Wiretapping Program Ruled Legal

BuhDuh writes "The New York Times is carrying a story concerning that well known bastion of legal authority, the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance' court, which has ruled that the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program was perfectly legal. It says, 'A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans' private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.'"

Comments

Cairo

[eldavojohn]

You should ask the people in Cairo where they think we're heading. Egypt's a "democratic" country terrorizing its people under the guise of a "war on terror." Really, you just need to intercept communications of those people who oppose you in any form or fashion and simply provide even the slightest proof that they belong to The Muslim Brotherhood. The screams in the night are nothing to concern you, comrade, you haven't done anything wrong so why should you be worried?

I don't think anything really bad is being done against the American people at this moment. I do think that boundaries are being crossed whereby if the wrong person gets into power, there is no going back. Just ask yourself: What Would Nixon Do?

Re:Cairo

[rubycodez]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Re:Cairo

[CyberLord Seven]

This brings to mind something Hermann Goering said during his trial at Nuremburg. He said something along the lines of identify someone different and tell the people that that guy is the enemy and he wants to hurt you. The people will then allow you to do anything as long as you keep them safe.

Didn't Santayana say something about those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it?

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

"those who desire security at the expense of liberty, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

The U.S. Constitution forbids the "searching" of phonecalls made by Americans. It shouldn't matter if an American is calling another American, or a Japanese citizen. The Constitutional Law is clear that wuch wiretapping is not allowed unless the police can get a warrant issued by a judge.

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

The Constitutional Law is clear that wuch wiretapping is not allowed unless the police can get a warrant issued by a judge.

Its not so clear. In the early days of wiretapping, no warrant was required for anyone; as phone calls were not thought to be "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Don't get me wrong, I like that warrants are needed, but the issue has not always been so clear cut.

Re:Cairo

[digitalunity]

My biggest issue with this is domestic internet communication is semi-routinely routed through other countries and the eavesdropping program has no way to tell whether the 4th amendment is being violated.

Basically, the court just gave permission to the NSA to dragnet anything they want without a warrant so long as they can demonstrate there is a possibility that the communication was to or from a foreigner.

Re:Cairo

[astrodoom]

Repatriate just means to send back to their country of origin. It doesn't mean that they were citizens of the U.S. Geez people, patriot doesn't mean American.

Re:Cairo

[CanadaIsCold]

Repatriate - To bring or send back (a person, esp. a prisoner of war, a refugee, etc.) to his or her country or land of citizenship.

Please note that it doesn't say bring back to the United states, where they are a citizen.

Re:Cairo

[OakDragon]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

Re:Cairo

[sbayless]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

No, but there is a Canadian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr, who was 15 years old at the time of the alleged crimes.

Re:Cairo

[Yungoe]

Please be sure to use the entire quote from Franklin. This entire quote is "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." These adjectives change the meaning of the quote entirely.

Also where in the constitution is this clear?

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

And what, you think 15 year olds can't go to jail?

Re:Cairo

[UnknowingFool]

No, Obama has said that one of his first acts would be to order the closure of the detention camps. That is not the same as freeing the prisoners there. More likely the current prisoners or detainees whatever you want to call them will be relocated to other facilities. Also, the order will not likely to be enforced immediately as the relocation would take some time. A side consequence may be that some of the detainees may finally get their trials or tribunals. This may free those who have played no part in acts of terrorism.

Re:Cairo

[Xelios]

Even if you find no evidence of wrongdoing, don't like what somebody's saying? Make something up. In a secret wiretapping program with no oversight (except for a "secret court", yeah right), who's going to know you didn't really intercept that email about an assassination plot?

Circling the drain folks... circling the drain.

Re:Cairo

[2short]

"These adjectives change the meaning of the quote entirely."

On the contrary, those adjectives only emphasize why the quote is true.

Unless you believe liberty is sometimes inessential or security is ever anything but temporary.

Re:Cairo

[BuckaBooBob]

So a probe needs to be done on Why this is deemed legal.. Is it based on legislation that was past after the wiretaps started? and also is the legislation that this ruling based on legal itself or is it all a smokescreen to make the general public think its legal and make these cases just go away.

 

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

After a quick search it looks like Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen while at Guantanamo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi

Re:Cairo

[cjb658]

While I am in favor of them getting trials, I don't think they should have the same rights as US citizens.

For example, I don't want to hear about Ahmed being found not guilty because someone didn't read him his Miranda rights.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

After a quick search it looks like Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen while at Guantanamo.

If you'd bothered to do more than a "quick search" you would have learned that he wasn't kept in Gitmo once his citizenship was discovered. Never mind the fact that the GP said "you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo", which sounds like present tense to me.....

Re:Cairo

[cjb658]

"Effects," perhaps?

Re:Cairo

[cjb658]

My biggest issue with this is domestic internet communication is semi-routinely routed through other countries and the eavesdropping program has no way to tell whether the 4th amendment is being violated.

Basically, the court just gave permission to the NSA to dragnet anything they want without a warrant so long as they can demonstrate there is a possibility that the communication was to or from a foreigner.

Or, since we control the intertubes, they could just route it through another country.

Re:Cairo

[mfnickster]

While I am in favor of them getting trials, I don't think they should have the same rights as US citizens.

You are part of the problem then. The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not.

That's also why this wiretapping program is unethical if not illegal; how does it promote American values and the principles of liberty to say "different rules for you than for us" ?

Re:Cairo

[__aasqbs9791]

I listened to Antonin Scalia describe this a little while ago on CSPAN. While the Constitution obviously couldn't address telephones directly when it was created, and Scalia's viewpoint is it does not change with the times unless directly amended (I assume he then thinks it would have to be updated with every new technology???) I wonder if mailings from one person to another were protected in any way? Does the government require a warrant to intercept postal mail (which did exist at the time and might be covered under "effects"?) While it is easy to consider a phone call to be a conversation (which is not covered) is could also be considered a conversation at the source and at the endpoint, and real time mail in between. You can have a conversation via mail. It tends to be really slow, but an exchange of letters back and forth is a conversation. I think you'd have to look at the Why we have the protection from the government, rather than the strict lettering of What protection we have. If you just look at the What, then it reminds me of traditions where everyone does something a certain way, but no one knows why it is done that way. What's the point? How could you ever know if/when a tradition needs to be changed (amended) if no one remembers the Why any longer? The Why is at least as important as the What, IMHO.

Re:Cairo

[blueg3]

"Effects" is "possessions". I don't think it's necessarily certain that a communication conducted over a system that is, for the most part, not owned by either communicating party, is their possession.

Re:Cairo

[thedonger]

You are still misquoting. An "essential liberty" is not the same thing as "liberty" in the context you are using it. Franklin was undoubtedly referring to basic liberties provided by the constitution.

So at issue is whether privately talking on the phone with mom is an "essential liberty," and whether or not we can assume Franklin would think so.

Re:Cairo

[element-o.p.]

The problem is, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, there was no telephone, no e-mail, not even telegraph. The authors of the Bill of Rights covered any kind of communication that could be used to pass private communications at that time. By extrapolation, it is not unreasonable to assume that, had the Founding Fathers envisioned telephones and e-mail, they would have included them in the 4th amendment as well.

Unfortunately, the Constitution only means what the courts decide it means, and for right now at least, the courts seem to be taking a less strict interpretation than I'd like.

Re:Cairo

[b4upoo]

There are very good reasons that we got rid of Nixon. He was a crook.
            As for anti terror squads, I do have some problems with the concept of law enforcement being used in advance of a crime. Normally a crime takes place and various law enforcement agencies act to punish those that broke our laws. So crime prevention by law enforcement is seemingly out of order. However we must adjust our thinking to the age in which we now live. Imagine a terror loony who has powdered a couple of ounces of plutonium and wrapped them around a single stick of dynamite and then lighting the fuse and tossing it off of a tall building. Imagine a contaminated, major city that must remain uninhabited for the next 100,000 years.
              Keeping in mind that these terror nuts intend to die anyway the idea of arresting them for the crimes they commit are mute. We are forced to ferret them out and shut them down well before they reach out and kill large numbers of people.
              Frankly i hope that we have numerous assassins at work both inside and outside our own borders killing off those that preach death to America, death to Christians, death to Israel etc.. If they spew that rhetoric that is enough to justify being strangled in the night.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not.

When has the Constitution ever been held to apply to prisoners of war? Do you really mean to tell me that all those German and Japanese POWs we captured could have petitioned for habeas corpus?

I realize that we specifically designed them as unlawful combatants instead of POWs but the point still stands. You are confusing domestic law enforcement with alien combatants captured on foreign battlefields while engaged in combat with US forces. Given the fact that none of them even followed the laws of war to begin with we would have been well within our rights to summarily execute them as soon as they were captured. Don't believe this? Open a history book and find out what happened to the Germans that were captured during the Battle of the Bugle while fighting in Allied uniforms.

Re:Cairo

[hesaigo999ca]

Hey....what about all our rights to have private phone conversations coming from the outside, but are made by our relatives that do live in this country but are visiting outside, using this argument, anyone outside the border be them American or not, are subject to eavesdropping, where as in our own backyard, that is not the case. So next time a big CEO is visiting Cairo and calls home, he can now be eavesdropped as it is now outside traffic coming in....this might be the problem???

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

And that's not the right way to quote a discussion. The oldest text should be the deepest quoted/nested. E.g.:

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

Re:Cairo

[radtea]

And what, you think 15 year olds can't go to jail?

Omar Khadr is legally a child soldier under UN treaties that the United States pretends to be a signatory to. As such, the American detainment of him is in violation of international law.

The United States was once a bastion of the Rule of Law. Today it is a bastion of lawlessness and evil.

Re:Cairo

[dogmatixpsych]

"the issue has not always been so clear cut."

It's never been clear cut. It takes a very loose interpretation of the Constitution to come up with a right to privacy, which is the issue at the core of this type of wiretapping. I actually have pretty mixed feelings about the issue. Like you said, it's not clear cut.

Re:Cairo

[Thelasko]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Every decent conspiracy theorist knows that U.S. citizens are sent to ADX Florence.

Re:Cairo

[Ngarrang]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

US Citizens that were caught fighting alongside terrorists. You really want to hold these people up as a shining example of the point you failed to make?

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

By extrapolation, it is not unreasonable to assume that, had the Founding Fathers envisioned telephones and e-mail, they would have included them in the 4th amendment as well.

I don't think you can leap to that conclusion quite so quickly. Postal mail was around then, yet they left that out of the 4th amendment.

We can go around and around, trying to guess what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, or we can change the Constitution to say exactly what we want now. When we try to derive intent from the limited text of the Constitution, we end up in the situation we are in now: judges end up twisting and contorting the actual wording of the document to fit the times. We should be interpreting it as written, and changing the text of the document as the times change.

Re:Cairo

[digitalunity]

This is already done, often times by design. Traffic from Alaska and Hawaii are both often routed internationally by default. Also, anyone working for a global or multinational company will frequently send correspondence through international servers, even for emails between two US citizens.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Background on the Muslim Brotherhood:

It blamed the Egyptian government for being passive against "Zionists" and joined the Palestinian side in the war against Israel; and started performing terrorist acts inside of Egypt, which led to a ban on the movement by the Egyptian government. A Muslim Brother assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt, Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi, on December 28, 1948. Al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo in February, 1949.

[...] In 1964, Nasser granted amnesty to the imprisoned Brothers, hoping that their release would weaken interest in the recently formed Arab Socialist Union party; the result was three more assassination attempts by the Brothers on Nasser's life.

Re:Cairo

[dwarg]

Yaser Esam Hamdi - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. The Supreme Court denied the executive request to hold him indefinitely without trial. He was handed over to Saudi Arabia after being stripped of citizenship.

John Walker Lindh - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. Entered a guilty plea on 2 of his 10 charges; carrying weapons and serving in the Taliban army. Currently serving 20 years in an American prison.

The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla, who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant. He very likely was an "evil doer(TM)" but the way his case was handled was disturbing to say the least.

When your government has the right to listen in on your communications, interpret them as they see fit, and make you disappear without justifying the cause to anyone but themselves you've set up a powerful system for abuse. If not by those that set it up, by someone that takes the reigns of power down the road.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Obama has said that one of his first acts would be to order the closure of the detention camps. That is not the same as freeing the prisoners there. More likely the current prisoners or detainees whatever you want to call them will be relocated to other facilities. Also, the order will not likely to be enforced immediately as the relocation would take some time. A side consequence may be that some of the detainees may finally get their trials or tribunals. This may free those who have played no part in acts of terrorism.

That's one, very optimistic, view of what will happen to the detained. A more realistic view is that they will be tried and returned to the country of origin, where they will be imprisoned for long term or executed.

You don't have to successfuly commit an act of terrorism to be a terrorist, and these peoples countries of origin do not have the same legal process we do. Many of them were better of detained.

Re:Cairo

[amorsen]

Imagine a terror loony who has powdered a couple of ounces of plutonium and wrapped them around a single stick of dynamite and then lighting the fuse and tossing it off of a tall building. Imagine a contaminated, major city that must remain uninhabited for the next 100,000 years.

You are scaremongering. Plutonium isn't all that deadly. You'd clean the immediate area, and life would go on.

Re:Cairo

[Alyred]

I didn't realize we had battles over simple brass horns.. All joking aside I think that the conflict results over whether one believes that the phrase "inalienable rights" means natural rights that every human has, or simply legal rights spelled out in a rule of law -- the difference between written rights and moral rights. Morally, we should be treating everyone equally, regardless of how they treated us -- isn't that how the saying goes? That's not to say we cannot fight for our rights or well being, but that when given the choice between the moral high ground and gut reaction, shouldn't we rise above our base instincts?

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

Imagine a terror loony who has powdered a couple of ounces of plutonium and wrapped them around a single stick of dynamite and then lighting the fuse and tossing it off of a tall building. Imagine a contaminated, major city that must remain uninhabited for the next 100,000 years.

Umm, Fat Man had 13.6 pounds of plutonium in it and Nagasaki isn't uninhabitable for the next 100,000 years. I realize you were trying to make a point about the threat of dirty bombs but we don't do ourselves any favors when we exaggerate threats or blow them out of proportion. It would take a lot more than a "couple of ounces" of plutonium to render a city uninhabitable for any length of time, let alone 100,000 years.

We are forced to ferret them out and shut them down well before they reach out and kill large numbers of people.

I agree, although it kind of reminds me of Whac-A-Mole. In the short term we need to track these dirtbags down and kill them but in the long term we need to be doing things to solve some of the underlying problems in the Middle East that render the populations so hopeless that suicide bombing becomes attractive to the population therein.

Re:Cairo

[lupis42]

What if you were arrested on vacation, in, say, England, or Australia? Wouldn't you like to get a fair trial, at least by their standards? Or is it okay for them to stick you in a hole, have you extradited to a country where you are tortured, convict you in absentia, and maybe even execute you, because you aren't a citizen, and only citizens get rights?

Re:Cairo

[UnknowingFool]

The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war; however, the Bush administration's standpoint was they were not prisoners of war either so they didn't get those rights. I see this as a move by the Bush administration to avoid any culpability and any scrutiny.

Re:Cairo

[hondo77]

Frankly i hope that we have numerous assassins at work both inside and outside our own borders killing off those that preach death to America, death to Christians, death to Israel etc.

Not that I have anything against Christians or Israelis but why do you want American going around killing people that don't like Christians? Or Israelis? What does this have to do with US national security?

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

I think you'd have to look at the Why we have the protection from the government, rather than the strict lettering of What protection we have.

Its hard enough to get anyone to agree on what protections the Constitution offers, let alone why those protections are there. When the public abdicated their responsibility to maintain a relevant Constitution, and gave that power to the Judiciary, we started down this path.

If you just look at the What, then it reminds me of traditions where everyone does something a certain way, but no one knows why it is done that way.

If the American people ever forget why the government's power is limited by the Constitution, we'll soon have a government which reminds them.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war; however, the Bush administration's standpoint was they were not prisoners of war either so they didn't get those rights.

The Geneva Conventions also lay down requirements that combatants must meet if they want to receive the protections accorded therein. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniform under the command of officers while taking steps to minimize civilian casualties I'll start worrying about the fact that they aren't being accorded POW status.

Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system. As far as I'm concerned the military can hold them until such time as hostilities against our country are ended. As far as I'm concerned our military doesn't even need to concern itself with taking them prisoner in the first place unless it deems that they may have useful intelligence.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

He was handed over to Saudi Arabia after being stripped of citizenship.

You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right? You also left out the part where he was released from Gitmo and brought to the United States once his citizenship status was discovered.

John Walker Lindh [wikipedia.org] - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. Entered a guilty plea on 2 of his 10 charges; carrying weapons and serving in the Taliban army. Currently serving 20 years in an American prison.

Lindh was never held in Gitmo so I'm somewhat baffled as to why you are bringing him up in the context of this discussion. He got his day in court and opted to plead guilty rather than take his chances with the jury. What's the problem here?

The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla [wikipedia.org], who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant.

You left out the part where he eventually got his day in court and was convicted by a jury.

but the way his case was handled was disturbing to say the least

That much I'll give you. As an American citizen captured on American soil he should have processed through the civilian justice system and accorded the right to a speedy trial. None of this really relates to my original question though. Which American citizens are currently being held in Gitmo?

Re:Cairo

[lenester]

Please be sure to use the entire quote from Franklin. This entire quote is "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." These adjectives change the meaning of the quote entirely.

How much Franklin have you read? Those adjectives strike me as descriptive of the basic natures of liberty (always essential) and security (always temporary), not subjective qualifiers which imply Franklin's OK with giving up luxurious liberty for permanent security. Do you also read the Second Amendment as only requiring that States be allowed to form well-organized militias in representation of the people?

Re:Cairo

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I don't think you can leap to that conclusion quite so quickly. Postal mail was around then, yet they left that out of the 4th amendment.

No they did not. What you are trying here is pure sophistry. Postal mail falls clearly under the "papers" category in the constitution, unless of course you are going to argue that mail at the time was composed on stone tablets or sheets of metal.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

If your phone isn't one of your personal effects, and wiretapping isn't the searching of a phone (while it's in use no less!), then I don't know what the fuck is.

The constitution IS absolutely 100% clear on this. The problem is that our appointed interpreters of the constitution are being swayed by political powers, as evidenced by the 2004 election debacle.

Re:Cairo

[Khyber]

You're obviously not a patriot, either.

Real patriots have criminal records for standing up to the government, like me. What do you got, son?

Re:Cairo

[kkissane]

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilegeâ"which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention as a POW, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly.

Re:Cairo

[2short]

"You are still misquoting"

No, I am disagreeing. I believe Franklin clearly meant "essential" to describe the nature of "liberty". For your interpretation to make sense, he would have had to say "an essential liberty" (as you do), or more likely "essential liberties". He didn't. He said "essential liberty" as a non-specific singular, and not by accident.
    If you read a significant amount of Franklins writing you'll note that grammar is not his weak suit. Also, there is no need to rely on detailed parsing of this one sentence. While that quote puts it particularly poetically, the idea I claim he expresses through it is also expressed about five billion other ways throughout his work.

"Franklin was undoubtedly referring to basic liberties provided by the constitution."

Undoubtedly? Years before that list was written? Really? I had no idea. He doesn't mention his psychic abilities in his autobiography.

Re:Cairo

[Alyred]

While this doesn't detail the plight of a U.S. citizen, it does show that the United States' method of gathering prisoners after the 9/11 attacks isn't what would be called logical or fair. It also shows that the U.S. has no compunctions about holding citizens of other westernized, ally nations even after being proven that they have no connections to Al Queda or any intelligence value: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/20/terror/main4110731.shtml

Re:Cairo

[Radhruin]

Specifically, the Germans launched Operation Greif, which involved using captured allied vehicles and uniforms behind allied lines. Under the Hague Conventions, executions were allowed, and indeed, 16 people were executed after military trials.

Re:Cairo

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Frankly i hope that we have numerous assassins at work both inside and outside our own borders killing off those that preach death to America, death to Christians, death to Israel etc.. If they spew that rhetoric that is enough to justify being strangled in the night.

You mean the very thing you just spewed? This "strangle in the night everyone who disagrees with me and whom I deem worth of strangling"? But then again, based on your inane post, it is probably too much to hope that you realize that your own very words put you on that very list of yours of people to "strangle" ...

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

"those who desire security at the expense of liberty, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Never say anything on the phone that you wouldn't want your mother to hear at your trial. —Sydney Biddle Barrows

You have encryption. Use it. A 200 year old piece of paper won't protect you.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Postal mail was around then, yet they left that out of the 4th amendment.

No they did not. Papers and effects. Unless you are trying to say the government owns your mail once deposited in a secure mailbox? That explains why it never gets delivered!

Re:Cairo

[Alyred]

I'm not sure that the goal is to give them access to our civilian courts, but to be tried in a court of law where they can mount a defense and the government can bring their evidence to bear, so that people who are being detained illegally get a fair trial. Can anyone really argue against that knowing that there might be people there that aren't involved... and stories that some were sold to military police? Why not have a neutral party (country) try these prisoners so that we can discover who belongs there?

Re:Cairo

[somethingwicked]

You make a good point for Franklin being a very capable writer.

And you feel the extra words do nothing but reinforce your point.

Therefore, it seems unnecessary for the words he used to be left out...UNLESS you believe they DO have a potential to change the quote.

Re:Cairo

[jenn_13]

I think there's a difference between "not liking" someone, and encouraging people to kill them...

Re:Cairo

[deraj123]

The phone is one of your personal effects. The line between your phone (or building, house, etc) and the phone of the person you are talking to is not one of your personal effects. A wiretapping is the searching of that line.

That being said, I do agree with the interpretation that phone calls are protected under the 4th amendment. It's just not so cut and dry as some would like to believe.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the Hague Conventions [wikipedia.org], executions were allowed, ...

The modern Geneva Conventions were put together in 1949 (with significant modifications in 1977) so, strictly speaking, what was legal in WWII is not necessarily legal now.

Re:Cairo

[dwarg]

You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right?

Sure, but then again do you think he had a choice?

Regardless of this and most of your other rebuttals I'll cede them to you, that's why I included the links to the wikipedia articles. I wasn't about to write out their entire life stories so feel free to get additional information.

My apologies about Walker Lindh, I was confused because he and Hamdi were held together in Afghanistan. You pWnz00red! me.

Re:Cairo

[deraj123]

You sound as if you have some knowledge on this subject. Care to enlighten us? I'd find that much more instructive than repeatedly calling the grandparent a dick head.

Re:Cairo

[__aasqbs9791]

If the American people ever forget why the government's power is limited by the Constitution, we'll soon have a government which reminds them.

All good points. And we've already started down that path. The only question now, is how long until people wake up? I fear it could still be quite a while, and the longer people take, the harder and bloodier it will be to fix.

Re:Cairo

[Alyred]

Some were, but I believe the point is that some are/might be being held that are innocent, and we don't know because they have not been brought to trial.

What does it matter which court they are brought to justice in, as long as they are? If they've done something wrong, shouldn't that be brought about by evidence in trial?

Re:Cairo

[joebok]

The original post said, "The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."

From the preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You are right that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens, but the spirit of the parent poster is right on - our values are based on the notion of equality for everyone. We should walk our talk.

Re:Cairo

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

When has the Constitution ever been held to apply to prisoners of war?

There is one Supreme Court case where you may argue that that happened. This case was decided in, um, 2008.

Do you really mean to tell me that all those German and Japanese POWs we captured could have petitioned for habeas corpus?

You should really read the Boumediene majority opinion, since it discusses the case of the German POWs quite clearly.

I think you're implicitly making a common but very crucial, subtle error here: the Constitution isn't a grant rights to the people of the United States; it is a set of restrictions on the powers of the government. The Constitution gives the federal government pretty broad powers to conduct the foreign affairs of the country, so there are much fewer restrictions on how the government can treat POWs abroad. This doesn't mean that there are no constitutional restrictions on the treatment of POWs.

In Boumediene, for example, the SCOTUS pointed out that detainees in the WWII German war trials were afforded the right to question the grounds for their detainment in an adversarial legal process, where they had legal counsel, could see and challenge the evidence that was used to justify their detainment, and could introduce new evidence in their behalf. Basically, those detainees were denied habeas hearings in the USA, but the government still respected the fundamental rights that habeas is supposed to prevent the government from infringing. This is one of the reasons that habeas was granted (as a one-time exception) to the Gitmo detainees; basically, the SCOTUS judged that, in the future, even if such detainees don't need to be given federal habeas, the government should respect their right to challenge their imprisonment in some way.

So, to answer your question: no, the German and Japanese POWs were not granted habeas hearings, but they were granted alternative procedures to allow them to exercise the same fundamental rights.

Re:Cairo

[Jawn98685]

I don't think anything really bad is being done against the American people at this moment.

Think again.

Call me idealistic, but when I have to start even wondering what "the government" is up to, as it does secret things to my neighbors, or me, then the quality of my life has fundamentally changed. I now live in fear of that government. I can not trust it because it no longer transparently acts as my servant.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

Sure, but then again do you think he had a choice?

Everybody has choices. Given the relevant court rulings in his case it seems likely that he could have had his day in court if he had wanted it. I'm guessing that he didn't feel any particular connection to this country and decided to go home instead of having his day in court. He had citizenship by virtue of being born here but both of his parents were Saudi citizens and he was largely raised in Saudi Arabia.

My apologies about Walker Lindh

By all accounts Walker actually got due process and had his rights respected. He was captured 11/21/01, indicted 02/05/02 and plead guilty 7/15/02. Had I been in his shoes I probably would have taken my chances with the jury (particularly given the fact that most of the evidence collected against him likely would have been thrown out), but then again I wouldn't have been serving in the militia of a foreign power to begin with.....

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean to say, alleged to have been captured on foreign battlefields while engaged in combat with US forces. Unless an independent judge is able to review the charges, the detentions are by definition unlawful.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberties aren't "provided" by the constitution! Rather certain powers are granted to the gov't.

Besides, when did I sign the Constitution? Applying it to me makes less sense than the countries of yore declaring ownership of continents.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

The Geneva Conventions also lay down requirements that combatants must meet if they want to receive the protections accorded therein.

As you are no doubt aware, but conveniently ignore, it's actually very complicated. Not only are there multiple Geneva Conventions but there are also additional protocols to the Conventions. Further, there are a variety different protections afforded to different classes of people and the details vary according to which parts of the Geneva Conventions a country has agreed to.

