types are constantly trying to fuck with it.

And logically, too, what's really to lose in following a sky-wizard.

The problem is not so much with the sky wizard as it is with religion. See, religion doesn't really have anything to do with sky wizards, it's really just about controlling people en masse. The monkey-gene types figured out a long time ago that if you tell people, "Go kill those guys over there and take their stuff," people tend to ignore you or a least ask what's in it for them. If you say, "The Sky Wizard commands you to kill those guys over there and take their stuff!" then people listen for some reason. Whether or not there is an actual sky wizard is really beside the point. If we can do away with all of this religion bullshit, we reduce the ability of the monkey-gene types to control us and maybe the world becomes slightly less unpleasant. Maybe we could even work on problems like limited natural resources so we don't have to kill each other like monkeys with sharpened sticks while shouting the name of a sky wizard.

I know, it's stupid and naïve, but what the hell...

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[tjstork]

If any religion could do that in a modern progressive democratic state, the fundies in the States would have done it already. And in fact, in the case of the stuff about abortion, gays and women you mentioned, the religious right have already tried.

They haven't really -tried-, because there's still abortion and still gay people running around. Yeah they make some noises at the ballot box but they still follow the democratic process. We go through another 100 years of people stealing elections and many folks will just say why bother and side with a dictator. Al Gore should be shot for establishing this precedent.

The reason they failed is that countries that have high standards of living, high literacy rates, free elections and judicial oversight of the government don't allow that shit.

Well, let's look at that. Standards of living are going to fall because of environmental legislation, of that there is no doubt, and along with it, literacy rates. Democrats|Republicans are already out there tampering with elections wherever they can, and with that comes the realization that judicial oversight is a joke. Liberalism always worked because it was linked to a science of capitalism and having more stuff for the people, and you take those two things off of the table, the rest of it is something people don't like. I mean, sure, people are going to put up with some cultural slights because they can always buy more stuff, but you throw carbon credits, ever stricter emissions controls, rising commodity prices, and next thing you know, someone making fun of your christmas tree is probably going to be getting his teeth kicked in.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[tjstork]

I cannot fathom any of those happening in the United States.

I really don't stay up worry about it. Part of what I'm doing now is blowing away my Excellent Karma rating with a good old Troll, but I do think a religious state or an imperial state in the USA is inevitable for the following reasons.

a) undermined faith in elections. Democrats and their recounts are basically just undermining public faith in elections. It's so short sighted, because eventually Republicans are going to do the same thing to them and every close election is going to be one where the elected official lives under a cloud, and by definition that translates into more power for un-elected officials.

b) decreased world wealth. we're at an energy per capita technological plateau. Commodity prices are rising, and will rise even further when schemes like cap and trade are put into place. That translates into less stuff for each and every person, and that makes intangible things like heritage and culture more important.

c) Immigration from more religious countries. Third world countries tend to be more religious.

d) General breakdown of faith in science as an arbiter of the human condition. This is just any number of factors, from greed in the scientific community, things like universities holding patents, big public scientific arguments, guys on tv, political activities, all undermine the perceived impartiality of science. Then you have what might be conceived as scientific missteps. Viral illnesses have yet to be conquered, and the war against bacteriological illnesses is looking like Iraq 2006. And then you'll have technologies being created that people don't necessarily like, intrusive stuff, scanners, data miners, biodetectors, mind readers on the horizon, like who wants that, and finally, to top it all off, everyone gets to have less stuff to save the eco-system.

e) Darwin is religion's best friend. Most religions are male dominated, and that means babies. Make abortion a sin, take career options away from women, condone domestic violence, and boom your country is having so many babies your
-average- age is 22. Population matters, despite what everyone argues to the contrary. Countries with the largest population will dominate the world economy, and within a country the demographics with the largest population will dominate elections. Right now, liberalists aren't having babies, but conservatives are, as their god commands. Eventually, that will catch up to liberalists.

Re:Consider the litigant

[digitalunity]

Frankly, I'm a little surprised the EFF hasn't dropped its case and prodded Al-Haramain to let it take over their case.

The EFF is very well equipped for this type of suit. Also, standing to bring forth the suit is a huge advantage. I certainly believe the probability that the wiretapping program intercepts communication between US citizens should be all the standing thats needed. Judges may not agree however.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[mjwx]

The reason they failed is that countries that have high standards of living, high literacy rates, free elections and judicial oversight of the government don't allow that shit. Find me an example of such a country that does the stuff you mentioned. Go on, just one. Iran? Syria? Afghanistan? Come on, those are backwaters. Yeah, some of them may have wealth (oil wealth in the hands of the few for the most part), but that isn't a good barometer for civil liberty.

Take that one step further - religion has nothing to do with it, being a "backwater country" is the common theme, not religion. For example Rwanda - 90+% christian or to a lesser extent Sri Lanka - 85%+ Buddhist and Hindu and Burma - 89% Buddhist.

I think that was the GP's point. Religion doesn't cause war and sufferin, but it makes a good excuse for it. This goes for any organised religion, Pol Pot managed to twist Buddhism when he murdered 2.2 Million Cambodians (This was an ethnic cleansing along racial lines).