When Al Quada starts fighting in uniform under the command of officers while taking steps to minimize civilian casualties I'll start worrying about the fact that they aren't being accorded POW status.

According to the full modern version of the Geneva Conventions (which the USA refuses to ratify), it's not clear that Al Qaeda would be required to wear uniforms, etc. - it might be enough that they could be distinguished from civilians while they were actively engaged in combat.

Given the fact that none of them even followed the laws of war to begin with we would have been well within our rights to summarily execute them as soon as they were captured.

If it's absolutely clear that they're not civilians then, under the full modern conventions, they might actually be entitled to POW status (regardless of whether they have official uniforms, etc.). If it's not clear whether or not they are civilians then, under the full modern Geneva Conventions, there needs to be due process to determine, at the very least, that they are not civilians.

Either way, summary execution (that is, execution without due process) would almost certainly violate the full modern Geneva Conventions (that is, it would be a war crime).

That's not to say that someone captured by the USA in a foreign country could not, after adequate due process, be punished for either violation of US civilian law or for violation of the US implementation of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war (war crimes), only that there always needs to be due process (but not necessarily civilian due process).

Open a history book and find out what happened to the Germans that were captured during the Battle of the Bugle while fighting in Allied uniforms.

Strictly speaking, the modern Geneva Conventions were put together in 1949 with significant modifications in 1977 so what was legal in WWII is not necessarily legal now.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

The geneva conventions only apply to identifiable members of an opposing army or militia or group of some kind. Once you start hanging around disguised in civilian crowds and using guerrilla warfare, all bets are off. You can't be a prisoner of war if you aren't a warrior in the first place.

Re:Cairo

[daveschroeder]

Or, since we control the intertubes, they could just route it through another country.

No, that's not at all the case.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 says, very explicitly and specifically, that a warrant is required to collect on a US Person, anywhere in the world. That is more strict than the previous law.

The difference is that foreign collection (i.e., collection on non-US Persons) can now occur without a warrant within the US. The digital age was actually creating situations where traffic that used to be intercepted between two non-US Persons on walkie talkies by someone sitting on a Navy ship 250 miles away was now suddenly two cell phones whose traffic was routed through a facility in Chicago -- and suddenly such traffic, because of analog-era law, requires a warrant?

So instead of concentrating on the geographic location -- individuals or intercept points inside or outside of the US -- the concentration is now on the target, and whether they are a US Person. US Persons have more protections under the current law than previous law, and our foreign intelligence agencies can still do the job of foreign intelligence collection without being required to obtain warrants to collect on people who aren't even protected by the Constitution or any US law.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system. As far as I'm concerned the military can hold them until such time as hostilities against our country are ended.

The Supreme Court, despite the popular misreadings of Boumediene, doesn't seem to be too keen on giving them access to our civilian judicial system. If you read the decision at length, this comes out pretty clearly: the court said that alleged enemy combatants have the right to challenge the legal basis of their detention in an adversarial legal process, where they have their own legal counsel, the ability to challenge the evidence against them, and the ability to introduce new evidence. The court also said that this doesn't mean they must be given the federal habeas process, but it granted an exception for this one case, just to bitchslap the executive a bit (and give the detainees some relief).

Re:Cairo

[2short]

I believe the extra words do nothing but reinforce Franklin's point. Is it your assertion that capable writers necessarily write as few words as possible? That they never provide justification for their assertions?

In any case, Franklin is being remarkably concise here. He advises the reader not to trade liberty for security, and, with the addition of mere two adjectives, forcefully explains why: Because liberty is essential, while security is temporary.

But seriously, have you read anything by Franklin longer than a sentence? Do you really doubt he would not support the most lofty, far-reaching interpretation of this maxim possible? To call the man an idealist is the understatement of two centuries. The suggestion that he was trying to define which liberties one ought to give up in exchange for which sort of security is just laughable.

Re:Cairo

[oh_my_080980980]

Oh Budda....yes it was clear you needed a warrant. The 1978 FISA law was clear that you needed to obtain a warrant. President Bush did not and thus was in violation of the law. The Protect America Act of 2007 sought to do an end round the warrant requirement and the renewal in 2008, kept the program going.

The President broke the law period. Protect America Act does not change that.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

I think you're implicitly making a common but very crucial, subtle error here: the Constitution isn't a grant rights to the people of the United States; it is a set of restrictions on the powers of the government

Bravo sir, you just bitch-slapped me with an argument that I've used before. For the record I do agree that the Constitution is a set of restrictions on the powers of the Federal Government and that the Federal Government shouldn't have powers that aren't specifically delegated therein.

The Constitution gives the federal government pretty broad powers to conduct the foreign affairs of the country

Again, bravo for pointing that out. It's rare to hear somebody around here make a reasoned argument. Lord knows that I often don't ;)

but they were granted alternative procedures to allow them to exercise the same fundamental rights.

I think that's what the military commissions were intended to do but SCOTUS apparently thought otherwise. So now what do you do?

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

Postal mail falls clearly under the "papers" category in the constitution...

If it is so clear, then why did it take until 1878, in the case of Ex parte Jackson, for the Supreme Court to decide that postal mail was protected by the fourth amendment? Your reading of the Constitution, though common now, was not always so common.

Re:Cairo

[daveschroeder]

My biggest issue with this is domestic internet communication is semi-routinely routed through other countries and the eavesdropping program has no way to tell whether the 4th amendment is being violated.

No way to tell whether the Fourth Amendment is being violated?

You mean, other than oversight -- and explicit rulings with comprehensive knowledge about how the programs operate, like this one -- by FISC?

Or oversight and advisory of the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress, which is part of their purpose and function?

Or declarations by the Justice Department, when necessary, which will determine whether or not, under the law, an individual is a US Person when there is confusion?

Now if you mean we have no way of telling whether other countries through which internet traffic is routed are intercepting our traffic, you're right. And they are.

Basically, the court just gave permission to the NSA to dragnet anything they want without a warrant so long as they can demonstrate there is a possibility that the communication was to or from a foreigner.

It's a lot more than "demonstrate there is a possibility that the communication was to or from a foreigner". It's that the target of the surveillance is NOT a US Person, as established by legal and other procedures outlined by FISA in general, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, procedural guidelines and restrictions employed by FISC, and by other judicial and legal oversight measures. It's not just a "possibility"; it is a firm, demonstrable belief, under the law, that the target is NOT a US Person, and hence, not subject to warrant requirements.

Additionally, US Persons may have been one piece of a conversation that is subject to foreign intelligence collection in the past; their identities and the contents of communications must be carefully handled and protected if in conjunction with other, legitimate foreign collection. The amended law explicitly states that US Persons cannot be collaterally targeted by targeting a foreigner. Any such collection still must be incidental, and the target must legally and demonstrably be a non-US Person. If a US Person becomes a target for any reason, anywhere in the world, an individualized warrant must be acquired. This is more stringent than previous law.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we're nitpicking, in order for him to have done 5 billion of anything he would need the power of near-immortality in addition to the psychic ability he so obviously had.

Either way, you are applying something he said to a technology which did not exist at the time he said it, so, fuck off.

The government continues to have very strict rules about handling intercepted communications involving US citizens. Have you yet found someone whose civil liberties were violated by the wire tapping? No? Want some balls to lick? Yes? Good boy.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

I now live in fear of that government. I can not trust it

Huh? Said government is going to build you a bridge to nowhere, and supply you with a GM Trabant or Chysler Lada.

Your remarks are clearly racist. Typical white person.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you start hanging around disguised in civilian crowds and using guerrilla warfare, all bets are off.

That depends which version of the Geneva Conventions you're referring to.

The full modern version of the Geneva Conventions, which include the protocols of 1977, only require that combatants be distinguishable from civilians (and not necessarily even with official uniforms) when they are actively engaged in combat. A subtle point, IRC raised by the Canadians, is whether combatants need to be distinguishable from civilians while traveling to combat (but not yet engaged in combat).

Of course, the USA was paying warlords and bounty hunters to kidnap random people in Iraq and Afghanistan and the USA was then torturing these kidnap victims into confessing to being terrorists and sending them to Guantanamo. A few of the people at Guantanamo are actually people who were carrying out attacks on the USA but most just got swept up in the random kidnappings and tortured into confession.

A few innocent people even got tortured so severely that they died ("tortured to death"). There are some documentaries out now if you're interested; "Taxi to the Dark Side", for example.

Kidnapping innocent people in the country that you're occupying and torturing them to death isn't exactly condoned by the Geneva conventions, by the way.

Re:Cairo

[somethingwicked]

To call the man an idealist is the understatement of two centuries. The suggestion that he was trying to define which liberties one ought to give up in exchange for which sort of security is just laughable.

Take a deep breath and read this, it may seem a little complicated to you at first and make you want to get really mad:

I AGREE with YOU.

But that doesn't mean that I must support your manner of defending removing the extra words. That is all. The original quote is fine the way it is. No need to edit his language for him.

Is it your assertion that capable writers necessarily write as few words as possible? That they never provide justification for their assertions?

Actually, I was making the opposite point, thanks. Capable writers often use more words that others might feel necessary.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, anonymous coward, for the pointlessly juvenile perspective. I'll get busy considering you arguments in favor of never having principles and mindlessly trusting the government. Only because you put it so eloquently though.

Re:Cairo

[Libertarian001]

You see it that way because you've never bothered to read the Geneva Convention. They're not in uniform and they don't fight for a recognized, let alone legitimate, government. My stance is backed up by SCOTUS decisions. Yours is backed up by red herrings and ad hominem attacks.

Re:Cairo

[Bj�rn]

This is from the Wikipedia article on unlawful combatants.

The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."

In other words, if the US want to follow international law it should either treat these prisoner an normal criminals and give them a fair trial, or treat them as POW for which the Geneva Conventions apply. Now GWB signed a memorandum the Feb. 7 2002, stating that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to al-Qaeda or the Taliban, but that is not international law, and hopefully just a parenthesis in US history books.

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

The 1978 FISA law was clear that you needed to obtain a warrant. President Bush did not and thus was in violation of the law.

I'm not arguing that what he did was legal, only that the Constitution is silent on the issue of wiretaps. So I can say those actions were illegal but perhaps not unconstitutional.

Re:Cairo

[internic]

When has the Constitution ever been held to apply to prisoners of war? Do you really mean to tell me that all those German and Japanese POWs we captured could have petitioned for habeas corpus?
...
You are confusing domestic law enforcement with alien combatants captured on foreign battlefields while engaged in combat with US forces.

I'm certainly not scholar of constitutional or military law, but this is my view:

As is, I believe, discussed in the Federalist papers, the framers viewed the bill of rights as a set of limitations of the government that reflect some of the "unalienable rights" of every human being (to borrow the terminology of the Declaration of Independence). Today we would call these the fundamental human rights. Since all people have these rights, according to the framework of natural law on which the framers predicated the constitution, the government has no authority to violate those rights. However, the limitations on what the government may do can be somewhat different when applying to a visitor than when applying to a citizen. Concerns of national security are higher in the case of a visitor, and if he does not like his treatment, he can usually simply leave.

Even enemy soldiers in a war retain their inalienable rights, but as always those rights are balanced against the rights of others and necessity. So POWs retain their right to liberty, but they may be held (in a humane fashion) temporarily until the end of hostilities at which point they should be released. This balances their right to liberty against the safety of citizens in a reasonable way.

In WWII there was a relatively clearly defined theater of war in which we could identify enemy soldiers. It was a conflict with a clearly defined set of groups who would eventually win or lose at which point a treaty would be signed ending hostilities. There was, by and large, no need for habeas corpus challenges by POWs, and given the monumental and existential nature of the conflict it would have been totally impractical to hear such challenges. This was a reasonable balancing of the fundamental rights of all parties and necessity.

The problem with so-called enemy combatants is that a) in many cases it's unclear whether they really were enemy combatants (some were even turned over by third parties, not captured by US forces) and b) there is no clearly defined condition that would end the war in question (they are not being held as POWs in a war against any defined group of powers with any clearly defined geographic or temporal boundaries). If people who may or may not be enemy soldiers are imprisoned indefinitely this clearly is a violation of their fundamental right to liberty, not any sort of reasonable compromise. This is precisely why US courts have found that they must have something "substantively similar" to habeas corpus. If the government can show cause that these people be imprisoned, then balance will be restored. It may be inconvenient to hear these challenges, but we certainly are capable of dealing with it, and we must if we mean to maintain our the commitment to the inalienable rights the framers were trying to protect.

Re:Cairo

[deKernel]

If while on vacation I knowingly AND willingly attempted to kill innocent people, I would expect to be thrown into a hole.

The military tribunals have releases people from such military detentions so the process does work.

Re:Cairo

[jd]

In the news today, the Pentagon was ordered to free a man they'd accused of being on one of these suppsed foreign battlefields after failing to provide evidence he was even in the country they supposedly arrested him in. Many of those arrested and imprisoned were captured by bounty-hunters who provided such damning evidence as the culprit wearing a Casio watch. Frankly, if you can't provide any evidence that these people WERE on any battlefield anywhere on the planet, legally or otherwise, then you have little justification for calling them "prisoners of war". And if they ARE prisoners of war, then you are legally required to provide them with all the international safeguards and legal rights that are guaranteed to such prisoners. Providing them with neither the rights of POWs -or- the rights of any other recognized classification of prisoner is simply not acceptable.

The Constitution is the only text guaranteed to apply, as it is the legal document governing the Government. The Constitution is not a document describing the rights of the individual, it is a document detailing the limits of Government. Those limits are carefully specified. Sure, there are recognized parameters, such as commercial speech not being protected under the First Ammendment. Some of these parameters may not be strictly legal, but so far very few have ever been overturned. The right of the President to curtail any clause in the Constitution at whim, simply by claiming war powers, is highly dubious and has usually failed in the Supreme Court when tested. Thus, we can reasonably argue that the suspension of Haebus Corpus is illegal, that the Fifth's guarantees against self-incrimination preclude the use of torture, and that the First prohibits the arrest of an individual on suspicion of being unChristian.

Do any of these affect the ability of an army to protect itself? No. Haebus Corpus means you can challenge your arrest. It doesn't prohibit your arrest in the first place. I would consider being on an active battlefield as an active participant very reasonable grounds for search and seizure. Miranda Rights are unnecessary in the case of a POW, as International Law provides that a person is not required to give anything more than sufficient information for the Red Cross to be able to verify their identity (in pop culture, this is usually given as "name, rank and serial number"). In other words, they already know their rights. Now, if you violate those rights, that's another story. That's a no-no. It's also a war crime. That's one reason the US has been hell-bent on not having those people declared POW. It would involve a sizable chunk of US intelligence and the US military having to explain themselves before the courts. This is also why America didn't want to sign up for the ICJ. It has nothing to do with protecting Americans from false claims, and everything to do with protecting high-ranking officials who happen to also be criminals.

Finally, there are those the courts -and the Pentagon- have ruled already have never been involved in subversive activity, terrorism, or other criminal activity. These people are still not permitted into the US, even though the reasons given for their prohibition are rejected by the very same people who are prohibiting them. That makes sense only as a very sick and twisted act of realpolitik, an effort to avoid looking bad to either side of the fence even when those opposing sides are mutually exclusive.

Re:Cairo

[epee1221]

Are you suggesting that privacy of communication isn't essential liberty or that the giving it up gets us permanent security?

Re:Cairo

[iceperson]

"State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities."

The UN's policy on "child soldiers" has to do with recruiting and doesn't apply here. Even if it did, based on the UN's definition 15 year olds can fight if they choose to.

Re:Cairo

[Duradin]

"Papers", at the time of the drafting of the constitution, were a means of both storing and transmitting information.

A telephone transmits information.

An email transmits information.

Both serve the modern purpose paper had at the time the constitution was written. If you had recorded all your documents on thin sheets of metal instead of paper back then, would you be denied any protection for them because they weren't "paper". Should vellums and parchments require their own specific mentions? Just because paper was the specific medium of physically storing and transporting information at the time does not mean the protections granted should extend solely to that specific medium.

Re:Cairo

[kkissane]

It states "in case" of trial, not that they must be a POW or a Criminal. Nazi Pows who were equally uncooperative were treated very harshly also.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

This is also why America didn't want to sign up for the ICJ. It has nothing to do with protecting Americans from false claims, and everything to do with protecting high-ranking officials who happen to also be criminals.

That's funny, I thought it had something to do with this:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"

Re:Cairo

[2short]

My apologies. Upon re-reading, I realize I entirely misunderstood your post. You were arguing against removing the words, which is mildly baffling, as I never suggested doing so in the first place. But OK, yes: The quote is excellent as it is. Another point upon which we agree.

Re:Cairo

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Not so. There was no controversy about the reading amongst sane people but what occured was simply the result of ever increasing appetite of the government for new powers to "protect" the poor citizens from whatever bogeyman could be conjured at the moment. So it took until 1878 to reach the point in time when the ever expanding governmental powers attempted to cross the line into inspection of everyone's mail. Hence that court case.

That ever increasing expansion of course never ceased, it merely changed course, until finally the government successfully circumvented that ruling by attacking the new technologies which rendered snail-mail obsolete, and with this manoeuvre spelling the death knell of the 4th amendment as well.

All of which was entirely predictable as this insane hunger of power was well foreseen by the Founding Fathers and keeping it at bay was one of the fundamental purposes of the Constitution. Unfortunately the attempt, however clever and visionary, has clearly failed at this point according to available empirical evidence.

Re:Cairo

[internic]

"The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla [wikipedia.org], who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant."

You left out the part where he eventually got his day in court and was convicted by a jury.

He was held incommunicado without charges for more than three years and put into the civilian justice system at the 11th hour to try to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the legality of his detention. He was subsequently convicted, but not of anything directly related to the original claims by the government (that he was involved in a plot to make a dirty bomb). So there doesn't seem to be much reason to think that he ever would have seen his day in court were it not for the legal challenges to his detention.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the Mods who marked this "flaimbait" did not find the humor in the post.

Re:Cairo

[2short]

If while on vacation, some guy says you did those things, would you like the chance to say they had the wrong guy?

Re:Cairo

[osu-neko]

If while on vacation I knowingly AND willingly attempted to kill innocent people, I would expect to be thrown into a hole.

And, by extension of the kinds of policies I expect you advocate, if you are accused of knowingly and willingly attempting to kill innocent people, you would expect to be thrown into a hole.

As you say, there's a chance you might get released at some point. Much less of one, mind you, since you're denied fair trial and such, but hey, you're not a citizen, why should you get any such special treatment like due process, right?

Re:Cairo

[Mr. Slippery]

You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right?

An "agreement" made under duress is no agreement at all.

Re:Cairo

[jd]

Yes, and? The ICJ isn't a court that rules on American law and operates on matters outside United States jurisdiction, so isn't a part of the judicial power of the United States. If it isn't a part of the judicial power of the United States, then the clause doesn't apply. This is why the US can have extradition treaties with other countries, even when those countries do not recognize the rulings of the US Supreme Court as superior to their own law, which would seemingly violate that clause. It doesn't violate it, of course, because again such treaties aren't concerned with the judicial power of the United States. The only thing that is covered by that clause is the ability to arrest people, wich is most certainly authorized by the Superior Court and such inferior courts as otherwise have been established and ordained.

Specifically using clauses like that to prevent due process when it is convenient to do so, but equally specifically defining that such clauses don't apply when that is also convenient, THAT is illegal under that very clause, as it is usurping the role of the Supreme Court to hold the judicial power. The President and Congress, by blocking ICJ membership, claimed a judicial right superior to that of the Supreme Court, which your quote expressly forbids.

Re:Cairo

[NoobixCube]

Of course Patriot doesn't mean American. The Patriots control America. Haven't you played the Metal Gear series?

Re:Cairo

[Chris Burke]

Because the judiciary only rules on cases that come before them, and it wasn't until 1878 that someone tried to get away with reading postal mail without a warrant.

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

Just because paper was the specific medium of physically storing and transporting information at the time does not mean the protections granted should extend solely to that specific medium.

Why? Just because some of the properties of paper are reproducible through phones or computers, doesn't mean that there aren't substantial differences, which should be respected. Why should the same, 200 year old, amendment apply equally to both?

In my opinion, far too much bad legislation and jurisprudence has come from our lawmakers using a very flawed analogy: mail==telephone==internet. We have tried to shoehorn new technology into our constitutional framework, with mixed results. Why are we so dependent on unelected judges to tell us what the constitution means? We should take the power back, and actually change the wording of our constitution when technology renders it obsolete.

Re:Cairo

[2short]

Legal maters that are not clear generate court cases. It took until 1878 for anyone to question the obvious fact that mail was "papers"; at which point the court unanimously smacked them down.

Re:Cairo

[PhasmatisApparatus]

Mod parent up. The internment of Japanese Americans is a sad part of United States history, and is not something to be pointed to as an example of "hey, it's tradition!".

Secret courts and secret prisons exist to be abused by those who are in charge of them.

Re:Cairo

[osu-neko]

The problem is, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, there was no telephone, no e-mail, not even telegraph. The authors of the Bill of Rights covered any kind of communication that could be used to pass private communications at that time. By extrapolation, it is not unreasonable to assume that, had the Founding Fathers envisioned telephones and e-mail, they would have included them in the 4th amendment as well.

Actually, no. The problem with this point of view is that, if it were true, it would make nonsense out of the ninth amendment, which exists purely to insure it is understood that when they did enumerate particular examples of the right being covered, they did NOT mean for that list to be exhaustive. The fact that they list something means it's an example of what is protected, NOT that it is limited only to that. They were very worried about enumerating examples precisely because they were afraid people would take it mean it's limited to those examples, they eventually compromised on providing examples but also making it clear that they don't mean for these rights to be so limited.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

This page outlines American concerns better than I can. These points stick out in my mind although the other ones seem equally legitimate:

* We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
* Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case, the ICC prosecutor, with the approval of two judges from a three-judge panel, could still decide to initiate an ICC investigation or prosecution.
* Such a decision by the ICC prosecutor would not be inconceivable. Features of the U.S. common law system, U.S. constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the U.S. jury system are different than those that apply in most other countries. ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.
* The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.

Re:Cairo

[Mr. Slippery]

You are confusing domestic law enforcement with alien combatants captured on foreign battlefields while engaged in combat with US forces.

No, you are dealing with people who are alleged - often by paid informants - to be alien combatants. These aren't POWs of definite affiliation who will be sent home at the conclusion of hostilities between our nation and theirs; they are either violent criminals, who need to be imprisoned for the protection of the innocent, or they are innocents, picked up by mistake or out of racism or xenophobia or for profit, who ought to be freed.

Given the fact that none of them even followed the laws of war to begin with...

We don't know whether they followed the laws of war or not. That's why we're supposed to have trials, to find out.

Open a history book and find out what happened to the Germans that were captured during the Battle of the Bugle while fighting in Allied uniforms.

And that example would be relevant to a Tajik fellow working in a library arrested by Pakistani secret service agents...how, exactly?

Re:Cairo

[osu-neko]

If it is so clear, then why did it take until 1878, in the case of Ex parte Jackson, for the Supreme Court to decide that postal mail was protected by the fourth amendment?.

Because it took that long for anyone to bring a case before them that questioned it. Unless you can cite a case where they decided differently before 1878, there's no evidence here that it hasn't been clear all along.

Re:Cairo

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I think that's what the military commissions were intended to do but SCOTUS apparently thought otherwise.

You should read the Boumediene majority opinion, even if only superficially. From memory: the military commissions (as amended?) incorporated elements that were the executive's answer to previous SCOTUS complaints that the government was not doing all it could to respect the detainees' rights.

Basically, the commissions had a process for the detainees to request review of their detention, but the process was flawed. The detainees didn't have legal counsel (they were aided/represented by a functionary that was answerable to the military, and there was no client/attorney confidentiality); they were not allowed to see all of the evidence that the military used to justify their detention; they were not allowed to challenge the truth of the evidence that was indeed shown to them; and they were not allowed to introduce new evidence on their own behalf.

I dunno how many of these would have actually been required if we accept the government's assertion that we are at war (which the court did not deny, but which I would certainly lay open to question). I do think the "we're at war" argument could be used in some cases to justify some of these procedures (something which is explicitly recognized in the Constitution by the suspension clause, which however has not been invoked). True prisoners of war can indeed be detained while hostilities continue, and information being so sensitive during a war, it may make sense to withhold some evidence against a detainee while the war is ongoing. Still, not providing detainees independent legal counsel answerable to them, and not allowing them to challenge or introduce evidence, that is clearly too much in my mind.

Re:Cairo

[ncc74656]

Omar Khadr is legally a child soldier

What nation's uniform was he wearing when he was captured?

Yeah...didn't think so. He's not a soldier of any sort; referring to him as such is an insult to those who are. He's an unlawful combatant. He should consider himself lucky he didn't get a bullet to the head when he was captured.

Re:Cairo

[harks]

This is so commonly repeated in the media that nobody questions it, but can you point out where in the Constitution it says that protections of rights only apply to citizens?

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

"On every question of construction instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it,
let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson

I think it's clear that, if phones had existed in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was passed, wiretapping would have been forbidden without a warrant from a judge. That is the spirit in which the constitution was written.

Re:Cairo

[head_in_a_jar]

But that's the crucial difference between the Germans and what's happening now. Those German POWs who had no civil rights and couldn't petition for habeas corpus were guaranteed minimum rights under the Geneva Convention. Bush wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to hold people indefinitely without civilian rights, but also not have to give them the minimum of protections offered under Geneva. In order to do that, he invented out of whole cloth a new category of "enemy combatant" that is neither civilian, nor military, and thus, in their minds, escape all the human rights safeguards that international and domestic law provide.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Goering said:

"Of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Posted as AC to avoid karma from Nazi quotations. :(

Re:Cairo

[FishWithAHammer]

That's from the Declaration of Independence, smart guy. And the Declaration of Independence doesn't have any legal standing.

Our society's values have never been based on the notion of equality for everyone. Ever. They have been based on the equality of potential, if anything at all.

And, of course, a human being has no natural rights of any nature.

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

I think it's clear that, if phones had existed in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was passed, wiretapping would have been forbidden without a warrant from a judge. That is the spirit in which the constitution was written.

I agree that wiretapping would have been illegal without a warrant, had the technology existed; the text of the fourth amendment would have included wiretapping specifically. But I don't think it makes sense to base an entire justice system around guessing what the men who wrote the constitution would have done. They are laws, written laws. The only meaning we should be looking for, when trying to interpret their scope or applicability, should only be the words on the page.

If we don't like what we see when we read the Constitution, we should change what it says; not invent a new way to interpret 200 year old words.

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

I would consider a phone call or data transmission the electronic equivalent to a paper. The fact that I'm speaking, or emailing, instead of pressing ink to page, should not matter. We expect our snail-mail to be secure, and we should expect the same of our voice-mail, e-mail, or video-mail.

We expect our liberty to remained liberated NOT controlled by a gov't official affected by the twin sins of avarice and ambition, and desiring to gather data to throw our ass in jail. This is not why we the people created the government. We created the government to secure our liberty & freedom, not to be puppets of a politician desiring to "set examples" and arrest us so they can score votes in the next election.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

That could never happen.

Re:Cairo

[Pichu0102]

Omar Khadr is legally a child soldier

What nation's uniform was he wearing when he was captured?

Yeah...didn't think so. He's not a soldier of any sort; referring to him as such is an insult to those who are. He's an unlawful combatant. He should consider himself lucky he didn't get a bullet to the head when he was captured.

So then, when he did get captured, he should be tried as a common criminal, in a court of law like other criminals, correct? Or is this a special case in which he shouldn't be afforded basic rights for fighting against the US?

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

>>>why did it take until 1878, in the case of Ex parte Jackson, for the Supreme Court to decide that postal mail was protected by the fourth amendment?

Because, prior to circa 1870, the U.S. Bill of Rights did not apply to the State Governments. They were free to violate citizens' rights whenever they felt like it, and were only limited by their own internal constructs.

So the actual span of time between when the 4th Amendment applied to States, and was enforced by the U.S., is only a mere half-decade. That's "fast" when you consider the normally glacial pace of law.

 

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

As example, even though the U.S. Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of religion, that only applied to the federal government. The States were still free to establish their own state religions because the First Amendment did not apply to them. The States could forbid speech, force everyone to conform to a state religion, search mail, break into homes, and so on.

Then in 1870 (or thereabouts) that was changed.

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

>>>Why should the same, 200 year old, amendment apply equally to both?

So Fuhrer Bush (or Fuhrer Obama) can not scan your private emails and decide you are "instigating terrorism" or some other trumped-up charges, and throw your body into jail. It is the intent of the amendment to protect citizens from such actions, and the fact that we use images or voices, instead of ink on paper, doesn't change the original intent of protecting citizens from politicians.

Re:Cairo

[jd]

US Common Law (which, incidently, US courts routinely flout) is mereley a watered-down version of the Magna Carta. I am sure you are familiar with the country that originated this document and their stance on the ICJ. Ergo, Common Law concerns, whilst they may be legitimate, are clearly not the reason. I'm not saying that the US had no legitimate concerns. What I am saying is that those concerns were only found and exploited because of extremely illigitimate concerns regarding a need to protect US officials and agencies involved in activities that go well beyond what is considered reasonable conduct by a nation.

All nations, for example, practice black ops - activities they can't possibly admit to. But many such operations, even though they'd be horrible international scandals if discovered, are likely to fall into the category of "reasonable", given the circumstances. The consequences of them being known, however, so vastly outweigh the reasonableness that some secrecy is to be expected. On the flip-side, you had POWs routinely tortured then thrown out of helicopters in Vietnam. That's not reasonable and no sane person could ever consider it so. Secret CIA prisons in Romania and Poland, politically-motivated assassinations of non-combatants and other "interesting" facets of the "war on terror" are also very unlikely to be remotely reasonable. The gunning down of unarmed civilians in Haditha produced about the same response as some of the better-known massacres of unarmed civilians in Vietnam - a lot of tut-tutting with no culpability and no responsibility.

Now, look for a moment at the politically malicious prosecution claim. The UK is the "bad boy" of Europe (and has been for a long time) but has not faced a single malicious prosecution. France assassinated a member of Greenpeace in New Zealand and was caught red-handed doing so, but I'm not seeing anyone use the ICJ to harass them. Austria is largely run by neo-Nazis and ultra right-wing extremists (and even elected a former Nazi official, Kurt Waldeheim, as President), a move that has thoroughly upset many who are left-of-centre, but nobody is using the ICJ to punish them for their right to do what they like within their own borders.

Conclusion? The US is not, and never has, feared malicious prosecution. Indeed, it wouldn't matter even if such a prosecution happened, as extradition trials ensure that those probably innocent (such as the pilot the US harassed over in Britain and falsely accused - likely knowingly - of training the 9/11 pilots) never get extradited when the trial is likely without merit. So a request is sent. The request can be denied, the same way the UK High Court denied the US request for said pilot. It is for the prosecutor to prove reasonable grounds. Extradition trials probably demand higher standards of proof than the trials the US are entirely happy holding to determine if someone should be charged with a serious crime.

Aha! Now we might be onto something. Clearly, safeguards are in place against malicious use of the ICJ, but this proving of reasonable grounds might be extremely dodgy. The photographs from Abu Gharib would likely be considered reasonable grounds, for example, and had those not escaped into the media anyway, you can bet every penny in the bank that the US Government would have done all in its power, come hell or high water, to prevent any knowledge of such abuses leaking out. Were the ICJ prosecutor to go to a US court and demand extradition, offering such photographs as "reasonable grounds", it would be a serious blow to the cover-ups we have seen time and again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Having the mockeries of a court matial, where information releases can be tightly controlled, at least keeps some of the Government-sponsored terrorism out of sight. Were ICJ prosecutors to go publishing those facts in open court, as part of an extradition process, it would be severely damaging to those who have worked hard (like Adm. Poindexter) to prevent responsibility from being placed.

It is no coincidence t

Re:Cairo

[MadMidnightBomber]

'Crawford, a Pentagon official who last year was put in charge of military commissions that decide whether detainees should be tried, told the Washington Post: "We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.'
-- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/guantanamo-bush-administration-torture-qahtani

Fuck you very much. If they have no rights, they will be tortured, and you've given your implicit consent.

Re:Cairo

[MadMidnightBomber]

Crawford, a Pentagon official who last year was put in charge of military commissions that decide whether detainees should be tried, told the Washington Post: "We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. -- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/15/guantanamo-bush-administration-torture-qahtani

Except they don't need to wear uniforms to not be tortured but the US did it anyway. Geneva convention FAIL.

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

I have no problem with adding a new amendment that forbids wiretapping phones, email, or videomail, however I disagree that we have to "guess" as to the meaning of Amendment 4. The Founders left behind the Federalist Papers as well as many other written documents to make clear what they thought of the central government (it was dangerous).

Furthermore there's Amendments 9 and 10 which secure non-enumerated rights, such as being secure in your phone calls and correspondence, from the government. Where the text is unclear, the government should side on restraint, not listening to every damn American's private calls, emails, or videomails. This is the United States of America, not the fucking States of Soviet Russia.

We the People expect freedom to conduct our conversations w/o some politician tapping our thoughts & trying to arrest us.

Re:Cairo

[MadMidnightBomber]

If you think a 15 year old deserves a bullet to the head, then

FUCK YOU

Re:Cairo

[MadMidnightBomber]

You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right?

Before or after being tortured?

Re:Cairo

[lupis42]

So the next time you find yourself, say driving without a license, and the cop decides that you must be a furriner cause you don't have any id, and so you get arrested, and while you're sitting in the interrogation room some suit comes in and explains that they planted 500 kilos of semtex in your trunk, "found" your car, and as a result they all get more funding, while you don't get to talk to anyone before we hang you, you would be fine with that?

Re:Cairo

[EllisDees]

You are exactly correct. Anyone captured during hostilities is by default given POW status until a competent tribunal decides that they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who has mistreated, or ordered mistreated these prisoners is a war criminal.

Re:Cairo

[commodore64_love]

Well first off, I was quoting from memory and like Vista, it is often flawed and slow.

Second, I never quite saw Franklin's quote in that fashion. If I were to rewrite him, in a modern newspaper fashion, he is saying: "They who would give up liberty (an essential quality) in exchange for security (which is only temporary), deserve neither." Brilliant. The Congress' attempt to provide security from terrorists has only been temporary, because even though we no longer need to fear the terrorists, now we must fear our own politicians deciding to arrest us because we said something we should not have said, over the phoneline or email. We've exchange one fear for a new fear.

By the way this quote comes from a man who went to the British Parliament, in hopes of ending the war and restoring peace, but the foolish Parliamentarians insulted him and treated him like a country bumpkin. Is it no wonder he despised politicians so much, and described them as "filled with the sins of avarice and ambition, love of money and love of power"? He witnessed for himself the corruption in London - people who were more interested in tearing-down a man carrying a flag of truce, than in compromise with a fellow British citizen. Their only interest in British America was to use it for monetary gain and power plays, and no longer served the People.

Re:Cairo

[kkissane]

Qahtani treatment: * used air conditioning to make his living conditions uncomfortable, twice reducing his body temperature to 92-97 degrees Fahrenheit (33 to 36 degrees celsius); * Conducted 48 days of 20-hour interrogations during a 54-day period; * segregated him from other detainees for 160 days; * threatened him with a snarling security dog during interrogation; * led him around on a leash and forced him to perform dog tricks; * blasted him with loud music during interrogation; * forced him to stand naked for five minutes with women present; * forced him to wear a woman's bra and put a thong over his head during interrogation; * told him his mother and sister were whores; * told him he was homosexual, had homosexual tendencies and that other detainees knew it * forced him to dance with a male interrogator; * prevented him from praying during interrogation; * squatted over his Koran; * poured water over his head.

Re:Cairo

[johnsonav]

It is the intent of the amendment to protect citizens from such actions, and the fact that we use images or voices, instead of ink on paper, doesn't change the original intent of protecting citizens from politicians.

In my opinion, the government shouldn't be able to tap your phone at all, even with a warrant. There is no section of the Constitution which grants the federal government this power. All the fourth amendment does is to give the government limited powers of search in certain, well defined, areas (persons, houses, papers, and effects).

Re:Cairo

[Solandri]

You are part of the problem then. The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not.

This is precisely why Gitmo exists. Prior to 9/11, the SCOTUS had decided that U.S. Constitutional protections apply to U.S. citizens anywhere, but to foreigners only on U.S. territory.

Guantanamo Bay is not U.S. soil. It is Cuban territory, on lease to the U.S. That's why Bush set up the prison camp there. By not holding the prisoners on U.S. soil, they don't fall under the umbrella of the U.S. Constitution's pesky protections, and we're "free" to hold them indefinitely without charges, and to use "creative" methods of extracting information from them.

The courts have been chipping away at this - the initial SCOTUS decision probably should have said U.S. jurisdiction, rather than U.S. territory, to avoid creating this loophole. But it's been slow going. So as distasteful as the OP's opinion may be, it is consistent with the current SCOTUS stance on the matter.

On the subject of these wiretaps, the Constitution was written at a time when people abroad could not interact in real-time with people in the U.S. So it's hard to say how the Constitution applies in this situation because it was penned at a time when the situation would never have even occurred to the people authoring it. So the decision on whether it's legal or not has to up to the courts. You obviously have your opinion on it, and the OP has his. Neither is "right" under our system of law until our court system validates it.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

"...between two or more states." Uh, which state declared war against the United States? What uniform does a detainee wear?

The President was correct in his assessment of the application of the Geneva Convention to al-Qaeda.

Re:Cairo

[theJML]

"Only Nixon could go to China" - Vulcan Proverb.

Re:Cairo

[fugue]

While I am in favor of them getting trials, I don't think they should have the same rights as US citizens.

Uh, why not? Are they less human?

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

FOAD

Re:Cairo

[fugue]

I didn't realize we had battles over simple brass horns..

Not just any brass horns. These ones were way out of tune.

natural rights that every human has

That's just political rhetoric. There are no rights. Perhaps when there were few enough people that you could always walk away from any fight, but now there's nowhere to walk to. Rights are granted to us by those with guns. It's nice when rights are granted to us by our society (and when society gives some people guns in order to protect society), but anything else is just cutesy language to make people feel empowered.

Re:Cairo

[rubycodez]

maybe they were fighting with terrorists. The U.S. Constitution says those citizens have a right to speedy trial. If found guilty, then I would be fine with having them shot for high treason. So yes, I hold them up as shining example, innocent until proven guilty in court of law.

Re:Cairo

[triffid_98]

The Nanking Massacre in China is a sad part of Japanese history, which is probably why they didn't mention it in any of their history books.

Nobody tortured the Japanese Americans, yes they went to camps, yes they weren't compensated, yes it wasn't nice, but it was WW2 and there was plenty of not nice to go around. If these people want to be treated like POW's they should try putting on a uniform.

The internment of Japanese Americans is a sad part of United States history, and is not something to be pointed to as an example of "hey, it's tradition!".

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

If you call punching old ladies and taking their purse or flipping off the red light camera "standing up to the government".

I figure that's about the level you operate.

Re:Cairo

[drinkypoo]

and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.

Just like ours.

Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case

Appropriately according to the United States?

ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.

Yes, they might indeed disagree with us. And they might well be right.

The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.

And I'm not allowed to sue the federal government without getting its permission first.

Some of these objections are complete bullshit, while others apply equally well to the legal system of the USA.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

âoeNaturally the common people donâ(TM)t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and itâ(TM)s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.â
      --- Hermann Goering, Hitlerâ(TM)s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.

Re:Cairo

[drinkypoo]

If this is a "war on terror" then clearly captured terrorists are prisoners of war. Let's just start holding politicians accountable for their actions - and saying something is indeed an action (and a big part of their job.) I do understand that they're not uniformed combatants... But since they aren't, you obviously can't go to war with them. You double-extra can't go to war with a concept.

Re:Cairo

[DeadDecoy]

Well the first line in the Geneva Convention states that it applies to a war between two or more states. Could al-Qaeda or Taliban members even be considered part of a state. I was under the impression that these groups were more a collection of people, maybe even a business, rather than some political or territorial unit acting as a government. That's actually what makes it difficult to either eliminate these groups or negotiate with them: they're dispersed and not beholden to any internationally recognized code of ethics/morals/rules. As such, the Geneva Convention doesn't quite fit.

Re:Cairo

[jrumney]

The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla

No the most disturbing cases are the Canadian citizens who keep getting pulled aside in transit through the US and deported to Syria for torture without ever going near a court and without embassy officials being kept up to date of their whereabouts. Maher Arar has been cleared by a Canadian commision of inquiry of any involvement in terrorism, and there are at least another three Canadian citizens of Middle Eastern descent who have suffered the same fate and are yet to have their cases heard.

Re:Cairo

[lupis42]

That are accused of fighting alongside (or, potentially, simply supporting) terrorists. If I accuse you of fighting alongside terrorists, wouldn't you like to have a trial?

Re:Cairo

[Pseudonym]

Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system.

There is precedent for that. For example, those tried under the millitary judicial system can't appeal to the civilian one.

Having said that, if the system set up to deal with them doesn't guarantee basic rights that any judicial system must, there should be some way to address that injustice.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, which state declared war against the United States?

None. The United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrew the governments of each of those two nations, and conflict is limited to those two countries. It is arguable that Afghanistan, by shielding Bin Laden after 9/11, effectively performed an act of war. No such argument can be made for Iraq. In both cases, just because the US committed military resources to overthrowing the governments without actually declaring war doesn't mean that they weren't at war. It just means that the President was abrogating Congress' power to declare war. He didn't even have the balls to do that with Afghanistan.

What uniform does a detainee wear?

Orange jumpsuits?

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I'm concerned the military can hold them until such time as hostilities against our country are ended. As far as I'm concerned our military doesn't even need to concern itself with taking them prisoner in the first place unless it deems that they may have useful intelligence.

There is an important distinction that you are missing: people arrested and detained as enemy combatants (or unlawful combatants) are not necessarily guilty of any wrongdoing. Do not confuse the two.

A trial in a court of law must be held in order to determine whether the detainee is guilty. Just because a person was arrested does not mean they deserve even the time they spend in prison. Keep in mind that most of the detainees were not "caught red handed" with a pipe-bomb in their pocket, but rather because surveillance of them has uncovered suspicious activity. Mistakes do happen.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am in favor of them getting trials, I don't think they should have the same rights as US citizens. For example, I don't want to hear about Ahmed being found not guilty because someone didn't read him his Miranda rights.

You need to be very careful about how you state this. Basically, following the Insular Cases and other rulings, the SCOTUS recognizes two kinds of rights that are relevant to the Constitution:

1. Fundamental rights: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, freedom from arbitrary searches, right to challenge basis for detention, etc.
2. Rights that have to do with the specific forms of government of the USA: right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, right to a writ of habeas corpus, etc.

Basically, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are several circumstances where the government's power is not restricted by the second type of rights, but it must still respect the first kind. The best example is unincorporated US territories like Puerto Rico, where, for example, Congress is not required to extend the constitutional right to a trial by a jury of one's peers does not exist (Balzac vs. Porto Rico), but still may not deny people of life and liberty without due process.

Boumediene vs. Bush is also a decent example of this; in the end, the court explicitly says that the executive and Congress can deny the formal, federal habeas corpus process to such prisoners, as long as it creates a "reasonable substitute" that respects the fundamental rights that habeas is meant to protect.

There's a more fundamental issue at stake here, which is that casting the issue in terms of what rights citizens and non-citizens should have can lead to subtle mistakes; the more precise question, really, is what powers the government has and does not. Basically, habeas corpus restricts the government's power to detain people within the USA, by requiring the government to provide a certain process for challenges to the grounds for detention. This has nothing to do with whether the detainee is a citizen or not, but rather with jurisdiction. (Yes, the government must provide habeas to aliens detained within the USA, but it also has the power to deport them, which can make the former quite moot.)

Does the government, as part of its powers to conduct the nation's foreign policies abroad, have the power to detain aliens captured outside the USA indefinitely, without a legally fair process for them to challenge their detention? I think the correct answer should be "it depends, but not in most cases."

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

"The United States was once a bastion of the Rule of Law. Today it is a bastion of lawlessness and evil."

Only because the religious nuts attacking us are a bastion of lawlessness and evil.

Re:Cairo

[Repossessed]

To my understanding, the statement against searches has never applied to cross borders situations. This ruling doesn't appear to change anything.

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

US Common Law (which, incidently, US courts routinely flout) is mereley a watered-down version of the Magna Carta. I am sure you are familiar with the country that originated this document and their stance on the ICJ. Ergo, Common Law concerns, whilst they may be legitimate, are clearly not the reason.

I don't know if you've been following the UK lately but they haven't exactly been living up to their Common Law/Magna Carta heritage of late. In any case I fail to see how the UK's decision should negate the legitimate concerns that many Americans and the United States Senate hold. To add another point to my previous concerns, I also find it pretty disturbing that some states apparently seek to add drug trafficking to the list of crimes that the ICJ would have jurisdiction over and I worry about mission creep.

The rest of your points are well made and interesting but ultimately do not convince me that my country should surrender more of our sovereignty to an international organization that isn't directly accountable to the American people. Should the issue come up again I will be exercising my first amendment rights and encouraging both of my Senators to reject ratification of the Rome Statute. If you happen to be an American citizen you are welcome to encourage your Senators to do the opposite. I wouldn't hold out much hope of finding 67 United States Senators willing to ratify said treaty but you never know....

Re:Cairo

[Shakrai]

Some of these objections are complete bullshit

Take it up with your Senators if you are an American citizen. This whole conversation is largely an academic exercise because I doubt you'll find 67 of them who are willing to ratify the Rome Statute.

Re:Cairo

[ppanon]

Yeah, and that's worked really well so far hasn't it? The courts have pretty well let the administration avoid judicial and congressional challenge with either of two excuses a) National Security b) no standing to challenge. As for FISA, they pretty well rubber stamped a newsprint roll warrant with a Liebherr TI 274 truck tire. Reviews indicated multiple violations with hardly a wrist-slap as consequence. Maybe that lets you sleep at night but it's good to see not everyone is that gullible.

Re:Cairo

[bwcbwc]

The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not.

No, that's the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution legalized slavery for 90 years or so, which obviously denied rights to many residents of the country. Further, there ARE certain rights granted to citizens that are not granted to "the people", notably the right to vote.

Re:Cairo

[bwcbwc]

Well most of the legal action in our civil courts so far has been to challenge the claim that they WERE enemy combatants (legal or otherwise).

Re:Cairo

[bwcbwc]

I wouldn't describe Guantanamo as a mere "jail". Not with the level of coercion going on there.

Re:Cairo

[The Wild Norseman]

As example, even though the U.S. Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of religion, that only applied to the federal government. The States were still free to establish their own state religions because the First Amendment did not apply to them. The States could forbid speech, force everyone to conform to a state religion, search mail, break into homes, and so on.

Which was why each state had their own versions of the federal constitution, many being the exact same wording, some being even more strict at what the state government could do.

Re:Cairo

[neomunk]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what, EXACTLY, do you mean by "hostilities against our country" and when do you consider them ended? Being that we're at war with "terror" would that mean that they can be held until no one in the nation is capable of feeling extreme fear?

I'm not trying to troll, and I don't believe that is what you meant, I'm just pointing out how 'fast and loose' definitions aren't enough when we're talking about (possibly innocent) people's lives.

No offense, but I don't think that holding someone who hasn't received a trial prisoner until you feel safe is right.

Re:Cairo

[avoiceinthewildernes]

From the preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Preamble?? Huh? You seem to have gotten your Declaration of Independence mixed in with your Constitution there, son. If you're going to be a jackass about the text, at least get it right!

The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document and as such (of course) only applies to citizens.

As to the substance of your point, the ideals expressed in the Declaration are in no way abridged by treating those who stand outside the law as with respect to us, operating in a declared State of War, in a summary fashion. Civil courts exist when we have mutually accepted their role in civil society. Plainly, lawful combatants do not fit that description. Take a gander at Locke's Second Treatise to get some semblance of a clue on this:

"The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power." -- John Locke

Re:Cairo

[Bj�rn]

I was under the impression that these groups were more a collection of people, maybe even a business, rather than some political or territorial unit acting as a government.

The term unlawful combatant refers to civilians engaged in armed conflict.

Re:Cairo

[MadMidnightBomber]

Gaah, meant to reply to the previous post - http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1093353&cid=26470133 - not your one. Apologies.

Re:Cairo

[mfnickster]

Nobody tortured the Japanese Americans, yes they went to camps, yes they weren't compensated, yes it wasn't nice, but it was WW2 and there was plenty of not nice to go around.

It isn't merely "not nice," it's completely contrary to everything the hypocritical flag-waving hawks claimed to be fighting to defend.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

That became true in a legal sense only after the supreme court changed their minds in 1968.

However, the very first congress of the United States of America,(you know, the one with all the founding fathers in it and all), specifically said that the right of sovereignty was so great that a country should be able to secure it's borders that the warrant wasn't needed for search there. The courts have backed them up on many occasions. So the very same people who wrote the constitution as well as organized and prosecuted the revolution in their very first session of congress passed a law allowing searches without warrants at the borders and ports of the country. The TSP was always about calls and information in which one party was outside the country.

If your going to bring up the constitution and the meanings of it, you sort of have to apply that in the same way the people who wrote the thing did. It's the closest we can have to how they intended it. Almost all of the founding fathers were alive when the it happened and most of them were in the government. None of them objected to the law which has stood since then. An international phone call, in it's very own right is a call that crosses the sovereign borders of the US.

Re:Cairo

[Kashgarinn]

Interesting that it matters where an american was taken and held captive without reason. The fact that this is what they did to an american, and even knowingly used subterfuge so that they didn't have to uphold to the rights and freedom that americans think they deserve.

Which is the more important question "Are there or have there ever been americans in Gitmo", or "Have americans been victims of these terror laws"

I don't give a crap about the first one, it's the second one which is important, and the answer, as seen by your own reply is yes, they have.

Re:Cairo

[teridon]

In WWII there was a relatively clearly defined theater of war in which we could identify enemy soldiers

You seem to be forgetting about the 120,000 Japanese Americans imprisoned simply because they were of Japanese descent. Some of these were U.S. citizens.

Re:Cairo

[N1AK]

I like the hypocrisy of the fact that it's insightful to think that innocent people should be deprived of rights because they are American citizens (especially given the fact that your constitution was written to protect everyone citizen or not) and yet it's trolling to say that someone who has suffered for 6 years without being found guilty of everything deserves more rights than someone who stood by and let it happen.

I have no issue with being branded as trolling, hell I've got Karma to spare and sometimes it's worth getting in people's face in the hope they begin to entertain the possibility they might be wrong. But Slashdot readers voting fascist bigotry and removal of rights as Insightful says volumes.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right?

You mean "after 'agreeing' to renounce his citizenship", right?

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because the religious nuts attacking us are a bastion of lawlessness and evil.

Finally someone recognizing the current US administration for what it really is.

(What, that's not what you meant? Well, it fits so well it's scary.)

Re:Cairo

[Svartalf]

This depends on whether it's finely powdered or not. Get it dispersed into the air as an aerosol, and you've got a bigger danger.

You can clean the "immediate" area for most of it, but the dust will linger for long times and be an inhalation risk- breathe in any bit of that dust and you're screwed. Done right, it would be much closer to how the parent poster describes than how you frame it.

Re:Cairo

[Svartalf]

You're talking the difference between an atomic bomb and a conventional dispersal weapon that spreads nuclear materials that've been weaponized and present a serious health hazard if you breathe in the dust.

In the parent poster's case, if they render unto aerosol the same 13.6 pounds of plutonium, it will be weeks and months before the main mess is cleaned up properly- and if any of the dust is missed, it'll be 100,000 years before it becomes "safe"- and there'll be stuff they miss, rest assured of it. If you bring in a smallish amount of that dust in you're lungs, you're toast.

You'll probably not want to stay there, if the truth's known, because of that little detail.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Delta Force, CIA etc would not be entitled to be considered prisoners of war if captured? They could be disappeared, tried in secret, tortured, executed, etc

Re:Cairo

[amorsen]

The dust is heavy and will likely fall to the ground. You aren't particularly screwed if you breathe in a bit of dust. The deaths from lung cancer will increase, but city air is full of things which cause lung cancer anyway. We don't evacuate them because of that.

See also: "How Deadly is Plutonium? or just the wikipedia article.