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[tjstork]

Can you name any country that has been "taken over" by Islam in the last few hundred years, that hasn't had a majority Muslim influence prior?

For the last few hundred years, an early lead in calculus gave christian countries the nod up. During that time, christians destroyed and carved up the ottoman empire, and made colonies of many islamic nations. Now, the tables are turning.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Eudial]

I don't trust either parties, they just feel like two different ways of getting to the same common goal. It's just a coin toss that says tails I win and heads you lose.

They both give us a hundreds different brands of cereals to eat but only 2 political choices, how's that freedom?

Trust me, more political choices doesn't make any difference. In Sweden we have 7 (?) major political parties, that align up in two political blocks (left and right) that share the power, so no matter who you vote for, you still end up voting for one of two options.

The problem is at the core representative democracy, and not how many representatives you have to choose from.

Re:IT would almost be funny...

[tjstork]

Finally, your signature, 'I prefer to buy Made In USA.' Why not be a real man and refuse to buy anything at all from outside the US and see how far that gets you?

You can't do that. But, what you can do is reward your local economy. My sig is not a statement of "American should build all the consumer goods in the world", it is, "I'm an American and I prefer to buy American stuff". I would expect that someone who is British would prefer to buy British stuff, French stuff from France, and so forth. I much rather miss the world where the British still made cars and employed British workers to make them just as much as I miss the idea of Detroit as a bedrock of the American economy.

You have to remember that the current economy of a few players making everything for the world is completely artificial. It exists because of patents and exists because of current trade laws and above all it relates to currency flows. The end game of automation and technology, is that we really don't need to have a single nation building cars at all. It is imaginable that every nation could build a car, if it wants to, and the only trade problem that there naturally is is the flow of raw materials across the planet.

If anything, you could say that some liberals would prefer religion was a lesser topic.

Well of course, but that's silly because your humanist ideology only works in times of increasing prosperity, and environmental constraints now render that impossible. Your early wave of medical miracles has come from a burning pace to a glacial pace, as bacteria and virii now seem to be capable at evolving faster than we can make drugs to fight them, and the wave of consumer electronics, which once promised to liberate people, now seems to be but just a fancy way to enslave them. Watch people's mileage via GPS, indeed.

We're in for a long period of gradual retrenchment of human economies. Even after this recession ends, once resource exhaustion plays itself out, energy is going to be more expensive and people are going to have less.

And it's healthy to be introspective and realize that across the entire earth, the USA, especially the neo conservatives, are very much in the global minority

I do realize that, and, if you genuinely look across the earth, you will realize that my religious based ideas are in much more the majority and increasingly so. Economic dislocation, poverty caused by resource exhaustion, all are going to lead to more religion, and not less. I think the collapse of the Doha round spelled a highwater mark for free trade and as economic uncertainty plays itself out, we'll see a retrenchment in that as well.

For the next hundred years out, liberalism looks to be doomed.

You first.

[hawleyal]

Let's all rush those fuckers and see who wins.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[DrLang21]

I blame sugar coated sugar cereal in part for the chronic constipation of America. People need to learn to eat their shredded wheat damnit.

MOTD for article..

[mrdogi]

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking. -- H.L. Mencken, "A Mencken Chrestomathy"

Wow, the motd is just too appropriate on this one...

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Darby]

I'd trust Bush with them more, any day of the week. That's the whole point.

It's wise not to trust anybody with those powers, but to trust Bush more than Obama proves you to be a fucking moron. Hot tip, Sparky, there is no speculation whatsoever. We know Bush abused those powers for his own gain and to the detriment of the nation. With Obama it's only speculation. Therefore, you are proven by your own words to be a fucking moron. There is no possible way for you to contradict that.

I mean you'd have to be dumb as fuck to be a Republican ever since Nixon since they've gone completely downhill from there in every way, but damn you are way fucking stupider than even that.

Pull your head out of your ass and look around just for a second. I mean you're not even sounding remotely sane. "Durrr I'd pick the proven traitor over somebody I speculate might be one".

Seriously, you're such an extremist partisan hack and douche that you fail to grasp the pure insanity of that statement. You, and the rest of the fucking douchebags who treat political parties like football teams are the primary problem with this country.
Go die in a fire you stupid scumbag piece of shit.

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[Qzukk]

People need to learn to eat their shredded wheat damnit.

For that there's Frosted Mini-Wheats (Which I do admit to eating when I want something sweet. But... what the hell is a mini-wheat?)

Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,.

[DrLang21]

Standard shredded wheat used to come in huge pieces and you were supposed to break them up. Thus the mini-wheat is a bite size version of this.

Re:It Doesn't Matter

[SydShamino]

The punishment for clearly and intentionally violating the constitution needs to be more than just A) the chance for impeachment (if you are still in office and it is politically viable), or B) it gets overturned seven years later.

That is one example of the type of thing that could be done to make this harder in the future. I ensure you that if Bush was heading out of the White House into a jail cell for the next 25 years, the next guy would be far less likely to try the same things.