The only weapons of mass destruction which actually deserve their name are real nuclear weapons. Possibly some weapons based on high explosives or fuel-air-bombs could be included too, but those are apparently not scary.

Re:Cairo

[shiftless]

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goring

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a trick question. If I'm arrested, I always want what would benefit me. However, I there is a strong difference between mugging someone standing on the corner, getting busted for speeding and committing an act of war on a country by attacking them and killing innocent civilians. There is also a big difference between those and actually picking up arms in hostilities against those countries.

Would I want a fair trial, a chance to be put in regular prison where I would have more opportunities for escape and more opportunities to live more comfortably? Sure I would. Would I expect that treatment if I ever attacked a country either by a terrorist act or by going against them in a battlefield? No I wouldn't. But it sure would be nice to know I could live in comfort while not having to disclose details of the plot or give up any of the accomplices working with me because "I have rights".

Re:Cairo

[internic]

Well, I was trying to address the issue of POWs, which was not AFAIK the claimed status of those in internment camps. Suffice it to say that that was an absurd and unjust exercise in racism. Not to say that there weren't any Japanese-American sympathizers, but imprisoning every Japanese immigrant was just insane. Again, it failed to properly balance the rights of the various parties.

Re:Cairo

[CyberLord Seven]

Thank you to all who posted the quote. It is really relevant to current affairs, in my book.

Re:Cairo

[Rich0]

Yup. Torture is clearly wrong - the US should not stoop to this level.

However, the Geneva Convention actually spells out what should happen. A competant tribunal should assess the status of each prisoner. Those who are designated POWs should be treated accordingly and be repatriated upon cessation of hostilities (which would be immediately - since the wars against the states of Iraq and Afganistan are over). Those who are designated as unlawful combatants should be given a speedy trial and sentenced accordingly. Typically such prisoners tend to fall under military jurisdiction (spies caught behind allied lines and all that).

Certainly in past wars the status of a person engaged in hostile activities not wearing a uniform was not much of an open question. If convenient they would be captured, but typically they'd be hung within a week. They might be offered better deals if it suited the captor from an intelligence value. How do you think the Brits managed to turn just about every spy the Nazi's sent over in WWII? Every one realized they were facing a very speedy execution. A uniformed german pilot who bailed out over the UK would have been detained and repatriated at the close of WWII - they generally didn't become double agents since they knew they had nothing to fear. That's just how it works, and why fighting is best left to those in uniform...

Re:Cairo

[gryf]

RTA, Obama said he was going to begin investigating closing the detainee camp at gitmo. This is a far cry from /actually/ ordering it /done/. If bush said this, you'd admit that it was a dodge.

Re:Cairo

[gryf]

Yes, the declaration of independence asserts all men are equal and enjoy certain inalienable rights. It doesn't enjoin the American govt to provide for the rights of non-citizens wherever they exist.

Likewise, no where do the documents suggest that the government is expected to protect the rights of enemies of the state at the expense of the citizenry.

At the time the Constitution was written, it was considered legal to shoot enemy spies caught on the battlefield or elsewhere with only a minimum of proceedings. If it was self evident the person was a spy, no trial was considered necessary.

Over the centuries nations agreed to certain rules, admitting explicitly that combatants and agents fell outside civil justice systems. Al Qaeda and their allies purposefully violate all of those rules to advance their goals.

This makes finding the balance between protecting citizens from it's enemies and protecting citizens from their government difficult. Labeling anyone who believes there is a difference between citizens and their enemies a 'problem' does not help anyone in striking that balance.

Re:Cairo

[ncc74656]

Omar Khadr is legally a child soldier

What nation's uniform was he wearing when he was captured?

Yeah...didn't think so. He's not a soldier of any sort; referring to him as such is an insult to those who are. He's an unlawful combatant. He should consider himself lucky he didn't get a bullet to the head when he was captured.

So then, when he did get captured, he should be tried as a common criminal, in a court of law like other criminals, correct?

That's not what the Geneva Conventions provide for unlawful combatants. They're regarded no differently than spies and saboteurs, for whom summary execution is permitted. War is not a law-enforcement exercise; to treat it as such is a fool's errand. If he wanted the protections afforded common criminals, he should've taken up murder, rape, and/or other crimes against his own people. (Of course, if he had done so and been caught, he most likely would have long since become worm food...criminal justice in that part of the world is rather rough-and-ready.)

Re:Cairo

[jp10558]

So wait, special forces (who often don't wear uniforms or wear uniforms without insgnia) are excluded from POW statutes?

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'When has the Constitution ever been held to apply to prisoners of war?'

The only example of prisoners of war you will find would be iraqi soldiers captured on the battlefield. Everyone else was captured for potential criminal acts.

Don't take the 'war on terror' lingo too seriously.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'When Al Quada starts fighting in uniform under the command of officers while taking steps to minimize civilian casualties I'll start worrying about the fact that they aren't being accorded POW status.'

Would you feel the same way about our special forces units? It isn't as if we do more than pay lip service to avoiding civilian casualties.

In any case, we went to war with Iraq (that war is already over) not terrorists.

Your argument is circular, either they are POW's and should get rights under the geneva convention or they are criminals and should be recognized to have the same rights we believe every human being has innately. You can't have it both ways.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'Mind you, I'm completely opposed to torture but I draw the line at giving enemy combatants (whether accorded POW status or not) access to our civilian judicial system.'

'Enemy combatant' is just a made up term with no meaning. You have criminals, and soldiers, either they are one or the other. Lets not forget, there are plenty of people locked up with absolutely no evidence or even valid suspicion against them.

But Guantanamo isn't the only camp we should clear out, we have a network of prisons abroad where the local government is detaining and torturing people on our behalf. That network needs shut down as well.

Re:Cairo

[jp10558]

What? Legal documents only apply to citizens? If you come to the US and break a law or have broken a law, even as a non-citizen, you'll go to jail...

As to contracts or some such, anything you have inside the US can be bound by a US legal document, whether you're a citizen or not. What the heck are you thinking here?

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'Nobody tortured the Japanese Americans'

Where did you get that idea? Have you ever actually met people who were in those camps? I knew a woman who was. The stories and the scars she shared suggest otherwise.

We also tested eugenics programs on the prisoners. Just like the Nazis.

Re:Cairo

[joebok]

Yes, the declaration of independence. Whatever, it clearly states the values of the founding fathers was that EVERYONE should be free and be treated equally. The constitution and the amendments go further to encode those values into law.

I am not making a legal statement, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in a system based on freedom and equality for all that systematically denies such considerations to groups of people.

For your Locke quote to be relevant, it seems you must make the case that everybody that was spied upon via the warrentless wiretap program was threatening the US with destruction. That is obviously patently absurd.

In other words, just because we CAN do something it doesn't mean we SHOULD. Warrentless wiretaps, even of non-US citizens, is clearly not in the spirit of the high values espoused by our founding fathers.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"'

Since the constitution gives them the power to enter into binding treaties and we entered that one I think international war tribunals would fit neatly in that requirement.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'I don't know if you've been following the UK lately but they haven't exactly been living up to their Common Law/Magna Carta heritage of late.'

And we have? We haven't honored our common law heritage since the civil war.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'enjoy certain inalienable rights. It doesn't enjoin the American govt to provide for the rights'

The two are implicit. The declaration is recognition of both the rights and the fact that they can not be alienated by a government, including our own. Since it was very clear that it was physically possible to alienate said rights when the document was written this is clearly an order for government.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

I agree. The administration are war criminals. They are guilty of war crimes, they have violated the constitution, they have committed treason against the people (and so has this court) during wartime.

The punishment for treason during wartime is death. I don't think we should execute a sitting president (we should have impeached him) but now that he is a civilian again, Bush and company should be executed for treason.

As a nation we must send a loud, distinct, and clear message that this sort of abuse by government will not be tolerate. That they ARE accountable.

We won't though, because we will tolerate abuse, and they aren't really accountable anymore. Americans don't have the balls to be free anymore.

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

'That's not what the Geneva Conventions provide for unlawful combatants.'

So he is an iraqi or afgani soldier or even a citizen of those nations who attacked our soldiers during conflict? There are probably a few of those in gitmo, but there are a hell of alot more 'suspected terrorists' that had nothing to with our wars with those nations. Just because we like the phrase 'war on terror' doesn't mean we get to pretend 'terrorists' who aren't part of an actual military engagement aren't to be treated as if they were citizens engaging in unlawful acts (even violent ones).

If an illegal mexican killed a citizen on the street they would tried as a criminal, not an 'unlawful combatant'.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

yup, because the one they stumbled on and publicized was likely the only one. Riiigggghhhht.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'I assume he then thinks it would have to be updated with every new technology'

Probably not with every new tech. It just needs new wording. It should explicitly protect communications. A communication is a communication regardless of medium and that should stand over time.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'or we can change the Constitution to say exactly what we want now'

Unfortunately 'we' of the present day is not someone I want to start fiddling with the constitution. Maybe if there was some honest element in government but there simply isn't, our government is bought and paid for by corporations with little concern for the people. Why pay attention to the people when history has shown that media coverage will get you re-elected and corps will provide the money to get you that.

Re:Cairo

[hesiod]

If these people want to be treated like POW's they should try putting on a uniform.

Perhaps they can't afford ten thousand matching uniforms (especially after buying all those guns).
Perhaps they don't recognize the Geneva Conventions.
Perhaps they would recognize the Geneva Conventions if they could read.
Perhaps they do not feel any attachment to their country's leaders and only want to fight against those invading it.

Re:Cairo

[triffid_98]

Japanese Prisoner of War Camps

There were more than 140,000 white prisoners in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Of these, one in three died from starvation, work, punishments or from diseases for which there were no medicines to treat.

Prisoners of the Japanese found themselves in camps in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and other Japanese-occupied countries.

Prisoner of war camps in Japan housed both capture military personnel and civilians who had been in the East before the outbreak of war.

The terms of the Geneva Convention were ignored by the Japanese who made up rules and inflicted punishments at the whim of the Camp Commandant.

Re:Cairo

[Thing 1]

The TSP was always about calls and information in which one party was outside the country. [...] An international phone call, in it's very own right is a call that crosses the sovereign borders of the US.

Exactly. That's why our phone companies built out international call centers in Mexico and Canada. Now, even domestic calls can be routed through those call centers, and deemed "international" since they do in fact cross a national boundary (twice!).

This does not make me feel safer, though.

Re:Cairo

[Thing 1]

Undoubtedly? Years before that list was written? Really? I had no idea. He doesn't mention his psychic abilities in his autobiography.

Ah, so you haven't read his posthumous autobiography.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

What does that have to do with the United States rounding up Japanese-American citizens, caging them and then torturing and sterilizing many of them?

Are you really trying to claim that someone else abusing captured soldiers justifies us abusing and torturing our own civilian citizens?

Re:Cairo

[Anonymous Coward]

Plutonium isn't all that deadly. You'd clean the immediate area, and life would go on.

This is America we're talking about. You'd clean up the immediate area, build a massive sculpture and fret about it for the next three decades while waging an ineffective War Against Radiation.

(Anon post due to mod points)

Re:Cairo

[amorsen]

This is America we're talking about. You'd clean up the immediate area, build a massive sculpture and fret about it for the next three decades while waging an ineffective War Against Radiation.

laugh. Yes, you're probably right.

Re:Cairo

[triffid_98]

I'm pointing out that you can blame the USA all you want, conditions for our prisoners were nothing like that. And I'm citing a reference. Would you like to cite some of those?

Are you really trying to claim that someone else abusing captured soldiers justifies us abusing and torturing our own civilian citizens?

Re:Cairo

[radtea]

While the law you cite is correct, it is not the whole of the law. The Optional Protocol applies in this case, and the United States pretends to be a signatory.

Of course, enough Americans are liars to have basically destroyed your economy with dishonest lending practises and fraudulent commodification of risk, so it hardly matters that you try to maintain this pretence.

Re:Cairo

[shaitand]

'I'm pointing out that you can blame the USA all you want, conditions for our prisoners were nothing like that. And I'm citing a reference.'

You cited a reference for something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The way the Japanese treated their prisoners is an entirely different discussion.

As for citations, no, history is written by the victor. The documented evidence is that the Japanese-American citizens were detained in structures with no toilets or kitchens and several were shot. You can find that much at wikipedia. For the rest I only have first hand accounts of people I met who were in the camps and the scars I saw with my own eyes. Maybe that isn't good enough for you. Honestly, I couldn't give a fig.

Eugenics in the United States is well documented and was even cited by Hitler as inspiration for the Nazi program. The last sterilization in the United States was performed in 1981 according to Wikipedia.

'the USA'

I blame the government. This really isn't a democracy anymore and the people have no say in what occurs. Maybe you think things are just fine here but personally I think we should start slowly stepping backwards from this religious war. Then we need to focus on the civil war that is needed to win our country back (or to shape it into the nation we pretend it once was).

Re:Cairo

[Maxmin]

The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla [wikipedia.org], who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant.

You left out the part where he eventually got his day in court and was convicted by a jury.

And convicted of charges that were almost completely unrelated to the original reason for his detention, for conspiring to detonate a "dirty bomb." That later changed into conspiring to blow up buildings with natural gas. He was finally convicted of, essentially, conspiring to conspire to commit murder.

Padilla's was test case by the Bush administration to see how far it could extend its claims of executive power, imo.

There's no doubt in my mind that Padilla was up to something, but he hadn't done it, or even conspired on a specific plan.

Re:Cairo

[ncc74656]

So wait, special forces (who often don't wear uniforms or wear uniforms without insgnia) are excluded from POW statutes?

If they're going in like the guys in The Unit (assuming for the sake of argument that that show is anywhere close to the reality of things...I can't say whether it is or isn't), I suspect not. They're a bit smarter than the average bear, though, which means they're less likely to get caught.

Re:Cairo

[The Spoonman]

Off topic, but I can't reply to the original post....I gladly owe you breakfast!

Re:Cairo

[OakDragon]

Off topic, but I can't reply to the original post....I gladly owe you breakfast!

Wow, you remembered! Well, let's not worry about that, let's just wish our new President all the best.

Re:Cairo

[OakDragon]

Also, found the original convo: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254937&cid=19977769

Re:Cairo

[The Spoonman]

Are you kidding? I've never been happier to be wrong, how would I let it slip!? :) And, like our new President, I believe in the power of technology and use it to help me remember. :)

Re:Cairo

[sumdumass]

What? Legal documents only apply to citizens?

Constitutionally, yes and no. The constitution doesn't provide this directly but laws and treaties made lafully and according to the constitution extend this/these protections and effects. Unfortunately, that also means that laws and treaties can remove them if passed right. A simple law can't override a treaty so we would have to deal with any of those first then make laws removing those protections.

If you come to the US and break a law or have broken a law, even as a non-citizen, you'll go to jail...

Well, yes and no. No in that some people are immune from prosecution so they won't go to jail. These are typically diplomats, their immediate families, and personnel necessary for them to be effective and safe of foreign countries asked into the United States for purposes of some advantage to the United States. Now, when someone inside the jurisdiction of the United States break a law of the United States, they are subject to the Jurisdiction in which they are in. The exception, often referred to as diplomatic immunity in the movies, shows that this isn't always the case. No where in the constitution or current law does it provide that an American or any foreigner can violate any law without suffering the penalties. But with the case of diplomats, there is a legal latitude that allows this because the constitution itself does not mandate authority over non-citizens even though laws and treaties have extended it's coverage.

Certainly, neither congress or the president could say person X who is a US citizen is immune from prosecution of any law he breaks. But they can for non-citizens asked into the country for foreign relations.

As to contracts or some such, anything you have inside the US can be bound by a US legal document, whether you're a citizen or not. What the heck are you thinking here?

Sort of. A contract made in England and signed in England is only enforcable if law and treaty has made it so. Fortunately for us, this has happened. However, contracts that are illegal in the US cannot be enforced by the US. An example of this might be slavery in Africa where it is legal. US law will follow a US person to any place in the world he goes unless that place has a law addressing the same thing. We have laws against slavery and involuntary servitude so if an American living in Africa buys slaves and someone steals them, they can't sue in US courts for the recovery of that property. But if someone steals 10 acres of land, they because of numerous treaties, can sue for recovery of the value of the land and attach that against any assets they hold within the US.

It gets complicated because the processes that makes things appear as they are were all made in accordance with the constitution and therefor are highly constitutional but they aren't automatic nor included in the constitution. The constitution is a legal document intended for "We the people" and even set out later to describe who "We the people" are and how outsiders can become one.

Motherfucking son of bitch.

[seanadams.com]

This right on the heels of a god damned act of treason by
Supreme Court just yesterday: http://www.freep.com/article/20090115/NEWS07/90115015

Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?

And just in case anyone out there is still Hoping for Change starting next week: sorry, the New Boss supports this shit too - and he's a "constitutional scholar"!

Every last one of these sons of bitches should be in jail.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FireStormZ]

"Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?"

A communication coming in abroad is no different than a package. The government has *always* had a right to intercept foreign shipments and communications. The 4th applies to American citizens *in* America not aything about people who are not Americans or persons (be they American or not) overseas.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[megamerican]

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

        --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

In other words, it isn't very hard for 5 lawyers to screw things up for everyone!

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[oodaloop]

Every last one of these sons of bitches should be in jail.

What, without a speedy trial by a jury of their peers? Isn't that unconstitutional?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Well, on the bright side, the ruling you cited was 5-4 with the five conservative judges yay and the four liberal judges nay. We can hope with fingers crossed that one of the conservative scumbags retires or dies very soon.

FISA's ruling is total madness. That's almost like a small-town judge being arrested for peeping in some poor woman's bathroom window and being caught jerking off in the bushes only to find himself innocent after presiding over his own trial! Good ol' state-sponsored voyeurism.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[amiga3D]

careful there...you know this is going into the database. Don't be surprised if you find yourself in a "reeducation facility" sometime down the road. Read the writing on the wall. It's coming and the general populace not only accept it but many demand it. So they can be "safe." I'd suggest thinking about what you say in terms of how it might be interpreted by a chinese style "domocracy." anon

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every last one of these sons of bitches should be in jail.

No, every last one of these sons of bitches should be taken out and shot.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Shakrai]

We can hope with fingers crossed that one of the conservative scumbags retires or dies very soon.

Scumbags really depends on your point of view and the particular case in question. I can think of at least three cases off the top of my head where the so-called liberal justices were the scumbags:

Gonzales v. Raich: The Federal Government can arrest cancer patients for using cannabis even where such use is legal under State law. The liberals (joined by Scalia and Kennedy) all voted in favor of it. O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas opposed it.
Kelo v. City of New London: The State can seize your private property for the benefit of private (i.e: Wal-Mart) development. The Liberals (joined by Kennedy) didn't have any problems with this. Scalia, O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas all dissented.
District of Columbia v. Heller: The Liberals all dissented in this case, which held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Apparently that's too much freedom for them.

Those are just the ones that I can think of off the top my head. Trust me when I say that the Liberal wing of the court is no better at protecting our rights.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[commodore64_love]

I'm surprised, because during the last major ruling (Can D.C. residents own guns?), it was the conservatives who voted "aye, the Constitution protects that right" and the liberals who voted "nay".

It seems the judges are not ruling based upon what the Constitution says, but purely upon partisan lines. Liberals hate guns so they vote "nay, guns are not allowed" but they like drugs so they vote "aye, throw out the warrantless search". And ditto the conservatives in the opposite directions.

It's as if the judges are randomly choosing to protect the parts of the Constitution they like, and rejecting the parts they dislike.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[demachina]

You leave out the interesting case where the person abroad is a foreign correspondent for an American news agency. Its been established by whistle blowers that journalists have been a particular target of this eavesdropping, along with aid workers. You are in fact trampling freedom of the press if you let the government read and listen to all the emails and phone calls of a journalists without a warrant. It allows the government to immediately identify all of the journalists sources unless the contact is only made face to face which is pretty constraining. It places an immediate chilling effect on an independent press and on anyone telling a journalist anything. This is a big plus for the government and military which would prefer the public not know about all their dirty laundry.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[$beirdo]

Our system of jurisprudence in this country, and therefore any sense of American "freedom" is, frankly, complete bullshit.

Get used to it.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[jo42]

Welcome to the Fascist States of Amerika. Land of the Surveiled and home of the Cowardly.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Hatta]

The NSA wiretap program involves nothing more than a signal splitter. This device duplicates ALL communications going over the wire. Not just the ones going overseas. What gives them the power to record domestic communications?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Hatta]

What are you talking about? There are no liberals on the Supreme Court.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[adiposity]

Liberals hate guns so they vote "nay, guns are not allowed" but they like drugs so they vote "aye, throw out the warrantless search".

Read his post again. Liberal justices voted TO arrest legal cannabis patients.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[LordKaT]

I think what this proves is that the terms democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, etc... are all just labels that are supposed to define one rigid way of life.

Labels are a really fucking stupid because most people cannot be defined by one word, but rather as an amalgamation of opinions, each one differing slightly as situations change and evolve.

Calling someone a liberal or a conservative simplifies things for us - to determine who we would vote for - but also simplifies that person to a single statement.

Quite frankly, I view terms like that as on par with nigger, spic, and wop - words that simplify people to a social stereotype.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Junior J. Junior III]

Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?

I can; It's still very handy as a doily.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FireStormZ]

The entire reason for a judicial branch is to make sure the law is justly applied consistent with the constitution. Thus if a journalist is communicating from overseas and its nothing then nothing should be done and, yes, the listening should not be done without *some* probable cause. And that is where the legislators and courts come into play.

Now I do have a problem with the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' method of intelligence but thats not what this case was about.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

>>>We can hope with fingers crossed that one of the conservative scumbags retires or dies very soon.

If that does happen the illegal searches will be stricken by the 5-4 liberal court (good), but private ownership of guns in D.C. or other jurisdictions will be declared illegal (bad). So all you've done is trade one Constitutional freedom for the loss of a another.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[evanbd]

The rights enumerated in the Constitution, like all human rights, apply to all people -- citizens or no. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to abridge those rights simply because the person in question is not an American citizen.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why he said "so-called"?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[darkmeridian]

The exclusionary rule is an artificial judicial construct that is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). The Fourth Amendment only guarantees freedom from illegal search and seizure. Introducing illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case is neither. Excluding illegally-obtained evidence is meant to deter police misconduct but the public pays the cost in freed criminals. If the official misconduct was TRULY not intentional (setting aside your cynicism) then there is no deterrent purpose.

The exclusionary rule can have potentially horrible effects when applied. In Williams v. Nix, the suspect in the murder of a little girl was transported by a police officer who promised the defense attorney that there would be no questioning during the trip. (The suspect was seen carrying a rolled-up rug with little legs sticking out of one end, but when apprehended, there was no body or rug.) Instead, the officer started a soliloquy that about how he was just going to speak, and was not asking the suspect to say anything. The officer then pointed out that it was Christmas, and that the victim's family will now never be able to celebrate Christmas as it was now the anniversary of their child's death and not Christ's birth. He then elaborated that even if the suspect later told where the body was, the spring melt might wash the body away from the hiding place. The suspect then led the cop to the body, which was tossed into a culvert.

The trial court ruled that this constituted an interrogation even though there was no physical coercion. Thus, it was an illegal search in contravention of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the body and the suspect's confession had to be excluded, and remanded to the trial court. The trial court then held that the discovery of the body would have been inevitable because search parties were assigned to the area where the body was hidden, and the officials in charge of the search swore up and down on a stack of holy books and all that was dear that he had specifically instructed the search parties to look at culverts.

On the second appeal, in Nix v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that evidence derived in derogation of Fourth Amendment rights could be used where the discovery would have been inevitable despite the interrogation. It took at face value the trial court's evidentiary finding that the discovery would have been inevitable. The conviction was affirmed.

You might uphold the exclusionary rule as a valuable protection of a constitutional right, but make no mistake that it carries a very heavy price. And it has no constitutional basis, and has no democratic support. I think we watch too much Law & Order and think the rule was set in stone, but it was actually a relatively new invention, having been enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio in the fifties.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought I would say this, but... Ron Paul for SCOTUS? It's becoming more apparent that the Libertarian stance on government would best serve us as the tiebreaker vote there...

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[LeafOnTheWind]

District of Columbia v. Heller [wikipedia.org]: The Liberals all dissented in this case, which held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Apparently that's too much freedom for them.

The liberal justices were correct in this case. All available precedent, as well as the conventional interpretation of the amendment itself, has supported the theory that the 2nd amendment gives a collective right to gun ownership. It only gives an individual right if you ignore the first half of the sentence. The ACLU prevents a clear explanation of the position.

I do not support overactive gun control and may even support an amendment that includes individual gun ownership, but the idea that the Constitution does as written is ridiculous.

The majority opinion even presented a compelling argument for Kelo v. City of New London, arguing that eminent domain could be used for public purpose. From Wikipedia:

Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring opinion, in which he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a challenge to an assertion of government purpose in the eminent domain context. However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and welfare regulation in the scrutiny regime. Because Kennedy signed on to the Court's majority opinion, his concurrence is not binding on lower courts. He writes:
"A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]â¦.a careful and extensive inquiry into âwhether, in fact, the development plan [chronology]
[1.] is of primary benefit to . . . the developerâ¦, and private businesses which may eventually locate in the plan areaâ¦,
[2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the cityâ¦[.]â(TM)"
Kennedy is also interested in facts of the chronology which show, with respect to government,
[3.] awareness ofâ¦depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating the validity of this concernâ¦,
[4.] the substantial commitment of public fundsâ¦before most of the private beneficiaries were knownâ¦,
[5.] evidence that [government] reviewed a variety of development plansâ¦[,]
[6.] [government] chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand andâ¦
[7.] other private beneficiaries of the project [were]â¦unknown [to government] because theâ¦space proposed to be built [had] not yet been rentedâ¦."

The Gonzales v. Raich case was not about anything you cited. The decision was based almost entirely on the Commerce Clause. Their decision was iffy, but it does fit very well with precedent, which has established the Commerce Clause as almost infallible in these situations.

Honestly, I can not say one of your examples is solid. If you really want a questionable liberal legal decision, take a gander at Roe v. Wade. (Disclaimer: I am a Democrat and support legal abortions in the United States.) That decision was a legal travesty: the foundation of the decision was the 4th Amendment, insinuating that the right to have an abortion is equivalent with the right of the people to be secure in their persons. The decision in this case was just so broad and overreaching that I see its legal foundation as almost laughable.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[johnsonav]

I do not support overactive gun control and may even support an amendment that includes individual gun ownership, but the idea that the Constitution does as written is ridiculous.

The Constitution does specify the individual's right to owns guns. The Supreme Court just said so. Unless you ignore the last 200+ years of American judicial practice (since Marbury v. Madison), the Constitution means exactly what the Supreme Court says it does.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fucking scary. Sounds like I'm taking that "extended vacation out of the country" that I've been thinking about for years before the country decides to give me one against my will.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[2short]

"A communication coming in abroad is no different than a package. The government has *always* had a right to intercept foreign shipments and communications."

According to whom?

"The 4th applies to American citizens *in* America not aything about people who are not Americans or persons (be they American or not) overseas."

Really? Which part of the fourth amendment says any of that? Could you quote the passage? I know, I'll help you out; here's the 4th amendment in it's entirety:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"Citizen", "overseas", "American"... I don't see those words. Could you point them out for me? Or are you talking out your ass?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. When I worked for the government, we were instructed that the 4th amendment applied to US citizens abroad as well. Meaning that the government can't do things it wouldn't be permitted to do to a US citizen here simply because they're out of the country.

The constitution is a limit on what the government can do to its citizens anywhere. It doesn't just apply when US citizens are in the US.

Of course, a US citizen is still subject to the laws of the land wherever he/she is at a given time.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The 4th applies to American citizens *in* America not aything about people who are not Americans or persons (be they American or not) overseas.

Does it? I don't think it actually says that in the text.

It seems to me that constitution doesn't apply to *any* individual people at all: it doesn't say what we *can* do, it says what the government *can't* do.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[kingcobra0128]

You know whats funny about the fourth amendment you live in a world where free speech is illegal :P

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Poppa]

I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby, but aren't responsible enough to use a gun for protection.

It's amazing how they can decide that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not mean what it says.

So, by collective right you are saying that our rights are not being infringed by denying a DC resident to have a gun because someone in Montana can have one? Or by saying the National Guard is allowed to have guns?

What do you think the point of the Second Amendment is?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[OnlineAlias]

This is an interesting summation, thanks. However, didn't your statement culminate by saying the conviction was affirmed? I prefer that the police and prosecution have to work very hard to get a conviction. I also prefer to let some of the guilty off in order to keep the innocent from going to jail. Seems that Blackstone's formulation is going from about 10:1 to 2:1. I'm starting to get afraid for my chances...

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sixth amendment doesn't say anything about peers.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FireStormZ]

"The rights enumerated in the Constitution, like all human rights, apply to all people -- citizens or no. "

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, nope that oft repeated steaming pile is incorrect..

"I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens** think these securities necessary" -- James Madison

"That common law right was held only by citizens and those who swore allegiance to the Government, It did not include everyone present on American soil." U.S. Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres

--

One only needs to look at the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments to see specifically that Rights enumerated in the constitution are intended to address only US citizens. Now some of these are extended to foreign nationals on US soil and some we recognize to be absolute truths for all mankind but those provisions are enumerated and defined with extra constitutional laws..

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Man On Pink Corner]

All available precedent, as well as the conventional interpretation of the amendment itself, has supported the theory that the 2nd amendment gives a collective right to gun ownership.

The reason such precedents and interpretations are wrong can be easily understood by studying what the framers actually believed at the time they wrote the Second Amendment. If you had even suggested such an idea as a "collective right" to the authors of the Constitution, they would have laughed in your face, and then called a bailiff to toss you in the drunk tank for a weekend to sober up.

They had just fought a war with personally-owned weapons.

Don't like the Second? Then work to repeal it. Don't piss on the whole Bill of Rights by trying to subvert it.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where I differ heavily in my interpretation of the Bill of Rights/Constitution, and the consequential treatment of foreign and domestic citizens.

I believe that if we wish to be the shining beacon this country was supposed to represent, then the rights enumerated by our laws should extend to all human kind. To violate those rights simply because the communication extends out of this country is unacceptable in my view.

If your premise of who the rights extend to differs, then our problem is not one of warrantless wiretaps; it is one of a bigot who only cares about the rights of Americans vs. someone who cares about the rights of all humans regardless of where they're from.

Mod this Troll or Asshole or whatever you like, but all humans deserve those rights. There's nothing special about you, you just had the luck of being born in the right place. You're no more deserving of those rights than anyone in any other country. You just got the luck of the draw.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby

Stopped reading here. Fetus != baby

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[JoshuaZ]

This right on the heels of a god damned act of treason by Supreme Court just yesterday: http://www.freep.com/article/20090115/NEWS07/90115015 Dude. Chill. First of all, that isn't treason by any stretch of the imagination. One of the other things in the Constitution (which I gather you care about given your comment) is a very narrow definition of treason. From Article III, Section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Bad court rulings aren't treasonous. While we're at it, let's examine the court case in question. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that in certain contexts evidence from a search was still admissable if someone mistakenly thought they had a valid warrant. That's not necessarily a good idea and at least 4 very good legal scholars disagreed with it but that's not a completely off the wall idea. Keep in mind that many Western European countries often don't suppress evidence at all when there are problems with a search, although the cops in question may be sued or disciplined. The 4th Amendment is still strong. It isn't as strong as it was in 1998 and that should worry us. One is of course also entitled to disagree with this court decision but there's no need for hysterics or calling to put "Every last one of these sons of bitches should be in jail" especially given that four justices dissented from this decision.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[kabocox]

And just in case anyone out there is still Hoping for Change starting next week: sorry, the New Boss supports this shit too - and he's a "constitutional scholar"!
Every last one of these sons of bitches should be in jail.

I support the death penalty for every successfully elected politician. My theory is that they need to serve a prison sentence equal to their term length with a death sentence at the end. This would be for every elected position. If people wouldn't run for an office, then we make a little app that selects a random lat, long inside the US and sort of the government prize crew shows up and gives the person the job. They don't get the death penalty or prison sentence though.

It can't be worse than our current system.

My other idea is having a fixed number of laws that congress or any of the other federal agencies can operate by. If the public, congress, or president wants to change anything, then they've got to pick an existing law and remove/replace/update it with the new one. There should be a word count limit and limited to a single sentence. Say under 50 words.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FireStormZ]

"I believe that if we wish to be the shining beacon this country was supposed to represent, then the rights enumerated by our laws should extend to all human kind."

really? all people everywhere have the right to bear arms? Or do you just mean in the US? What about felons?

Sorry but the US has, traditionally, had far looser immigration standards than foreign nations and while someone is here but is not yet a citizen then while the basic principles of our rights should apply the extent should be limited until such time as they are full participating citizens of our nation. I say this as the grandson of immigrants and the husband of an immigrant.

The US has no authority to enumerate rights for all peoples, we are not the good and perfect. Our constitution is a social contract between the government and citizens you have to be one or the other to participate in that contract.

"If your premise of who the rights extend to differs, then our problem is not one of warrantless wiretaps; it is one of a bigot who only cares about the rights of Americans vs. someone who cares about the rights of all humans regardless of where they're from."

Rights for non citizens exist in American but they are not constitutional laws, rather they are the regular laws passed and then vetted against the constitution for their integrity. Biggotry has nothing to do with it.

"Mod this Troll or Asshole or whatever you like, but all humans deserve those rights"

There is not even an agreement into what some of those rights are for citizens (e.g. 2nd amendment) you now think the US should be the arbitor of what rights should exist for all mankind?

"You're no more deserving of those rights than anyone in any other country. You just got the luck of the draw."

If by 'luck of the draw' you mean my grandfather came here and gave up all ties to his homeland, swore and oath and I have obeyed the laws and signed up for selective service (the draft) at 18 then yea.. sure whatever.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[amorsen]

It's amazing how they can decide that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not mean what it says.

That amendment has needed changing forever. Almost everyone agrees it doesn't apply if the particular arms we're talking about are nuclear. In order to avoid the interpretation making nuclear weapons legal to keep at home, you're forced to play word games with the first half that you didn't quote. Once you start down that road, there's no telling where you end up.

Not that I believe that people should have a right to keep or bear arms, but then I'm not a US citizen and I don't live in the US.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Shakrai]

I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby, but aren't responsible enough to use a gun for protection.

My favorite liberal contradiction is to hear them talk about police brutality in one discussion and then in the next discussion use the existence of the police as the justification for why we don't need privately owned guns. Mind you, I don't think police brutality is a good thing but it does seem like quite the contradiction doesn't it?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FrankieBaby1986]

From the article you linked: "Like the lower courts, the Roberts majority said the mistake arose from negligence rather than a deliberate effort to deprive Herring of his rights."


WHEN THE HELL would anyone ever ADMIT that they were deiliberately trying to deprive Herring of his rights? This statement is worthless as intent of law enforcement is very difficult to prove wrong.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Azh Nazg]

Actually, it's more than that; it states what the government can do. If it's not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, then the government can't do that. Of course, our Constitution has been trashed ever since the idea of "inter-state commerce" got broadened into something rather asinine...

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby, but aren't responsible enough to use a gun for protection.

It's amazing how they can decide that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." does not mean what it says.

So, by collective right you are saying that our rights are not being infringed by denying a DC resident to have a gun because someone in Montana can have one? Or by saying the National Guard is allowed to have guns?

What do you think the point of the Second Amendment is?

I'm a "liberal". I'm "pro-choice". I also have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

Fuck you and your idiotic generalizations. Screw your labels, I don't think you're representative of anyone but complete fucktards.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[darkmeridian]

It's easy to say in the abstract. But if the murderer of your seven-year old daughter was let free on technical grounds, you might rethink your position.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[elrous0]

Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?

Technically, the cops still need a warrant if they kick down your door and shoot you on a Thursday, between 2 and 4 p.m. local time. Any other time they don't. But for those two hours, your Constitutional rights are still sacrosanct.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[blueforce]

Cool it, Bennie.

This won't help your case.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[idiotnot]

That decision was a legal travesty: the foundation of the decision was the 4th Amendment, insinuating that the right to have an abortion is equivalent with the right of the people to be secure in their persons. The decision in this case was just so broad and overreaching that I see its legal foundation as almost laughable.

Actually, that's not the holding at all. A right to privacy, while not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, exists. The 4th Amendment argument merely adds support to that right, which is covered by the 9th and 10th amendments.

And in light of the two decisions that preceded Rowe ( Griswold v. Conn. , and Eisenstadt v. Baird), no other verdict can really be reached. A right to privacy exists, and absent compelling government interest (in the case of abortion, to protect potential life) that cannot be violated.

The question is at which point that compelling interest attaches.

(Full disclosure....I'm generally conservative, but pro-choice, pro-capital punishment, and don't have a problem with many of these tactics, because they've been used to battle drug trafficking for years. But I support legalization of drugs, too, so we don't have to use them.)

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[catmistake]

The 4th applies to American citizens *in* America not aything about people who are not Americans or persons (be they American or not) overseas.

Actually... The U.S. Constitution doesn't say much about "citizens." The best you can do is the 14th Amendment, also a note in Art. 4 Sec. 2, and neither make mention of how the Constitution ONLY applies to them.

Most Constitutional academics will tell you the Bill of Rights, for instance, is for ALL PEOPLE, citizen or not... and you can check the Preamble for the first three words as the best available citation for whom the document should be applicable (why not "we the citizens?").

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[LeafOnTheWind]

So then segregation is legal? Because the Supreme Court said it was in Plessy v. Furgason.

I'm not sure you understand the way stare decisis works. Just because you took a civics class in high school doesn't mean the law works just as simplistically. Essentially, the Supreme Court holds certain decisions as persuasive in deciding future cases. Many cases have different levels of persuasaveness in deciding future cases in the same vein. In this case, the Supreme Court went against generally accepted precedent to establish a new interpretation which, in my opinion, was highly influenced by politics.

Accepting the Supreme Court's most current decision as lawful and binding is not the same as accepting an interpretation as constitutional. If you really wish to argue stare decisis and revision of stare decisis, the ACLU had a number of amicus briefs and other legal documents that detail the position on their website. Whether or not this right-leaning Court's decision will stand is simply something we will have to wait for.

P.S. Mods: If my post was offtopic, so is this entire subthread. Flamebait would have been the better choice if you didn't like what I said.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[johnsonav]

So then segregation is legal? Because the Supreme Court said it was in Plessy v. Furgason.

As reprehensible as it was, yes, segregation was legal and constitutional at the time; right up until it was found unconstitutional by a future court.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[tonyreadsnews]

What about international calls to and from Americans *in* America?

I believe the 4th Amendment still applies to them.

If no warrant is needed, who knows who they listening to, and whether they have the right to listen. Even if it isn't being used against Citizens now, who would know if they started doing it later?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's amazing how frequently conservatives use the tactic of oversimplification. You aren't even willing to paste that entire sentence!

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[LeafOnTheWind]

OK, minor history lesson here. The Constitution was written after the Revolutionary War, where former British colonists rebelled against (mostly) taxation without representation and subsequently fought a war for independence from the British. You may remember the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The thing is, it's more than a little difficult to "throw off such Government" when the government owns all the guns. Instead, the idea was that the People could form their own self-regulated militias which could not be stripped of their weapons. If the time came when the government evinced a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it was the duty of the People to hold an organized revolt and throw off the halter of said oppressive government. Hence the full text of the amendment you so naively truncated

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is not a right for individual gun ownership, it is a right for collective gun ownership in order to preserve the ability for the People to lead an organized upheaval.

Now, whether or not a new amendment should be passed in order to grant such an individual right is a different issue, but one that I am not necessarily opposed to.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FireStormZ]

"What about international calls to and from Americans *in* America?"

Two Americans, both of whom are located in America? I believe a warrant is required and this decisions does not impact that.

"Even if it isn't being used against Citizens now, who would know if they started doing it later?"

That's a slippery slope argument..

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[HappyEngineer]

What if letting the murderer go free also maintained a right which allowed my brother to go free and prevented the police from manufacturing evidence against my son? I think I would maintain my position in that case.

That's really what this is about. Giving the police/government a free pass to do what they want doesn't just punish the guilty.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[jd]

There are no rights of the individual in the Constitution. It is a legal document drawn up between the States to define what the Federal Government could and could not do. The only rights that exist in it are rights of the Government. Where rights are mentioned at all, such as in the 2nd, they are used only as an illustration of how to establish when the Government has exceeded the authority granted. The Constitution is not a legal document and defines no law.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[geekboy642]

It's easy to say in the abstract. But if you were convicted to the electric chair for a murder you didn't commit, you might rethink your position.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no rights of the individual in the Constitution. It is a legal document drawn up between the States to define what the Federal Government could and could not do. The only rights that exist in it are rights of the Government.

The right to free speech is an individual right. The right to free exercise of religion is an individual right. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The right to be secure in your papers and effects is an individual right.

The document does define what the Government can and can't do in respect to these rights, but it must explicitly recognize those rights to do this.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Cowmonaut]

There was a time such comments would be graced by me ignoring them. Another when they filled me with anger. Now, I sadly think those that say it may be on to something. Something bad, and very sadly real.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[internic]

The government has *always* had a right to intercept foreign shipments and communications.

Well, except for since 1978 when the FISA statute has limited that power in certain ways, which is what has been at issue in the case of Bush administration warrantless wiretaps.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[jd]

No, it says the Government may not curtail those rights, but says nothing about individuals having those rights. This is why, for example, slave ownership was acceptable for so long. The Government wasn't the body curtailing the civil liberties. It's also why workplaces are quite entitled to censor employees - the workplace is not the Government and so not subject to those restrictions. The comma in the 2nd Amendment is there, for example, specifically because the "right of the individual" is not something the 2nd can cover and therefore it needs to distinguish between the Constitutional restriction on Government and the effect it is intended to produce. The right is the intended end result, sure, but that is merely the expressed desire and not the expressed control.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[2short]

"it does seem like quite the contradiction doesn't it?"

Yeah, those straw men sure are wacky.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[2short]

"What do you think the point of the Second Amendment is?"

I think the point had something to do with a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state... Can't remember where I got that idea though; nobody arguing against gun regulation seems to have ever heard the phrase. You'd think people who love a particular amendment so much wouldn't misquote it so consistently. You'd almost get the idea they think it weakens their case.

For what it's worth, the problem with the second amendment isn't that some people misunderstand what it means. The problem is that everyone does, intentionally. The second clearly enshrines the inalienable right of every individual to own nuclear bombs if they want to.

Calling someone a stupid liberal because they incorrectly interpret the second amendment a very slightly different way than you incorrectly interpret it seems a bit daft.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Chris Burke]

The exclusionary rule is an artificial judicial construct that is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). The Fourth Amendment only guarantees freedom from illegal search and seizure. Introducing illegally-obtained evidence in a criminal case is neither.

How exactly are you free from illegal search and seizure if the evidence seized illegally is introduced at trial? Sounds exactly like being the victim of illegal seizure, with the approval of the judiciary.

I've always thought of the exclusionary rule as essentially a corollary to the 4th Amendment, much like the judicial power to strike down a law that is in conflict with the Constitution is a corollary to the Original Jurisdiction clause which says "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority". If the court rules that a law passed by Congress violates the 1st Amendment, that law is an illegal law, and you don't keep the illegal law on the books. You don't let a thief deposit their illegally obtained money in their bank account. And you don't let the state present illegally obtained evidence in court!

Otherwise, what the hell does "illegal evidence" even mean? That the cop might (but almost certainly won't) face disciplinary action? What does that have to do with the Constitutional right? Is the logic that the violation of rights has been committed, and having been violated, there is no more reason to consider protecting them?

The 4th Amendment doesn't say anything about whether the police violated your rights on purpose.

Excluding illegally-obtained evidence is meant to deter police misconduct but the public pays the cost in freed criminals. If the official misconduct was TRULY not intentional (setting aside your cynicism) then there is no deterrent purpose.

Yeah, other than 1) deterring the police from getting sloppy about their procedure because they know any mistake they make -- like kicking in the wrong door -- won't cost them the conviction and 2) deterring the police from "accidentally" repeating the mistake.

Seriously, if we're going to allow the police to use evidence they found by arresting the entirely wrong guy as long as we think they didn't really mean to, then how exactly are we going to identify when they are TRULY abusing their power? It'll basically take demonstrating a systematic history of abuse, which might work but then means they've been abusing their power repeatedly up to that point. I mean we really won't know if they TRULY did or not, if I take the caps there to imply some kind of magical truth detector.

No, illegal obtained evidence is not acceptable, whether the law was broken intentionally or not.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[noidentity]

Seriously, can anyone tell me ANYTHING whatsoever that the 4th amendment does now?

Executive toilet paper?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[LeafOnTheWind]

You make a very good argument and I'm pleased to see a reference to Griswold v. Conn. because it's very important. In Griswold, the court did indeed infer a "right to privacy," but they did it through the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights. This I can't disagree with.

However, the problem with Roe v. Wade isn't that they came to the wrong conclusion, its that they came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Instead of relying upon the Bill of Rights, they formed a right to privacy from the 14th Amendment's (sorry, that was a typo in the first post) due process clause. In fact, it was the theory that they deprived a woman of liberty without due process that led to the eventual Roe argument.

The second problem is that Griswold was actually a more precisely worded case than is often suspected. The result of Griswold is that one cannot forbid the use of contraceptives, as that would intervene in the "circle" of privacy, however it is certainly possible to pass a law forbidding the sale of contraceptives without violating that "privacy." While the words "right to privacy" are repeated ad nauseam, their foundation was far more limited before Roe was decided.

A good reference is the book by liberal law scholar Kermit Roosevelt III, The Myth of Judicial Activism. I'll quote the passage dealing with right to privacy here:

The path to Roe begins with the Supreme Court's 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Court struck down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. The Court's opinion relied on various provisions of the Bill of Rights to find a "zone of privacy" protected from state intrusiion.

Griswold focused on the question of enforcement against a married couple.. and the "privacy" it protected bore some resemblence to the ordinary understanding of the word: it related to intimate activities conducted out of public view. By "forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale," the Court wrote, the state had chosen to achieve its goals in the most intrusive way possible. A statute whose enforcement required prying into the private conduct of a married couple could not be sustained. Read carefully, Griswold did not announce a general right to contraception. If anything, it suggested that a law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives would be acceptable: enforcement of that law would not have the same destructive impact on the marital relationship.

The concept of privacy quickly changed form, however. In the 1972 case of Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court struck down a Massachusetts ban on the sale of contraceptives. Eisenstadt read Griswold to establish a right to contraception, and then ruled that the right must extend to unmarried persons as well. "If the right of privacy means anything," the Court wrote, "it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarrented governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

Eisenstadt understood "privacy" to signify a right of autonomy in making important decisions. The inclusinon of the reference to childbearing as a protected decision was entirely gratuitous, but it clearly laid the groundwork for Roe. In Roe, the Court assumed that the Due Process Clause protected certain "fundamental rights" unmentioned in the Constitution. I will discuss that assumption in more detail later, but even granting it, a basic question remains. How should the Court decide whether abortion is one of those rights? The Roe opinion does not explain; instead it simply asserts that the right of privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Dracophile]

I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby...

Unless you're saying that liberals support fourth-trimester abortions, I think you may have meant "embryo".

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded, Thirded, Fourthed and Fifth'ed if I may include my family.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how liberals think. They are responsible enough to decide when to kill a baby, but aren't responsible enough to use a gun for protection.

Conservatives, on the other hand, would rather force women to give birth, and then throw a tantrum when they're asked to chip in for the resulting child's education and feeding. Hilarious!

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[demachina]

If the judicial branch is allowing warrantless wiretapping of overseas calls how is the judicial system supposed to do ANYTHING about eavesdropping on journalists without probably cause. The warrant IS the process by which the judicial system decides what is constitutional eavesdropping and what isn't. As soon as the judicial system abandons the warrant its abandoned all enforcement of the constitution in this area. The U.S. government can apparently listen to anything it likes, any time it likes as long as the communication is crossing the U.S. border, and it can most definitely use it to undermine freedom of the press, right to privacy and the need for probable cause for eavesdropping on an American citizen's communications with others.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[dataninja]

I bet you $5 USD that if we were to force the senators writing for example the tax codes and laws that affect your pocket none them of them would be able to complete their own tax forms without fuc#$%@ the form. See, it's every where.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[darkmeridian]

You're making shit up. The exclusionary rule applies to real evidence that was obtained illegally. The cops are not making up evidence, just the rational for getting evidence. In these instances, the excluded evidence really is valid.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[darkmeridian]

I'm just stating the law. When you introduce illegally-seized evidence, you are not searching or seizing; by definition, that part was already done. There is no constitutional interest in excluding evidence.

Also, when you exclude evidence, the defense wants to do so because the evidence is true and incriminates t heir clients. In this case, they charged the guy for carrying a gun and methamphetamines, which he was carrying. It's not like the cops planted those things on him. Their seizure was mistaken but he actually was breaking the law by carrying the meth and the gun.

You see?

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[neomunk]

The document does define what the Government can and can't do in respect to these rights, but it must explicitly recognize those rights to do this.

Because the 10th Amendment doesn't matter? Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.....

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[neomunk]

Certain seemingly strange points of view start to make sense once you realize that many people like to define the word "person" or "people" in a way that excludes those who aren't part of some special club. In this particular case, the club is "U.S. Citizen", but the idea is far older than that.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[neomunk]

I'm not buying this 'both ends of the line have to have U.S. Citizens on them to be protected' bullshit, and from the looks of it, not too many people are.

Let me make this painfully obvious to you. -I- (yes, me, an American citizen) have a right to protection from government search of my communications (papers). If I'm talking to Johnny Badass, an Australian National, you're trying to tell me that the U.S. has an inherent right (not enumerated by the Constitution BTW) to tap Johnny Badass (just because he's not a Citizen), and that I, the one with the explicit protection from such nonsense, are in fact S.O.L. because... see, this is where I get stuck.

I can't possibly figure out why Johnny Badass being born in another country negates or invalidates MY Constitutional right. I'm not buying the whole "we're only listening to one side of the conversation" bit, because we both know that's a damn dirty lie (listening to one end of a phone conversation is a great recipe for bad intelligence).

Am I expected to just be understanding of the situation, or do I have to actually feel grateful for losing my rights because of your fear? After all, they're "protecting my freedoms" against people who "hate us for our freedom" right? Suggesting that I give up freedoms in this case is no less an act of trolling than a GNAA first post.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[FireStormZ]

"I'm not buying this 'both ends of the line have to have U.S. Citizens on them to be protected' bullshit"

You are leaving out the both people need to be in the US for protection and if they are, citizen or not, they are protected.

"and from the looks of it, not too many people are."

On /., imagine that..

"Let me make this painfully obvious to you. -I- (yes, me, an American citizen) have a right to protection from government search of my communications (papers)."

Not when you're crossing a border you don't.

"If I'm talking to Johnny Badass, an Australian National, you're trying to tell me that the U.S. has an inherent right (not enumerated by the Constitution BTW) to tap Johnny Badass (just because he's not a Citizen)"

If Johnny is in the US than no their is no right to tap but if he is in Australia the communications is crossing aa US border and is *no* different than a suitcase.

"I can't possibly figure out why Johnny Badass being born in another country negates or invalidates MY Constitutional right."

For the same reason that crossing a border negates it..

"Am I expected to just be understanding of the situation, or do I have to actually feel grateful for losing my rights because of your fear?"

You never had a right to cross a US border without search, you have not lost anything..

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[neomunk]

You are leaving out the both people need to be in the US for protection and if they are, citizen or not, they are protected.

Where do you get that interpretation from? I don't see it mentioned in the text we're talking about.

The rest of your point relies on the following quote being true, which I do not accept.

If Johnny is in the US than no their is no right to tap but if he is in Australia the communications is crossing aa US border and is *no* different than a suitcase.

Foolishness. I cannot smuggle ANYTHING but information over the phone line. Period. I can smuggle ANYTHING in a suitcase, as long as said item meets the physical geometry limits of the suitcase. This property of phone lines (the inability to transfer anything but information) makes them most CERTAINLY different than a suitcase. I cannot fax you a nuke, I promise.

Re:Motherfucking son of bitch.

[plasmacutter]

You leave out the interesting case where the person abroad is a foreign correspondent for an American news agency. Its been established by whistle blowers that journalists have been a particular target of this eavesdropping, along with aid workers. You are in fact trampling freedom of the press if you let the government read and listen to all the emails and phone calls of a journalists without a warrant. It allows the government to immediately identify all of the journalists sources unless the contact is only made face to face which is pretty constraining. It places an immediate chilling effect on an independent press and on anyone telling a journalist anything. This is a big plus for the government and military which would prefer the public not know about all their dirty laundry.

Take file, encrypt in rar, e-mail, offer to pass the password over instant message clients.

Oh well

[pembo13]

It's not like they don't have what's best for you in mind.

Re:Oh well

[demachina]

Since they can read your email and listen to your phone calls they also know what is IN your mind.

Re:Oh well

[gnick]

It's not like they don't have what's best for you in mind.

Actually, in all seriousness, I believe that they do. I think that all the paranoia about them trying to enslave our minds to support some massive corporate/governing elite by censoring our movements, restricting our speech, and stripping our rights away is nonsense. I think that the Intelligence agencies and probably better than half of our governing body is motivated (mainly) by wanting to do what's best for us and keep us safe.

The problem is that their idea of what's "best for us" may not line up with mine and I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily abandon rights because it may-or-may-not make some minimal impact on my safety that would be dwarfed by efforts on the non-terror front. I don't so much question their intentions (although I don't object too loudly when other people do - blind trust is usually a bad idea), I just object to their methods.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's probably even simpler than that. It is, after all, politics. If they can make us believe that they have our best interests in mind (whatever that may be), we'll vote for 'em.

Re:Oh well

[Hordeking]

It's not like they don't think they have what's best for you in mind.

Fixed it for you. Just because legislators think they know what's best for me doesn't mean I agree with that conclusion.

Re:Oh well

[Anonymous Coward]

You are naive. The most generous view would be that government employees want to keep their jobs, and a terrorist attack will endanger their employment. Thus they will lock down the country even if they must examine every rectum for WMDs to avoid anything happening on their watch. It's kind of like the bureaucratic machine has decided that human beings are too unreliable to be trusted with carrying out the mission, and is reading their lips to ensure its purpose. If the government could only eliminate everyone who wasn't a government employee, terrorism would cease to exist.

Re:Oh well

[Hatta]

I think that all the paranoia about them trying to enslave our minds to support some massive corporate/governing elite by censoring our movements, restricting our speech, and stripping our rights away is nonsense. I think that the Intelligence agencies and probably better than half of our governing body is motivated (mainly) by wanting to do what's best for us and keep us safe.

The intelligence agencies believe that enslaving our minds, censoring our movements, restricting our speech, and stripping away our rights is what's best for us and keeps us safe. You're both right.

Okay...

[girlintraining]

Well, in the fine tradition of our founding fathers then, let's assemble publicly, choose representatives from amongst us, and then send them out internationally to work towards encrypting the network and locking it down, taking away the ability of our government to spy on us at the network level. You don't play well with others, and soon you'll have nobody to play with. Simple. Of course... who will bell the cat?

Re:Okay...

[commodore64_love]

A better plan is to have 3/4th of the 50 States Legislatures call a Constitutional convention, and amend the Constitution to clarify certain key aspects such as "strike the common welfare clause", add that "all INTRAstate commerce shall be the exclusive purview of the individual State Legislature", and "all evidence collected without warrant will be thrown out, no exceptions".

Or something along those lines. The details can be worked-out in the convention.

Re:Okay...

[cjb658]

Seriously, why don't people use encryption? I always assume someone is tapping my Internet connection if I don't use it.

Of couse, sometimes that doesn't matter.

Exhibit B

Re:Okay...

[jd]

We did. It's called the IETF. They did. It's called IPSec. Now what's your problem again?

Shocker there

[14erCleaner]

The rubberstamp court rubberstamps a government request.

Riots?

[cHiphead]

So what time do the riots and looting start? I'm not off work til 5pm but I gotta pickup the kids and get them home by 6pm, oh and I have to watch an episode of House MD before I can head out. On second thought, I do have to work tomorrow and don't want to be inconvenienced, so lets put them off until its warmer outside as well, maybe next year, or the year after?

*Goes back to staring at the god box and doing as told.

cheers.

Re:Riots?

[Bios_Hakr]

Plus, we have to get up in the morning anyway. No point in protesting for a few hours when I have bills to pay and would just have to leave anyway.

A real protest would involve thousands of armed citizens chained together around the White House. And thousands more chained around Congress. And they'd stay there until justice was served.

But, we all have bills to pay and families to feed and jobs to keep. So why bother...

Why not?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

If the warrants can be issued retroactively, then there is really no point in getting the order except as some sort of CYA. The damage has already been done, so it's nothing more than a rubber stamp.

If you're going to set the system up that way, why don't you cut out the whole dog and pony show and just allow intelligence agencies carte blanche. The result is the same, and it saves money.

Re:Why not?

[huckamania]

The FISA court is simply recognizing that no one has a right to privacy when making an international call. Freedom of Speech does not make any guarantee of privacy, nor does Freedom from Search & Seizure exist at the border. The NSA program specifically targeted phone calls between the US and a foreign country.

The FISA court still needs to exist to temper abuse for domestic wire taps.

I've explained this several times on this site and I'm glad to see the court has finally figured out how to read.

Re:Why not?

[Hatta]

If the warrants can be issued retroactively, then there is really no point in getting the order except as some sort of CYA.

Getting the warrant allows the evidence to be used in court. No warrant - no evidence. At least until yesterday.

Re:Why not?

[element-o.p.]

nor does Freedom from Search & Seizure exist at the border

Only because "We the People" allow the government to take this stance. The 4th Amendment provides protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure. The courts have interpreted border searches to be "reasonable" but that by no means proves that this is what the Founding Fathers intended.

I've explained this several times on this site...

That doesn't mean that this interpretation of the 4th Amendment is correct -- it just explains why *you* believe it is correct. As *I've* explained several times on this site, I disagree with your interpretation of the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, since I am just Joe Sixpack rather than a Supreme Court justice, my belief doesn't carry much weight as far as legal interpretation goes...nor, I suspect -- with all due respect -- does yours.

Re:Why not?

[Chris Burke]

The FISA court is simply recognizing that no one has a right to privacy when making an international call. Freedom of Speech does not make any guarantee of privacy, nor does Freedom from Search & Seizure exist at the border. The NSA program specifically targeted phone calls between the US and a foreign country.

Then why did FISA (before any ammendments in the last two years) explicitly state that any communication where any party to said communication was either a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, or any person legally within the United States, required a warrant?

Re:Why not?

[huckamania]

How exactly is the NSA or anyone for that matter expected to know whether the participants in a conversation are US citizens? Are they supposed to break in at the end and ask? "Hey, guys, uhm, just to cya, none of you are from the US, right?"

Can you imagine this scenario? "Hello, this is Osama Bin Laden. On the phone with me is Chris Burke, an American citizen. Please turn off any wiretaps."

Would the NSA spook listening in count as a party to said communication? As a US citizen that would make every phone call in the world illegal to tap, unless we outsource to India.

Naive? Yeah, I think so.

Re:Why not?

[Chris Burke]

How exactly is the NSA or anyone for that matter expected to know whether the participants in a conversation are US citizens? Are they supposed to break in at the end and ask? "Hey, guys, uhm, just to cya, none of you are from the US, right?"

Naive? Yeah, I think so.

Ha! If you don't think they can know who the participants on one side of the conversation are, how do you think they figure out who the other side is either? Do you think they just start randomly tapping lines and hoping one is Osama bin Laden? Yeah, you are pretty naive.

Here's a hint: It's perfectly legal for the government to get the telecos to tell them who is calling who. This is how they figure out both that they person they are tapping is the one they want, and that no U.S. Persons are involved in the call.

Obviously it is possible for this determination to be incorrect, and you may be surprised to learn that the law covers that too. If the recording of the U.S. person was merely incidental, it can be redacted, and if it is believed that the person will be in contact with the target regularly, then they get a warrant.

Here's another hint: Somehow they were able to manage to comply with the law before the warrantless wiretapping program began. So go tell them how naive they are.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, all we have to do to make mass wiretapping of us citizens legal is to redirect all traffic though a server in the virgin islands>? Great!

Sweet

[flaming error]

So the FISA court just ruled itself irrelevant?

Re:Sweet

[NewmanKU]

This is just for international communications coming in and out of the US. FISA is still valid for domestic communication. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this really only means they don't need a warrant immediately, they will still have to go through FISA to get a longer term warrant. This "warrantless" program just gives them a few extra days of immediate listening instead of having to wait the few days it takes to get a warrant and miss some valid data.

Re:Sweet

[TaoPhoenix]

"In other news, 3/4 of the staff of the FISA has been laid off. A secretary still answers the phone to schedule tours for third graders though."

Re:Sweet

[2short]

Um, no.

"FISA is still valid for domestic communication"

You know the "F" is for Foreign? It has never had jurisdiction over domestic communication.

"Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this really only means they don't need a warrant immediately, they will still have to go through FISA to get a longer term warrant."

I hearby correct you, for you are wrong. The "warrantless" program is about not getting a warrant ever. Getting a warrant a few days after you start listening is the procedure they would have us believe was not fast enough, hence the need for the "warrantless" program.

Re:Sweet

[Random BedHead Ed]

"In other news, 3/4 of the staff of the FISA has been laid off. A secretary still answers the phone to schedule tours for third graders though."

This just in: in a surprise bureaucratic ruling the secretary has ruled that she does not have the authority to be a secretary, and will therefore be laid off as well. No word yet on whether her lack of authority makes her ineligible to issue such a ruling in the first place, but FISA experts smell a logical legal loop paradox brewing.

Re:Sweet

[NewmanKU]

Um, no. You know the "F" is for Foreign? It has never had jurisdiction over domestic communication.

Yes, I understand the "F" is for Foreign. Did you know that two "Foreign" persons can actually communicate within the US? This is considered a domestic communication because it is within the US, yet is still covered under FISA because the end users are "Foreign". So yes it has jurisdiction over domestic communication.

Re:Sweet

[2short]

I had assumed you were using "foreign" to mean the opposite of "domestic", as many do. I find your classification of these comunications as foriegn-yet-domestic somewhat contorted, but OK. In any case, everything you said in your original post is still wrong.

Re:Sweet

[TaoPhoenix]

... but FISA experts smell a logical legal loop paradox brewing.

Someone alert Douglas Hofstadter!

Excuse me while I...

[assemblerex]

go buy more ammo for my soon to be banned guns.
Jefferson was right

Re:Excuse me while I...

[Sloppy]

I don't think crypto counts as a munition anymore. ;-)

Re:Excuse me while I...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will soon though.

Re:Excuse me while I...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your guns will never be banned. They don't need to because they know you will never do anything about any of the other constitutional restrictions. They called your bluff ages ago and you blinked.

PS How's your chances with any gun you can get against a precision guided munition fired from an unmanned drone - that's what's coming, sooner than you think.

Re:Excuse me while I...

[wilder_card]

Nobody is seriously talking about taking your guns away. With the modern mind-control technologies, it's really not necessary.

Re:Excuse me while I...

[Stormx2]

Nobody is seriously talking about taking your guns away. With the modern mind-control technologies, it's really not necessary.

You know, most people just call it Fox News

Face it

[jnmontario]

...when you make the rules, you can change them at will.

Of course I'll get modded down

[GuloGulo]

But I strongly suspected this already. Most people who actually analyzed the situation and the LAW thought it was a strong possibility.

Unfortunately, every time I attempted to discuss the actual LAW, I (and others) were shouted down (and modded down) by the "WHARGARBLL FUCK BUSH BLAHGHGHG!!" crowd, who'd rather not have their prejudices disproven.

Things can be legal, and still be intrusive and wrong on a moral level.

Perhaps in the future, all of you who screamed "Illegal wiretaps!!!!" at the top of your lungs will take the time to listen.

PS, I think it's shitty too, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Re:Of course I'll get modded down

[Anonymous Coward]

WHARGARBLL FUCK BUSH BLAHGHGHG!!

your newsletter, I'd like to subscribe to it

Re:Of course I'll get modded down

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem with the country as it currently stands today: we are more concerned with whether something is legal than if it's RIGHT. I used to have some neighbors who had so many people over to their place that they'd park in front of my house, all the time. Wouldn't have been bad except they would park so that WE couldn't park in front of our house as well.

When confronted about it they said "It's legal, so what's your problem?". My problem is that "legal" is the new way to say "I'm a complete dickhead and don't think you deserve any rights that I have and I'll make sure to claim my rights before you can claim yours so it'll stay that way".

Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguration

[firstfreethenserve]

http://slashdot.org/~firstfreethenserve/journal/221481

Why is President Bush repeatedly warning Obama that he is 45 seconds away from his family and that the job is not easy and he will feel the weight on his shoulders?

Obama knows exactly what a dirty soup he has got into. He has been a Senator for at least one term. He has fought the Republican media propaganda. He knows what MIC stands for, he knows what a considerable threat to his life there is.

Why does George Bush behave like a gangster and warn him that his daughters are like this or his wife is like that and he wil need their help and so on? And why does Bill Clinton say that he loves that particular rug?

Has anyone given a thought to Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal? What if Bush leaves behind a bugged White House? What if flowers around the White House are already laced with biological weapons and anthrax? Why has the anthrax scientist suitably committed suicide? Do these things add up to a bigger pattern? Hush up the attack and spring it up so that 45 seconds will not be enough for Barack Obama to get help? Julius Caesar? Brutus?

Remember: Bush NEVER talks meaningful specifics. How then did he utter "45 second commute"? google bush obama tough 45 seconds family

Why has Bush repeatedly been talking about Obama's shoulders? Is there a suit that Obama is supposed to wear? Are suits bugged at the shoulders? Is there a history of any such bugging? Why does everyone assume that the White House staff actually has no loyalties to Bush or the Republican Party?

It is human enough to fall to one side or the other in a normal conversation, so in a situation like the White House being occupied by a Black man, ending centuries of monopoly, everyone in the White House is going to be all loyal to Barack Obama? This would be a folly of the highest order.

If Barack Obama is hurt in any way on Inauguration (unlikely) or a few days later (VERY LIKELY) what will happen to America? What will happen to change? And what will happen to the future of this world? Who will be blamed this time? Iraq? Osama? Russia? Hamas? Israel? China? India? Brazil? Where are the hottest selling minerals coming from today? Which is the mineral that can change dollar hegemony that USA needs to sustain? Which is the mineral that they do not want Russia or China to get?

What other pretext to start a war can be thought of? Why do we think that riots across America can produce a Constitiutional situation where Obama cannot issue orders of his own accord?

What about Lasers and Tasers? What about wireless power? What about biological attack? what about chemical attack? What if someone tasers Obama's family from a distant tower like Kennedy was shot from a distant tower? Why do you think that rogue Republicans will not stoop to this level?

The Obama Inauguration is probably not given enough importance from some of these points of view. Surely Obamanation needs an assurance. They needed only one Monica Lewinsky to destroy the Democratic party's hopes by impeaching Clinton for a shameful, non-Christian act.

What will they do with Obama? The White House staff have been fed on pride and power. It is the WHITE House !! The "centre of white supremacy" for the racist and criminal minded - exactly "the type that assassinate Presidents".

Throughout history regimes, rulers and dynasties have been toppled overnight by palace coups? Is President Bush telling certain investors that in 45 seconds, their game will be happily back in their hands because Obama will be "neutralised" in that much time. Obama's life in the White House is a dangerous life. I hope I am wrong.

PS: Why did Clinton like the rug so much in the photograph?

FISA isn't Constitutional

[ixer]

The flaw with all this isn't that the wiretapping is legal/illegal, it's that in reality, FISA itself is unConstitutional. But what do I know? I'm just a constitution loving, taxpaying, voting American.

Re:FISA isn't Constitutional

[east coast]

The problem with this statement is that both the current administration and the upcoming administration don't seem to mind that it's not constitutional. Facts have an odd way of falling through the cracks in a bureaucracy.

Re:FISA isn't Constitutional

[jarbrewer]

Currently, FISA is constitutional. As a Law passed by Congress and ratified by the President, it will remain presumptively constitutional until and unless the US Supreme Court rules it otherwise.

Information Vs Matter

[eldavojohn]

A communication coming in abroad is no different than a package.

I disagree. Communication to me is the transmission of ideas. If you are still attaching them to pieces of trees, then they may be searched although the contents of that idea should not be.

A package, on the other hand, is the transmission of matter. The government may keep that right to intercept those but I will not stand for the censorship and/or interception of ideas or information!

And don't whine to me about National Security ... it's the agencies' jobs to keep that from ever being sent across a border.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[FireStormZ]

"I disagree. Communication to me is the transmission of ideas. If you are still attaching them to pieces of trees, then they may be searched although the contents of that idea should not be."

Please we are in the information age Ideas are just as, if not more, powerful than 'pieces of trees'. But if you want to play it that way just say that the electrons are being inspected. The telephone to us is what the written letter was to the founders.

"A package, on the other hand, is the transmission of matter."

Electrons are matter..

"The government may keep that right to intercept those but I will not stand for the censorship and/or interception of ideas or information!"

Go yell fire in a crowded theater.. why should anyone be allowed to censor you..

"And don't whine to me about National Security ... it's the agencies' jobs to keep that from ever being sent across a border."

Re:Information Vs Matter

[miserere nobis]

I'm not going to disagree with you that information should be secure. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment says nothing about information or ideas; its language is entirely in the physical/material realm.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Zymergy]

Depends on if that "communication" goes over lands/buildings/properties exclusively owned by a private individual US Citizen with 4th Amendment protections OR does that transmission cross some line of demarcation onto property that is not solely owned by that 4th Amendment protested individual?
To walk around your house naked is legal as it your right to privacy, but to go outside and walk down the street naked, your rights to privacy vanish!
My email have been ruled to be "unprotected" once it passes my line of demarcation and this is no different.
Putting it another way, two parties yelling across a public alley at one another from each of their private homes (or even if signaling each other in Morse Code with Naval Signaling Lights) are not protected by the 4th Amendment in their "Communication" as intercepting it can be done from lands and property not owned by either party. (And the same would be true if the same individual owned both homes, because the message crossed lands and property not subject to the 4th Amendment protections of the individual citizen.

IANAL, but as I understand the 4th Amendment, it was written over SEARCH and SEIZURES in/of a Private US Citizen's PROPERTY/HOME, and does not cover PUBLIC locations. For public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what do you think electrons have to do with transmission, but electrons move slowly and are not "transmitted" in the way you seem to imply. It's the magnetic field/power level that signals to the other end the status of the originating end.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

to go outside and walk down the street naked, your rights to privacy vanish!

That is a dangerously authoritarian approach to the issue. If we were expected to give up all rights to privacy simply because we were no longer on our own land, we might as well have no privacy at all because only the invalid and the insane can be expected to live their lives without a significant, if not majority, of time spent outside of their own property.

The supreme court ruled, in Katz v US, that regardless of whether you are on public or private property, what matters is that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy whatever the location may be.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[jae471]

Sometimes, not even probable cause is required to search in public. Reasonable suspicion can be enough for a stop and search.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[HTH NE1]

Please we are in the information age Ideas are just as, if not more, powerful than 'pieces of trees'. But if you want to play it that way just say that the electrons are being inspected.

The information is not being carried by the electrons. It is being carried by the absence of the electrons. Electrons along a wire actually move very slowly. It is the "electron holes" that propagate along the wire at near the speed of light.

Since you're deriving information for the absence of an electron, you're still not inspecting matter.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

or public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)

Your person and your vehicle have the exact same protection as your abode, genius. Try actually reading some SCOTUS history sometime and you might understand why this is so appalling.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up.

Katz vs. US directly contradicts GP's "understanding" of the 4th.

It's not about private property lines. It's about reasonable expectation of privacy - specifically, a public phone booth in the Katz case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States#Holding

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Ailill]

IANAL, For public locations, the Police need to abide by their own ROE and typically only probable cause or some other suspicion or wrongdoing is needed for the Police to search your person or vehicle (as you would NOT be located on/in YOUR 4th Amendment Protected private property but in a public location.)

There was a time when the 4th amendment protected people not places or things from unreasonable searches (Katz v United States, 1967). The court expressly held that the defendant's conversation was protected while using a public phone booth. Sadly, that view of the 4th amendment is gone by the wayside. Now, unless a "police officer" or employee acts deliberately, knowingly or recklessly with regard to your 4th amendment rights then the evidence may be excluded. If the officer is "merely negligent" or relies on a record system which does not have "widespread" errors, when he violates your 4th amendment rights you have no recourse or remedy. (Herring) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-513.pdf

Re:Information Vs Matter

[rwalker429]

Comparing the censorship of one man's opinion to him yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is a clear logical fallacy that stretches, way out of proportion, the statement he's trying to make. Also, great work attacking his analogy but you've said nothing pertinent to the fact that he's taking offense to what is seen as a permitted assault on his civil liberties. If you're going to argue with his opinion, at least make it a competent argument.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[FireStormZ]

"Comparing the censorship of one man's opinion"

Nothing is being censored "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable" select communications with people outside the US being monitored without court order is not censorship

"a clear logical fallacy that stretches, way out of proportion, the statement he's trying to make"

Can also be said about calling monitoring of *some* foreign communications 'censorship'.

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Zymergy]

So the 4th Amendment was intended to protect US Citizens on their own person as well as in/on their private property?
Meaning that the 4th Amendment was meant to protect their person in public areas also?
That being given, how does that apply to messages sent from them to another party outside of on their person and exclusively through their private property?

I am thinking that "Cyberspace" or "Tubes" or whatever the public Internet or other type of public infrastructure that US Citizens are using is *outside* of the intended protections of the 4th Amendment.
That is why we have PGP (et al) and there are strongly encrypted telephone devices available for use by private US Citizens.
Having formerly worked at the USPS, I was impressed with the lengths the Postal Inspection Service and the Postmasters go to in order to uphold laws which protect anything sent in the US Postal Service mail. It is (and was) my understanding that EVERY piece of mail is subject to inspection simply by the implied contract by which the act of buying a stamp and affixing it to a parcel and then placing said stamped parcel onto Federal Property for delivery between Federal mailboxes. (NOTE: mail boxes *do* count as Federal Property or at least fall under Federal Jurisdiction, try vandalizing one and getting caught if you ~really~ wish to find out)

I agree there are various ROE and hoops and tightropes which must be perfectly navigated as well as chains of evidence, etc... that Police must follow to validate the evidence used and to decrease the possibility that the legal defense for an 'alleged' law breaker will get said evidence thrown out...
It seems that common sense has been removed from the law and it all is down to semantics.

The 4th Amendment was meant to uphold the intention to protect US Citizens from illegal searches and seizures on their person and on their property. It seems everyone is now arguing about what "illegal" means (much like Pres. Clinton argued about what "is" means to him...)
It is very likely the 4th Amendment was NOT intended to cover any interstate communications / voice communications / parcels and letters / smoke signals / and even the Bat-Signal. Those things are not searches and seizures to an individual and their property as the 4th Amendment likely intends protection for AND those who feel they DO own their electrons and photons traveling through the Internet and these ARE part of their personal property as protected by the 4th Amendment (and therefore not subject to search and seizure without due process), are IMHO mistaken. (...Unless you own the private network said photos/electrons reside in and said network is entirely contained on your private property).

I wish the 4th Amendment did cover these things, but I interpret the 4th Amendment to cover your person and your private property only.
(Just as the 2nd Amendment DID mean "Arms" were firearms as they existed back then and were subject to seizure and search without the written right to bear them and form militias. (The definition of "bear" sure has changed to "licensed concealed-carry only" but it is still a regulated right we retain in the US largely do toe that 2nd Amendment. The framers likely did not intend communication messages to be covered by the 4th Amendment or they would have written it so, as parcels and letters did exist back then.)

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC for obvious reasons...

The 4th amendment was designed to prevent the government from posting police (or military) in your neighborhood for regular (including random) searches to find "subversive" things. In the case of FISA that is exactly what is happening: the government regularly examines ALL calls and sees if they're going to a list of "bad" numbers - numbers of terrorist organizers, as well as number of people terrorist organizers have called, and finally also calls to countries rife with Jihadis (regardless of who is calling who).

This can include US citizens calling US citizens. I know this from a first hand case. In the interest of not risking a three year stay in gitmo, I'll leave it at that.

More to the parent's point...
I don't see how you can read the 4th amendment to mean anything other than a right to privacy and freedom from government harassment. That does not mean a right to privacy only on private land. It does not mean that you waive your protection from being arbitrarily detained by walking on the street. It does not mean the government can demand a full body cavity search for anyone near a border or at an airport. The problem with the outgoing administration is that it fails to understand all this.

To Bush and Co. there is no concept of unreasonable search and seizure. To him and his stooges, strip searches whenever the border patrol, DEA, FBI, or TSA feel like it are all normal. Well, if arbitrary strip searches are not unreasonable, WHAT THE FUCK IS? Are we really to believe that the Constitution included a prohibition on something that doesn't exist?

Re:Information Vs Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending email has the obvious expectation of privacy, unless of course you decide to foward the message to everyone in your neighborhood. It has been said that anything done in a public setting wouldn't fit this expectation, ex. shouting to someone on the street. These are two different things. If someone sends a private message it should be deemed as an "effect" under the 4th amendment and thus require a warrent.

The wiretapping law, not the original program

[DragonWriter]

This is about the program under the law passed by Congress which authorized warrantless wiretapping after the President was doing it; not the program which was carried out prior to that by the President in direct contravention to the prohibitions of the statute law existing at the time.

Of course, one might reasonably question whether the decision comports with the Constitution even there, but its an important distinction to make, since there have been issues both with the power of government as a whole and the independent power of the President, regardless of the laws passed by Congress relating to warrantless wiretapping, and the two issues sometimes get muddled.

Re:The wiretapping law, not the original program

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely false. The opinion deals with the inherent authority of the executive branch to wiretap without warrants.

What is with the commentary in the posted article? "well known bastion of legal authority". Let me get this straight - a poster on Slashdot calls into question the constitutional knowledge of a federal court of appeals? On what basis?

Re:The wiretapping law, not the original program

[Ardeaem]

See the commentary here: Anonymous Liberal, here talkleft and here: Glenn Greenwald (see update II).

Re:The wiretapping law, not the original program

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it was legal even before Congress updated. Their action just removed any ambiguity. Read the pre 2000 FISA legislation. The Supreme Court also ruled in 1979 that a person's telephone records aren't private information that's covered by the 4th amendment.

Re:The wiretapping law, not the original program

[oliphaunt]

This is the first comment that has made a goddamn bit of sense. The OP is confusing because the referenced ARTICLE (yeah, i read it) is confusing. Eric Lichtblau has done some good stuff, but he's clearly out of his depth here.

In other news

[canajin56]

In other news, the Fox Court has ruled that hen-house raids by foxes are legal. Shocking.

Let me be the first to say

[4D6963]

Dooooooooom!!

That's all.

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[plasmacutter]

The whitehouse gets numerous open-to-the-public tours through its halls every day.

I suspect it is swept every night by the secret service and NSA for counter-intelligence purposes.

I am not concerned about this.

P.S. Nixon bugged his own office, not the FBI. His obsession with gathering and archiving information led to his own demise.

Obama does *not* support it

[Anonymous Coward]

the New Boss supports this shit too

Obama has many faults but this isn't one of them. He has been a longstanding critic of Bush's wiretap programs. He's not likely to appoint justices like the ones that continue to weaken the 4th Amendment.

(Please don't bring up the FISA bill. We've been over that already. We all know what happened. It doesn't change the fact that Obama does not support illegal wiretapping.)

Re:Obama does *not* support it

[AmaDaden]

Um, no.

Soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order that authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA (see 50 U.S.C. Â 1802 50 U.S.C. Â 1809 ).

That's from this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy. Read it, time and time again Bush pushes for this kind of wiretapping. Obama on the other hand voted for the latest FISA bill because

It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

From http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/obama-mccain-reluctantly-endorse-surveillance-deal/

Like the GP said, this is getting old and we all know what happened. Stop spreading FUD. Wait until you actually see Obama do something as bad as Bush before you make it seem he is some kind of Bush 3.

Re:Obama does *not* support it

[Shakrai]

(Please don't bring up the FISA bill. We've been over that already. We all know what happened. It doesn't change the fact that Obama does not support illegal wiretapping, except when he supports it.)

Fixed that for you. The mods who modded down the second AC should be taken out and shot. Sarcasm notwithstanding his point was quite valid.

Re:Obama does *not* support it

[Hordeking]

Obama voted to give the telecoms immunity for their part. McCain did too. Neither one should have gotten elected, but unfortunately, one did.

Re:Obama does *not* support it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I see people are still quite ignorant about the FISA debacle. I'll educate you.

Obama actually voted to strip telecom immunity from the bill. It's true. Every time it came up for a vote (three times) he voted to remove it. That's not good enough, I realize. We wanted him to vote against the whole bill. He decided (probably for political reasons) that the beneficial parts of the bill outweighed the harmful parts. Well, he's entitled to his opinion I guess.

Notice: In no way shape or form did he endorse illegal wiretapping. He was quite clear about that, both in his speech and his voting record. The worst you can truthfully say is that he was playing politics.

Yes, be upset with him. No, don't lie and exaggerate his support.

Re:Obama does *not* support it

[Shakrai]

Obama actually voted to strip telecom immunity from the bill. It's true

Notice: In no way shape or form did he endorse illegal wiretapping

Your splitting hairs. I appreciate his vote for the amendment to remove the provision but the fact remains that he voted for the final bill which contained that provision. In what world do you live in that a 'Yey' vote isn't an endorsement of the language contained within a bill?

Yes, be upset with him. No, don't lie and exaggerate his support.

I'm not exaggerating anything. And the reason I'm upset with with him extends far beyond his support. The fact that he pledged to support a filibuster of any bill containing the immunity provision and then reversed himself on that pledge (conveniently right after securing the Democratic nomination) is the reason that I'm upset with him. If he had been honest from the outset I wouldn't have voted for or campaigned for him during the primaries. On that day he exposed himself as the typical sleazy politician and revealed just how empty his promises of "change" really were, IMHO. My only regret is that I was too stupid to see this from the beginning.

bushcrimesyndicate?

[Kymermosst]

The tag "bushcrimesyndicate" is inaccurate. For those of you who haven't read the Constitution, Congress is responsible for setting up all Federal courts, including the FISA court (surely nobody believes that Bush created FISA...).

"politiciancrimesyndicate" is much more accurate.

Re:bushcrimesyndicate?

[2short]

"surely nobody believes that Bush created FISA"

    Of course not, the creators of FISA (in Congress and the Carter administration) recognized the need for judicial oversight despite the special requirements of intelligence gathering. Wisely maintaining essential restraints on executive power... no, I can't imagine anyone would confuse that sort of thing with the Bush administration.

But, yeah, it's hard to see why Bush should come in for a particular blame on this. All he did was put in place policies and programs that clearly subvert the intent of the law. Well, that, and argued in favor of those policies before this court that now has issued a decision supporting them. I mean, beyond that he didn't have anything to do with this. Well, unless you count appointing all the judges in question. Um, yeah...

Re:bushcrimesyndicate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who appointed the FISA judges? Who appointed the FISA judges who are issuing this cover-Bush's-ass right-before-the-clock-runs-out ruling ?

Re:bushcrimesyndicate?

[Kymermosst]

Does it matter? Congress created this mess whem they created a secret court. I don't see them stepping up to do anything about it.

They are all at fault.

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[stevew]

You probably believe that 9/11 was an inside job too!

What the President was referring to when said that is family was a 45 second commute away was that when Obama might feel overwhelmed then his support system, i.e. his family was an EASY 45 second commute away.

Note the "EASY" emphasis was mine. Bush said neither tough or easy from what I remember him saying. Whoops - I actually watched the discussion live. What I'm saying above was the context of the comment.

Bush was also saying that at some point - the size of the responsibilities of the office of the Presidency would hit Obama emotionally.

Take a deep breath -then crawl back under your tin hat.

They can rule all they want.

[plasmacutter]

They're not the one hearing the class action cases. They're also not the supreme court.

They can say anything they want, but, while they have authority to issue warrants, they are by no means the final authority on the interpretation of law in regards to the constitution.

That would be the USSC.

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I hope I am wrong
Nope, you just need to remember to take your medications and the voices in your head will become silent again.

If you tell me where you are...

[Anonymous Coward]

I could probably find you a really good psychiatrist to get you back on your meds, you seem to be having a great deal of trouble without them.

Since When Was It Legal

[aquatone282]

. . . for any citizen to conspire, support, or engage in activities whose sole purpose is the violent overthrow of the Constitution?

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[Col. Klink (retired)]

. . . for any citizen to conspire, support, or engage in activities whose sole purpose is the violent overthrow of the Constitution?

Since December 15, 1791.

The first amendment allows freedom of expression, even if the idea being expressed is to abolish the existing government.

The second amendment was not passed to protect the rights of hunters. It was passed so that common citizens could, in the inevitable instance that their government becomes tyrannical, can be overthrown. In 1791, "well-regulated" did not mean that the militia would be "regulated" or licensed by the government (you didn't need a license for anything in 1791). "Well-regulated" meant a militia that could shoot straight.

These ideas were not outrageous to the founding fathers. They themselves had just violently overthrown their government. While not law, these ideas are expressed clearly in the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[aquatone282]

Then what's this for?

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[Qrlx]

The common mythology, that the purpose of the Second Amendment is some sort of backstop against an unjust government from taking over, has little historical basis. Like the rest of the Amendments, it was written for a pratcial purpose, not an esoteric one.

That practial purpose was: It protected the interests of the slave states by explicity granting them the right to use the tools (firearms) necessary to maintain their economic interests (slavery).

The common mythology, that the Second Amendment is intended to protect from tyrrany, is turned on its head when looked at from the slave's point of view.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting the Founding Fathers would have banned private ownership of guns in the absence of slavery. But the individual's right to bear arms is specifically carved out in the Constitution to protect the interests of the slave states.

Look at the language of the Second Amendment itself. Ask yourself "What did a militia do 200 years ago?" One of the things they did was put down slave uprisings.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[RingDev]

That law is enforced by the winner of the war.

It ensures that if the uprising fails, those responsible will be persecuted. And should the uprising succeed, those that were the root cause of the need for uprising will be persecuted.

In either case, it contributes to the stability of the society after the conflict.

-Rick

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[characterZer0]

That is to tell people that if you are going to try to overthrow the government, you better have enough power to do it. If you lose, you are going to die.

The "owing allegiance" part is interesting. Does the law claim that everybody ("whoever") owes allegiance to the US, or does it just pertain to those who do owe allegiance? If the later, what defines if one owes allegiance?

While I may have pledged allegiance under threat of detention in elementary school (while I was a minor), I maintain that I owe no allegiance. I pay taxes for what I get; I owe nothing else to the organization over which I have no control and for which I have no responsibility.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I always felt that the 2nd amendment was meant to be a ward against tyranny. Trouble is with the current military owned by the US. this kind of violent overthrow is pretty much not going to happen.

I always felt that this was to ensure that the government had a reason to fear its citizenry.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[hey!]

Then what's this [cornell.edu] for?

Answer: political posturing.

Treason is almost never charged. In the two hundred and twenty years since the US Constitution went into effect, the grand total of treason indictments: less than 40. Number of convictions: even less. Minimally, history has shown that we can run a country successfully without much use of the charge of "treason"; I'd say we probably could get by without that particular charge at all.

The framers seem to have been ambivalent about treason. It's mentioned in the Constitution, but in a way that suggests that they saw treason as a charge which invites political misuse. In order to convict somebody of treason, there has to be an overt act that is witnessed by two people or confessed by the guilty party. Furthermore, they are anxious to avoid treason as an pretext for seizing property, or disinheriting or disenfranchising relatives.

Treason, in the sense described by the constitution, is a political crime. What does it mean to "adhere to the enemies" of the United States, given that the President or a majority of Congress can name anybody they please as "enemies"? Is the government of Iran an enemy of the United States? How about the people of Iran? What about people who simply favor rapprochement with Iran? Can they be considered enemies as well? If Iran is an enemy, is aiding somebody sympathetic to the interests of Iran aiding, albeit indirectly, and enemy of the US?

The framers were wise in trying to make political crime an awkward crime to prosecute. I'd go further though, and make the trial of political crimes explicitly political. I think that it is perfectly feasible, given that treason cases come at a rate of about one every six years, to require a procedure similar to that used for impeachment. A person guilty of treason should be indicted by the House, and tried by the Senate, but I'd also add the restriction that he must be convicted by a supermajority of 60 Senators, and with the assent of the President.

It may be that treason has an inevitable place in our consciousness as a kind of horrendous crime of malicious and destructive disloyalty, whether we want it there or not. Even if we think that the government should not try people for political crimes, it is important that provisions be made for trying political crimes. The procedure be there, so that other charges are not politicized.

If someone is truly guilty of an act of supreme, depraved disloyalty, then it should be possible to attract support for conviction across a majority of the political spectrum. If it is not possible to get a majority of the people's representatives to support conviction, then the act cannot reasonably be considered treason. It is important to keep such a politically oriented charge out of the hands of any small number of people.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment was not passed to protect the rights of hunters. It was passed so that common citizens could, in the inevitable instance that their government becomes tyrannical, can be overthrown.

Not really. I don't think anyone outside of right-wing nutters believes that.

To quote Scalia's explanation in the recent D.C. vs. Heller.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

The 2nd amendment was passed to protect a state's right to run a militia. The constitution stated that the Fed Gov could "arm militias" and there was a question if they had the inverse power to "disarm militias," the 2nd amendment was proposed and passed to secure that the federal government could not disarm state militias.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[el_gato_borracho]

Actually, in the second amendment, the "militia" is what is regulated (kept under control), to promote the security of a free state. The "people" are recognized to have a right to keep and bear arms, so that the "militia" (the armed forces controlled by the government) don't get out of control.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[ion.simon.c]

*sigh*

Look at what's been happening in Iraq and other such places.
A reasonably well organized and reasonably well funded group of citizens can give the (very well organized and very well funded) US military a run for its money.
If those citizens *were* also United States citizens, this will further tip the balance of power in favour of the insurgents.

If we all put on our tinfoil hats, we *could* choose to see the increasing militarization of local police forces as an attempt to quickly quell any uprising without getting the Federal armed forces involved. 'Cause -after all- who gets angry when the police murder a restrained, unarmed man in cold blood? Noone, that's who. If quelling the uprising could be spun as eliminating a terrorist cell, noone's gonna fucking question it... and the Federal armed forces will never have to bust out the guns.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[sgtrock]

Oh, for heaven's sake! You are talking about people who had just overthrown their government and you immediately jump to the conclusion that it was all about slaves? Have you ever bothered to read the Declaration of Indpendence? The Federalist Papers? Any contemporary commentary?

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[aquatone282]

You know, I think that is the sanest, most well-thought-out, and reasoned response to a political topic I've ever read on /.

Thank you.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[jarbrewer]

. . . for any citizen to conspire, support, or engage in activities whose sole purpose is the violent overthrow of the Constitution?

Since December 15, 1791.

The first amendment allows freedom of expression, even if the idea being expressed is to abolish the existing government.

You've conflated the Constitution with the Government.
Those who are trying to overthrow the Constitution are significantly more dangerous than those who are simply trying to overthrow the government.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Wait, are you claiming that the decision in DC vs Heller held that the 2nd amendment did NOT protect the right of individuals (outside of the militia) the right to bear arms? The decision says:

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2-53.

Re:Since When Was It Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think looking at it from a slavery perspective is too narrow, and is a specific example of a general case in the subject of commercial interests. It could also follow along the lines that, in the case the government is unable to, or does not support the citizens in their defense or self-defense of their property and well-being, then their right to bear arms gives them that opportunity to defend themselves. Take the LA riots for example where the store owners were forced to bring up arms because the government refused to interfere and/or bring in the national guards. This follows along the lines that American citizens should not trust their government, and these rights are there to help us in those cases where the government administration does not protect its citizens, and loses their trust.

hhmm

[xenolion]

wow what a shock as Obama gets in office that they run a story saying its ok for this program to run... I have news for all those people that keep bashing Bush/republicans and Obama/dems, they are the goverment they will do what ever they want when they want go head try to stop them my bet is you suddenly go missing in the middle of the night no matter what side is in. The goverment has been doing this stuff for decades now why do people get shocked now its what they do.

Re: What about DOMESTIC traffic?

[mikelieman]

Seems to me that the optical splitters AT&T put on the network backbone, copying traffic to the NSA -- BY DEFINITION -- captured and forwareded ALL the traffic on the network, therefore also capturing and copying YOUR conversations and emails with YOUR MOM.

Re: What about DOMESTIC traffic?

[GuloGulo]

"captured and forwareded ALL the traffic on the network, therefore also capturing and copying YOUR conversations and emails with YOUR MOM."

My mom is dead you insensitive clod!!!

No, really, she died.

Society is a vector, not a scalar

[ogma]

There are people who claim that these individual steps are necessary to protect the people, and that no one step is anything that's enough to worry about in the grand scheme of things.

However I think that society is something that moves in a partcular direction, and has momentum (for want of better metaphors). Each individually harmless step gives it a push in a particular direction, and from the news we've been seeing over the last number of years I'd say American society is now travelling at a pretty fast clip in the wrong direction (last stop 1984?). I know people are hoping that the new guy in the White House will know how to find the brakes, but momentum in the wrong direction has built up by now as well, and it'll take a lot to turn this thing around, assuming it's even possible at this stage.

Re:Society is a vector, not a scalar

[Gallomimia]

fast clip in the wrong direction (last stop 1984?).

I think it's readily apparent that this fast clip was well on its way by the end of the second world war and the hand on the tiller determining that direction (right or wrong is purely opinion in any particular vector's direction) is firmly in place and has eyes fixed upon the horizon above the bow, and it so happens the hand firmly on the pull-cord ordering more steam. Mayhap if the blind shovelers of coal were educated in the nature of navigation and informed of that direction, somehow the outcome could be altered.

Re:Constitution

[TaoPhoenix]

You seem to think it matters. Bush has decided it doesn't.

Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 says:

1. A warrant is not required to collect intelligence when the target is not a US Person, regardless of where the collection occurs, including within the US.

2. A warrant is always required to collect intelligence when the target is a US Person, whether inside or outside of the US (more strict than previous law).

This requires the assistance of telecom operators in the US. In order to determine which traffic can be legally intercepted without a warrant, basic information about the traffic, such as its source and destination, must also be examined. Such examination of traffic -- a "pen register" -- also does not require a warrant.

The job of our foreign intelligence services is to collect information on the activities and plans of US adversaries. This activity has never required a warrant, because these individuals are not protected by the Constitution of the United States.

The path traffic takes shouldn't prevent us from doing this job.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[kenp2002]

Inalienable

You cannot take them away, citizen, non-citizen, good guy, bad guy.

Inalienable.

Liberty was an inalienable right once... long ago...

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus was an alien long ago

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

Intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US has never required a warrant, throughout the entire history of the United States.

The difference occurred when traffic of non-US Persons outside of the US started traveling through the US. Suddenly a warrant is required because digital traffic passed through a routing center in Chicago when one end is in Pakistan and the other is in Saudi Arabia? That's what the now-sunset Protect America Act temporarily fixed, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 permanently fixes.

If you believe that a warrant should be required for intelligence collection on persons outside of the US with no legal standing of any kind with the US (i.e., citizen, vistor, legal resident, etc.), then you are completely out of step with all law, intelligence policy, and scholarship on the issue.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[GuloGulo]

"Inalienable

You cannot take them away, citizen, non-citizen, good guy, bad guy."

You're mistaken, rights CAN be taken away, and that's not what inalienable means.

If you doubt it, look at convicted felons, and don't bitch, it's perfectly Constitutional.

You're simply wrong.

"Liberty was an inalienable right once... long ago..."

WHEN? You tell me exactly when and where Liberty was "inalienable" and I'll prove you're full of shit. Just ask the Founding Father's slaves.

Government has ALWAYS stepped on rights, this magical Freedom land you're pontificating about never existed.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Hanyin]

Inalienable

You cannot take them away, citizen, non-citizen, good guy, bad guy.

Inalienable.

Liberty was an inalienable right once... long ago...

Oh that's an easy one to get around, the government just needs to redefine "human" and then everything they've been doing will be back in the green ;-).

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[mikelieman]

In order to determine which traffic can be legally intercepted without a warrant, basic information about the traffic, such as its source and destination, must also be examined. Such examination of traffic -- a "pen register" -- also does not require a warrant.

IF all the examination of traffic is on the level of a "pen register", than that's not to egregious.

But, now it's your responsibility to PROVE ( please show all work ) that Constitutionally Protected Content ( information beyond the headers required to determine the provenance of the date ) isn't leaked from the carrier to the US Government.

It makes one wonder WHY is ALL the traffic being copied from AT&T's network backbone to the Feds in the first place -- Headers AND Content?

Shouldn't AT&T be filtering that traffic PRIOR TO FORWARDING TO THE US GOVERNMENT to ensure that CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED COMMUNICATION isn't infringed in the first place.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that your telephone records aren't considered private information with 4th Amendment protections. That's what most of the activity in the 'wiretapping' case was all about. The FISA legislation also allows the intelligence agencies to listen in on any communication w/o a warrant, but if they want to use the contents of that information for anything, they have to get a warrant in 72 hours.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

You are making your assumption based on yet more assumptions of still others who are not privy to anywhere near all of the information required to have any comprehensive knowledge of this issue.

You are assuming that because (you believe) Equipment X is in place in Place Y, that must mean that Egregious Violation of Rights Z is occurring.

You know just as well as I do that I can't prove a negative, and you are not in a position -- even with leaks from individuals like Klein, who have clear political motivations, given some of the content of his interviews -- to claim that the government must be illegally collecting constitutionally protected information.

You are making statements that are not supportable by fact or observation, namely, that ALL traffic is "copied" to the government. You are making assumptions about what filtering is or isn't happening before the government has access to the traffic. You are making unwarranted assumptions about the controls -- technical, logistical, and otherwise -- in place on the equipment, software, and the nature of the relationship between foreign intelligence collection activity, US law, and telecom operators.

The other problem is that along with these assumptions often goes (incorrect) assertions that the administration broke the law before, so why should we believe they aren't now? Except that in itself is wrong, because on everything the administration did, particularly with regard to the foreign intelligence collection issue, there was ALWAYS a legal opinion, and ALWAYS advisory of the intelligence committees in Congress.

Law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, and other government entities have powers granted by society over and above ordinary citizens, and have the "power" to infringe on individual rights. You cannot, as an individual member of society, "prove" that they are not doing this. You trust that our system of law, the courts, and checks and balances in government enforce and monitor the legality of the use of such power by proxy.

So in the case of foreign intelligence collection, individuals in government who we charge with this responsibility have declared this activity legal and constitutional. Namely, this comes in the form of:

- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruling that applicable foreign intelligence collection without a warrant under the guise of current and previous law is legal and constitutional

- The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 explicitly declaring this type of collection (where the target of the collection is a non-US Person) legal, regardless of where the collection occurs

- Certification, when necessary, by the Justice Department that questionable targets do not constitute the definition of US Person

- The oversight function of the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress, which is one of the very reasons these bodies exist

If you still believe the burden is on me to "prove" that the Constitution isn't being violated, then there is a disconnect that is not going to be solved by me explaining to you the reality of how our current foreign intelligence collection policies work.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

Indeed, and for anyone else reading this, it was Smith v Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979):

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

This type of collection has subsequently been affirmed by the courts to also apply to all such communications metadata; information such as To: and From: fields in email, source and destination IP addresses, etc. It is the content of the communication that, for protected persons (US Persons, in this context), requires an individualized warrant.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Petaris]

"traffic passed through a routing center in Chicago when one end is in Pakistan and the other is in Saudi Arabia"

If traffic going between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia goes through a router in Chicago then someone seriously needs to look at their routing tables. :P

But seriously, what about a US citizen having a private conversation with their loved one who is on a business trip or something in another country. Or even is a citizen of another country? Wouldn't you want your communication to be private and not open to the ears of your government?

Whenever things like this come up I like to read the first part of the Declaration of Independence. It really is a powerful document and powerfully worded. I personally think that we need to add some bits to the constitution that clarify communications as being the property of the two or more parties involved in it. I would also like to see an amendment specifically stating that people have a RIGHT to privacy. These two things could take a lot of doubt and "interpretation" out of situations like these.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[mikelieman]

You are making statements that are not supportable by fact or observation, namely, that ALL traffic is "copied" to the government.

The Klein Deposition is pretty clear about the infrastructure. AT&T puts an optical splitter on the network, and that splitter goes to the US Government Secret Room at the CO.

End of Story.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

I see you've already made up your mind.

If you argument is that if something COULD be abused, it automatically IS being abused, until it can be categorically proven to you, personally, otherwise, and you grant no authority to legal, judicial, and other oversight mechanisms to ensure that it isn't, and instead are willing to take what amounts to basically a few photocopied pages and uninformed speculation about a classified program about which Klein knows next to nothing and is not authoritative, and you simply ignore everything else I said in my response, then this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

I think the idea here isn't to just indiscriminately target people who aren't US Persons.

But, to address your example specifically; if:

- One party of the conversation has no legal standing with the US (i.e., is not a citizen, visitor, permanent resident, employee of a US corporation, etc.), that is, not a US Person under the law,

- That person has been characterized as a target by our foreign intelligence apparatus, and

- That person is not being used as a justification to collect the content of the communication of a US Person,

then yes, that communication is fair game for foreign intelligence collection, by definition, just as much as someone on a Navy vessel listening in on someone in Saudi Arabia keying a radio mic in the clear.

This is all about continuing to enable foreign SIGINT collection in the digital age.

I like to read excerpts like these, which really speak to the issues at hand:

Safety and privacy - it's common thinking that, in order to have more safety, you get less privacy. I don't agree with that. I work from the assumption that you need to have both. When we try to make it an either/or proposition, we're bound to fail. You can be perfectly safe in a prison; but you certainly aren't free. And you can be perfectly free in an anarchist society; but you certainly aren't safe.

Now, security through collaboration raises questions among some people. You have all heard the discussion of pre-9/11 and the existence of the wall in the Justice Department that separated law enforcement and intelligence information. The concern, of course, was that grand jury information, other privileged kinds of information, would somehow improperly escape into the larger world. And I guess, on the intelligence side, you could argue there were suspicions as well. They've all been well-documented. And we've started to bring down those walls as we require information sharing between intelligence, Homeland Security, and Defense agencies, and law enforcement. Some have grown uneasy. People are asking, just what is it they're sharing?

And that leads you directly into the concern for privacy. Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it's an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Long Ranger wore a mask but Tonto didn't seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You'd think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity - or the appearance of anonymity - is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.

Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety. This is work that the Office of the DNI has started to do, and must continue and make a high priority. This careful balance we need to strike, however, is nothing new. With the advent of telephones, we entered a new frontier that required careful balancing between safety and privacy. We faced this challenge again at the end of the '70s in the aftermath of the Church-Pike Hearings. And now, in the era of new technologies, we have to work to continue to keep that balance, to earn that trust, and re-earn it every day through our actions. But we also have to be willing to reopen the laws and regulations that were based on technologies that existed 1978 and adjust them to the realities of 2007 and 2008.

- PDDNI Dr. Donald Kerr

That and my p

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 says:

2008? So, you're talking about something that has nothing to so with the court ruling in the Slashdot article?

A warrant is always required to collect intelligence when the target is a US Person, whether inside or outside of the US (more strict than previous law).

One of the key objections to the Bush wiretapping (which the current court ruling seems to be OK with), was that US-persons were being wiretapped without a warrant. Specifically, phone calls involving US citizens were being listened to in cases were one end of the call was outside the USA.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[internic]

The job of our foreign intelligence services is to collect information on the activities and plans of US adversaries. This activity has never required a warrant...

Well, except between 1978 and 2007 when the versions of FISA then in effect put limitations on them if interception occurred inside the US. The limitations were certainly not as strict as for domestic law enforcement (and practically non-existent where no "US persons" were involved), but they were there nonetheless and, in all likelihood, illegally violated by Bush administration.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

2008? So, you're talking about something that has nothing to so with the court ruling in the Slashdot article?

No, actually it's completely related to this court ruling. The court ruling itself was in August 2008, by the way, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is directly related to all of the issues which the FISC Review decision is about.

One of the key objections to the Bush wiretapping (which the current court ruling seems to be OK with), was that US-persons were being wiretapped without a warrant. Specifically, phone calls involving US citizens were being listened to in cases were one end of the call was outside the USA.

No...that was the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which is separate from this issue, did target some Americans of interest in terrorism investigations without a warrant, and hasn't been reauthorized since it was discontinued in January 2007.

The current law allows for foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons without a warrant -- and one end of the conversation may be a US Person, as long as that person is NOT the target of the surveillance, and the targeting of a non-US Person isn't used to sidestep warrant requirements. This is necessary, because when a non-US Person is legitimately targeted for foreign intelligence purposes, a warrant can't suddenly be required if that person happens to talk to a US Person. So, as long as the US Person is not a target of the collection and the content of that portion of the communication is protected as required by law, the collection is allowed.

In fact, such collection has ALWAYS been allowed without a warrant -- as long as the collection occurred outside of the United States. The difference is that the collection is now occurring inside the US, with the assistance of US telecom operators. The provisions protecting US Persons are now more stringent than previous law, and require an individualized warrant whenever a US Person is targeted anywhere on the globe for foreign intelligence purposes.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[mikelieman]

More like, "if something COULD be abused", they potentential abusers have a positive duty to ensure that there is not even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

And putting an optical splitter on the network backbone appears pretty damn improper.

Now, what technological capabilities can you quote for your hypothetical splitter which MAGICALLY only fowards to the US Government ONLY the traffic headers, leaving aside separating the 'international' from 'domestic' traffic issue?

Oh, no optical splitter is able to only forward PART of the traffic? So they're copying ALL the traffic? See how the "pen-trace" analogy is inappropriate?

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

Well, except between 1978 and 2007 when the versions of FISA then in effect put limitations on them if interception occurred inside the US. The limitations were certainly not as strict as for domestic law enforcement (and practically non-existent where no "US persons" were involved), but they were there nonetheless and, in all likelihood, illegally violated by Bush administration.

Actually, my point was that foreign intelligence collection, as generally performed outside of the US, has never required a warrant.

The difference, as you correctly noted, was when the collection occurred within the US...and the reason the law was written the way it was, was to prevent intelligence agencies from collecting in US Persons inside the US without a warrant under the guise of "foreign intelligence".

Until traffic of people who were legitimate targets for foreign intelligence collection -- namely, non-US Persons outside of the US -- started traveling through the US in some cases, and suddenly became subject to warrant requirements, sometimes even when no US Person was involved.

This decision, and the current law, as amended, speaks exactly to that issue; specifically, collection on non-US Persons does not require a warrant, even when the collection occurs within the US, and collection on US Persons ALWAYS requires a warrant, no matter where the person is or where the collection occurs. The latter is more strict that the prior law with respect to warrant protections for US Persons.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[internic]

Intelligence collection on non-US Persons outside of the US has never required a warrant, throughout the entire history of the United States. The difference occurred when traffic of non-US Persons outside of the US started traveling through the US.
...
If you believe that a warrant should be required for intelligence collection on persons outside of the US with no legal standing of any kind with the US (i.e., citizen, vistor, legal resident, etc.), then you are completely out of step with all law, intelligence policy, and scholarship on the issue.

If that were the extent of the issue then there would not be nearly as much disagreement. The issue most often brought up by proponent of recent changes to FISA is that of purely international communications that are simply routed through the US. This is a problem with FISA as it stood before, and anyone who was comfortable with the original FISA would agree that the law should be changed so that the routing is irrelevant. This is precisely why proponents bright this up; it's the strongest argument for a change.

However, the proposed (and the eventually enacted) changes to FISA are much broader, loosening the restrictions on other sorts of eavesdropping. This makes sense, because AFAIK the administration has not stated that the surveillance is purely of this sort. Many of their statements suggest it also includes communications in which one endpoint is within the US. The claim is that the target is not a "US person", but I think in a terrorism investigation this is sort of a tautology, because a terrorist is defined under FISA to be an "agent of a foreign power" and, thus, not a US person (even if they would otherwise be). It also seems that whatever things they wanted to do they the couldn't be entirely sure that no communications of US persons would get caught up in the net.

Since it's secret, we can't be precisely sure what nature is of what they want to do, but there doesn't seem to be good reason to think it's only limited to eavesdropping on international-to-international communications routed through the US. I believe that people arguing for the changes have simply focused on this because it's the strongest argument and somewhat disingenuously ignored that the sought authority is considerably broader.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Chris Burke]

There is no indication that this spying program was limited strictly to non-US Persons.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

There is no indication that this spying program was limited strictly to non-US Persons.

Please do not confuse the now-defunct "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP) with foreign intelligence collection on non-US Persons within the US.

The whole point and purpose of the program in question is NOT collection on US Persons, but targeted collection on NON-US Persons.

Warrantless collection on US Persons did happen under TSP, but TSP was not reauthorized after January 2007 because of the controversy.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Chris Burke]

Warrantless collection on US Persons did happen under TSP, but TSP was not reauthorized after January 2007 because of the controversy.

So sad that you are correct saying it was the controversy and not the illegality that caused it to be canceled.

At least as far as we know. What exactly has happened, oversight-wise, to make me think this has actually occurred? More likely they are going to prevent this from happening again the same way Rummy wanted to prevent another abu Ghraib scandal by banning camera phones -- the problem wasn't the illegal behavior, the problem was that people found out about it.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

So sad that you take one of the few unfortunate and isolated examples of abuse, misbehavior, and disobedience of established policy and law -- no matter who was involved -- and assume that it is systemic, routine, condoned, and even encouraged, with no regard for any other considerations.

There was a "controversy" over TSP...and it was whether the powers granted the president allow for such considerations. That legal issue was never resolved, and the FISA Amendments act of 2008 explicitly disallows the invocation of war powers to allow such application of intelligence collection.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[Chris Burke]

So sad that you take one of the few unfortunate and isolated examples of abuse, misbehavior, and disobedience of established policy and law -- no matter who was involved -- and assume that it is systemic, routine, condoned, and even encouraged, with no regard for any other considerations.

Assume? Assume?! George W Bush fucking said he authorized it! That means it was at the very least condoned, and encouraged at least to the point of establishing a TLA program dedicated to pursuing it! To whatever extent it was systemic and routine we may never know, but they had enough hardware in AT&T's office for it to be damn well systemic.

It's so fucking sad when someone rolls over and gives up their 4th Amendment rights because of unspecified "other considerations". Consider this: The Constitution is not a magical shield that protects our rights. To the extent that we have kept them, it is only because we have refused to let them go. To the extent that we have lost them, it is only because we have not reacted when they were taken.

Hello, Mr. Part of the Problem.

There was a "controversy" over TSP...and it was whether the powers granted the president allow for such considerations.

Yeah, the "controversy" was whether the President was allowed to ignore the law whenever he wanted. His legal team said "yes", and everyone with a brain and a conscience said "no".

That legal issue was never resolved,

Yeah, because nobody ever had standing to get a case and thus force it to be resolved. Considering all the times Bush's cute legal theories regarding executive power have been smacked down by the courts, I don't think it's too hard to tell what the outcome would be.

and the FISA Amendments act of 2008 explicitly disallows the invocation of war powers to allow such application of intelligence collection.

Thus putting out to pasture the completely wrong, duplicitous, and deceitful claim that the new law protects our rights more than the old one. We'll have to wait and see if that part ever survives judicial review.

Re:Indeed, what ABOUT domestic traffic?

[daveschroeder]

Chris, the fact that TSP was authorized by the President and reviewed by Congress is not something I take legal issue with. There are other, isolated, examples of abuses that I do take issue with. And even then, the public is not privy to all of the details. We have an issue of the conflation of multiple different situations: TSP, monitoring of US Persons in military theaters, monitoring of US Persons as part of terrorism investigations, incidental collection on US Persons under FISA, accidental collection on US Persons, and cases of arguable violation of the law, with the last of these being the smallest part of the equation.

Because of the current state of affairs in which illegal behavior is not only suspected but assumed, there has not been an honest, dispassionate debate about the powers Bush adopted for TSP. There have been legal scholars on both sides of the debate -- not surprisingly, often following party lines. When an issue becomes so politicized, as this one has, how is it to be resolved? At what point does it lose relevance, when no demonstrable and continuing adverse action has resulted from the controversial behavior?

My larger issue is with the belief that "security" and "liberty" are part of a single sliding scale, wherein an increase in one automatically results in a commensurate sacrifice of the other. The key to a secure nation and society under our system of rule of law is understanding how we can keep a safe and stable nation, both in a domestic sense and with respect to the world stage -- which is increasingly populated with non-state actors -- while balancing those considerations with the freedoms and liberties that our system of government also espouses. It's always been about balance, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to make it out to be exclusively political.

is anyone really surprised?

[jt418-93]

constitutions are vessels designed to contain the acid of government that wants to eat up freedom. eventually, they all wear away and are discarded.
only took 200something years. not a very good run really.

Re:is anyone really surprised?

[xenolion]

most govies only last 50-100 years before they get trashed and start something new..looks like we are over due

What is an intelligence court?

[MobyDisk]

A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling...

What is a Federal Intelligence Court, and why is it implied that the decisions of this court are not usually made public?

Re:What is an intelligence court?

[MobyDisk]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but this article gets more absurd as I go:

The appeals court is expected to uphold a secret ruling...

Uphold a what?

...issued last year by the intelligence court that it oversees, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court. In that initial opinion, the secret court found that Congress had acted within its authority

Wait... so a secret court, established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ruled that secret actions of that secret court are legal? Shocking!

It found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information, according to the person familiar with the ruling.

It does?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I guess they mean the Border Search Exception...

Re:What is an intelligence court?

[tinkerghost]

FISA is a dedicated branch of the Federal Court system set up for the sole purpose of handling warrants for the intelligence agencies. All of it's members are required to have a Top Secret or better security clearance and it is very much a closed door court.

Most of the paperwork that goes through FISA is classified in some way or another, so its not available for review like normal court documents. In some ways, it's a lot more like a Grand Jury where everything is sealed until after the trial. The only problem is that Intelligence agency work is almost never done, so nothing ever becomes unsealed.

As for history, FISA was created in response to Nixon & Watergate. It satisfied the needs of the intelligence community to be able to work in secret inside the US to handle cross border work, while still maintaining checks & balances on the actual activity. Currently, god only knows what kind of check it's actually performing - last report I saw was rating @ 99+% approval of warrant requests.

Re:What is an intelligence court?

[MobyDisk]

That all makes sense, and I get the idea of such a court reviewing warrant requests. But why would the FISA court be making a constitutional ruling regarding a piece of legislation? It doesn't sound like judicial review is within the scope of this court.

Re:What is an intelligence court?

[Hordeking]

I guess I'll secretly follow any secret rulings by a secret court. Of course, on the face of it, I'll just ignore anything they say, because "Hey, buddy, I didn't see you there."

Re:What is an intelligence court?

[tinkerghost]

Judicial review is within the jurisdiction of every court. Only the Supreme Court gets final say. In this case, FISA reviewed the program, as it exists now, and is giving it a green light. If you can get someone with standing to take it to the Supreme Court, and they didn't opt out on "State Secrets" grounds, then SCOTUS would be the final ruling.

Re:What is an intelligence court?

[b4dc0d3r]

I pass 99+% of the code I have to review, because people know not to bring me crap code. I will find it, I will reject it, and I will make fun of you. So now they do their homework and life is good for everyone, but on paper I look very lenient.

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[onecheapgeek]

What the holy hell are you tin-foiling about?

Griffin Bell

[slyborg]

Carter's AG was responsible for having the FISA court established, in response to intelligence agency requests for warrantless surveillance during that administration.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/05/griffin-bell-attorney-general-in-carter-administration-passes-away-at-90/

Re:evals

[TaoPhoenix]

Should we develop the GeekFriendly Code for Politicians?

Re:Convention?

[TaoPhoenix]

Sorry, but we'll never see a constitutional convention again. We might see one of those ammendments sent to the people though.

Egypt has never been a democracy

[Crazy Taco]

Egypt's a "democratic" country terrorizing its people under the guise of a "war on terror."

That's bull. What hate America, left wing source gave you that information and tried to compare us to Egypt in terms of democracy? This is patently false on it's face. Egypt instantly fails the first test anyone would do when trying to determine see if a country is a democracy. They don't have any free or fair elections. Hosni Mubarak proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They have been a mild dictatorship at best for decades, and everyone knows it. Contrast that to the US... if we were a dictatorship under president Bush, as so many on the left wildly claim, then why is he voluntarily leaving power? A dictator doesn't care about term limits. And why is someone he didn't vote for coming to power? Because we still respect the will of the people in this country. We actually are a democracy and don't have hand picked successors.

Just ask yourself: What Would Nixon Do?

How about we ask, "What would George Washington do?" Answer: The exact same thing. Ever since this country was founded we have done this same sort of stuff. The early presidents all found spying ok, all engaged in it, and all inspected foreign mail during war. Move forward a little and you'll find that FDR and JFK did the same sorts of warrantless wiretapping we are doing now, and they are Democrat heroes. In fact, Robert Kennedy did more than probably anyone in history. There is a difference between regular criminal mischief and war, and a difference between American citizens protected under the constitution and people from other countries. Most reasonable people recognize this. During wars especially, but even when not at war, the US (and all other nations) have the right to spy on each other without asking for a warrant from the international court. Only our own citizens are protected from illegal search and seizure under the constitution. Foreign enemy terrorists are not. Sorry.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[adiposity]

Only our own citizens are protected from illegal search and seizure under the constitution. Foreign enemy terrorists are not. Sorry.

Interesting that you use the word, "illegal," to describe an action that you are essentially claiming to be legal. Huh...

Which part of that three word phrase is the operative word? Is it enough that the person is "foreign"? Or just someone we call an "enemy"? Or do they have to have committed an act of "terror" (a fairly hard word to clearly define)?

Also, how can you determine that someone is a "foreign enemy terrorist" in time to commit this "illegal search" legally? Oh, I get it, ignore civil liberties first, and apologize later if the person wasn't a terrorist.

Your statement seems designed to suggest that illegal acts are ok if the "victim" is not someone we care about. How about we replace "foreign enemy terrorists" with "rapists," or "criminals"? Still ok?

-Dan

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[radtea]

Foreign enemy terrorists are not.

The problem, of course, is that who identifies these "foreign enemy terrorists" as such?

How do you know that I, for example, am not a foreign enemy terrorist? Who gets to make that ruling? The same people who want to do the spying?

But if all they require is a declaration, then ANYONE can be declared a "foreign enemy terrorist," including natural-born Americans who have been summarily stripped of their citizenship because they have been declared "foreign enemy terrorists". After all, who would stand up for a "foreign enemy terrorist" who is pretending to be an American citizen?

Bellicose cowards are very quick to declare themselves as having perfect knowledge of who the law applies to, and by implication as having perfect knowledge of which individuals fall into which category. Millennia of history show that when bellicose cowards are put in charge they always declare anyone who disagrees with them about anything a "foreign enemy terrorist" and do everything they can to put them outside the rule of law.

This is happening again, now, in the United States.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[hondo77]

What hate America, left wing source gave you that information and tried to compare us to Egypt in terms of democracy?

The CIA?

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that contrary to popular belief we are not in a legally defined war. We haven't been since the end of WWII For that purpose there has to be a formal declaration from "Congress" to that effect. Without that, you cannot invoke the authorities given to you given a "State of War".

And no, war's against idea's do not count. Which is good because you can't wage an effective war against any idea. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror while all sounding good on their face have never been anything more than an elaborate power grab by the executive branch enabled by the complacency of the people through congress. You'll notice we still have Drugs, we still have poverty, and yep, 20 years from now we will still have terror.

The terrorists have already won, the American way of life and the liberties and securities we took as a given are being challenged and eroded every day, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[TheDarkener]

The early presidents all found spying ok, all engaged in it, and all inspected foreign mail during war. Ok, so does that make it OK? *slap*

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[SirGarlon]

How about we ask, "What would George Washington do?" Answer: The exact same thing. Ever since this country was founded we have done this same sort of stuff.

And what hate freedom, right wing source gave you that information? "We" have only had the apparatus to conduct large-scale surveillance since approximately World War II.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[isd.bz]

When all things are at stake, than all things remain possible.

The previous situations where the 4th amendment protections were subverted or revoked, or habeas corpus was revoked - all of them potentially threatened our existence (Revolutionary War, Civil War, 1st and 2nd World War - and even the Cold War). Neither the Iraq war or the war on terror is one of existence. We are fighting wholly inferior opponents with wholly inferior technology. If the war turns badly, we can annihilate our opponent thousands of times over. Even if they succeed in a major (nuclear, biological, chemical) terror attack, it will still very likely be a small scale event. You can be certain the retaliation will instead measure on the Richter scale.

I disagree with Benjamin Franklin's above quote. It should read:

"... those who desire total security at the expense of some liberty, deserve neither."

It's a sensible thing to give up the right to be individually free to build nuclear weapons or superviruses: the resulting insecurity from allowing lots of these things can result in a total loss of everything - security, liberty, and life. It is not a sensible thing to give up private communication and search and seizure because of (relatively) cheap, regional war halfway across the glove.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[grahamd0]

Except that contrary to popular belief we are not in a legally defined war. We haven't been since the end of WWII For that purpose there has to be a formal declaration from "Congress" to that effect.

"Congress" authorized Bush to use military force against Iraq. I doubt you'll get very far in the legal system suggesting that an "authorization of the use of military force" is not a constitutionally valid declaration of war.

Instead, let's focus on the fact that it was a bad idea sold to us on a lie.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have any free or fair elections.

While there is some uncertainty and choice in US elections, they are certainly neither free nor fair

We actually are a democracy and don't have hand picked successors.

While the successors are not handpicked, many of them inherit their offices. And in practice the will of the people is completely irrelevant.

There is a difference between regular criminal mischief and war

Terrorism is criminal mischief. The US is not in danger of being invaded or nuked into oblivion. We are engaged in a quasi-colonial squabble with the Arab natives. Do you really think extraordinary measures should be taken because of this "war", which has been going on for centuries and will continue for centuries?

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[i_b_don]

We are not in a war, legal or otherwise... unless you also consider the "war on drugs" a war too. Drugs have easily killed more americans than terrorists and like "terror" it will never go away.

Anyone who has used the phrase "we're at war" during this entire discussion here on slashdot is a weak minded panzy who doesn't have the brains to realize that this is simply a line used to make them sheep for the government to push around. "oh, we're at war, well then it's ok for me to give up all my rights and do whatever you say mr. bush. right-o."

I love how republicans love to think they're all brave but at the first sign of the terrorist boogieman they cower in a corner and offer up all their precious "freedoms" at the drop of a hat while the weak kneed liberal pink-o's say "screw the terrorists, we want our freedoms!"

LOL. What a world we live in.... If i didn't have to live here i'd think it was hilarious.

d

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[cvd6262]

I traveled to Egypt to gather colloquial Arabic footage for some online courses. It was a good time, but the "security" issues and the corruption of the local officials was on par with Subsaharan Africa countries.

However, there was a great difference in the freedom of speech category. For example, we were filming in a private household and each family member was taking turns telling jokes. (Like "Wahid saiidi fahim wemaat!") Everything went fine until the ten-year-old son started his joke...

"Al ra-ees Mubarak..." [President Mubarak...]

At which point his father flew to his feet, commanded us to turn of the camera, and took his son in the other room for a talk.

Until Americans are afraid to go on camera with a joke about their president, we're nowhere near Egypt.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[somenickname]

And why is someone he didn't vote for coming to power? Because we still respect the will of the people in this country. We actually are a democracy and don't have hand picked successors.

You make it sound as if anyone not "hand picked" stands even a slight chance of becoming president. They don't. The president hopefuls are hand picked. Not by the people but by the people that have enough power and money to be in a position to decide who best serves their interests.

There is a difference between regular criminal mischief and war, and a difference between American citizens protected under the constitution and people from other countries. Most reasonable people recognize this. During wars especially, but even when not at war, the US (and all other nations) have the right to spy on each other without asking for a warrant from the international court. Only our own citizens are protected from illegal search and seizure under the constitution. Foreign enemy terrorists are not. Sorry.

How many times did you say "war" in that paragraph? A lot. The U.S. is not in a "war" where there is any real danger that another state is going to invade and fundamentally change the country. If that were the case then, yes, blatant wartime paranoid powers would be appropriate to save the country. The U.S. is in no danger of being invaded by another country and so all of these "wartime" powers that the government has enacted are about power and control. They have nothing to do with keeping the population safe. If they did, they would outlaw cars because FAR more people are killed by cars each year than by terrorists.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Mild dictatorship Egypt is receiving US help with keeping tabs on "troublemakers". IBM is supplying machines, software and brainpower for the setup.

Thanks for listening.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Chris Burke]

Until Americans are afraid to go on camera with a joke about their president, we're nowhere near Egypt.

Yeah, these days Americans are afraid to go on camera without a joke about the President!

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

***if we were a dictatorship under president Bush, as so many on the left wildly claim, then why is he voluntarily leaving power? A dictator doesn't care about term limits. And why is someone he didn't vote for coming to power? Because we still respect the will of the people in this country.***

Um, because he is done? He's probably got all the money he wants, used each power he wanted to, and thats that. Castro stepped down too you know... But not to knock Castro, cuba's looking better than US these days.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[drinkypoo]

Egypt instantly fails the first test anyone would do when trying to determine see if a country is a democracy. They don't have any free or fair elections.

We're allowed to vote, but our votes are not counted. Our ballots are retained, allegedly so that they may be recounted, but when we tried to recount them, the recount was halted (and for totally bullshit, oh I'm sorry "suspicious" reasons.)

Contrast that to the US... if we were a dictatorship under president Bush, as so many on the left wildly claim, then why is he voluntarily leaving power? A dictator doesn't care about term limits.

Some on the right claim that the world was supposed to end on the year 2000 (what time zone is god in, anyway?) but I don't try to claim that all right-wingers are that stupid. This is a logical fallacy. You are an atomic playboy.

Because we still respect the will of the people in this country. We actually are a democracy

HA!

and don't have hand picked successors.

Perhaps you failed to notice that arrests for victimless crimes reached an all-time high under pot-smoking, womanizing Bill Clinton's reign; before Clinton we had Bush, after Clinton we had... Bush. There are actually a significant number of political empires alive and well in American politics today; they are all paid by the same people (big pharma, big oil, big media, military-industrial complex, poverty industry aka private welfare management and privatized prisons, etc) and working towards a common goal - getting rich at our expense.

Ever since this country was founded we have done this same sort of stuff.

That part, at least, is true.

Move forward a little and you'll find that FDR and JFK did the same sorts of warrantless wiretapping we are doing now, and they are Democrat heroes.

JFK was also moving towards eliminating the Federal Reserve system. (Best "explanation" I've heard yet as to why he was killed.) He wanted to patch things up with Cuba. He supported the arts and personal rights. Every president does those kinds of things because (I believe) those kinds of things always need to be done. The difference is that we used to do them for national defense, and when we did them for persecution we invented nasty names for it (like, say, "McCarthyism".) Today's illegal wiretaps are used wholesale and for profit.

During wars especially, but even when not at war, the US (and all other nations) have the right to spy on each other without asking for a warrant from the international court. Only our own citizens are protected from illegal search and seizure under the constitution. Foreign enemy terrorists are not. Sorry.

Illegal wiretapping is done at will against American citizens, so it's unclear what you're talking about here.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[ScrewMaster]

We actually are a democracy and don't have hand picked successors.

Well, technically we live in a representative republic, but since George Bush and most of our politicians don't know the difference I don't expect anyone else to, either.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The early presidents all found spying ok, all engaged in it, and all inspected foreign mail during war.

Bill Hicks says,

A war is when TWO armies are fighting.

So the United States of America isn't actually at war, but can use war rhetoric to steal more power from the people. Enjoy the slow march to fascism.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Americans are afraid to go on camera with a joke about their president

Not all Americans are afraid, but there are some. I've run into quite a few that are scared to speak badly of or disagree with the government over emails, phone, and in some cases even ventrilo.

Re:Egypt has never been a democracy

[plasmacutter]

Until Americans are afraid to go on camera with a joke about their president, we're nowhere near Egypt.

The dixie chicks
Cindy Sheehan

Shall I name more.

The american system of oppression has benefited from the capitalist system in that the free market provided excellent refinement to marketing and behavioral psychology, allowing you to better target who will actually be an effective political force rather than just a dismissed/marginalized malcontent.

Once that has happened, those same refined sciences provide much more subtle and effective tools by which to marginalize those individuals.

Killing someone with a large following creates a martyr, it's better and more effective to marginalize them, and the fourth estate (particularly the right-wing variety) have become highly adept at this.

Forget wiretaps, they're way too much work...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just *pretend* there's an outstanding warrant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/washington/15scotus.html?em

No one cares about the law

[daveschroeder]

No one actually cares about the truth here, any of the issues at play, nor the legality of any programs. Most make it a huge political issue, and is it any surprise that even the "leakers" have all had a political axe to grind with the Bush administration?

They just scream "unconstitutional" and rant about Bush, when the very mechanisms set up in our society to render legal opinions on actions of various components of government and to rule on issues of legality or constitutionality have judged certain things to be legal.

The issue is summed up fairly well by comments of DNI Mike McConnell (video) at Harvard's Kennedy School:

And I'll fast forward to a period of Watergate, when the community was used to do a lot of intrusive observation. Out of that came a bill called FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Here was the dilemma. We need this large, robust, wonderful capability to protect us in the context of the Cold War, but we can't allow it to conduct any observation of U.S. citizens. And our wonderful democracy, we want it both ways. Don't let anybody bother us, make sure we're safe, but don't do anything to look at anything that might reflect my activity.

So the law in 1978 said okay to observe foreign, but if you observe anything in the United States, U.S. person for a foreign intelligence purpose, you must have a warrant. That was the law of the land, but it was an analog law. Where we found ourselves most recently is it's one global network. And so communications overseas by foreigners - terrorists plotting to attack the United States - those communications were passing through the United States. If you go back to the old analog law, it said if you take information from a wire, even though it's a glass pipe called fiber on a wire in the United States, you must have a warrant. So the dilemma for us was we had a terrorist overseas plotting to attack us by speaking with a terrorist in another overseas location and the community was required to get a warrant.

The debate and the dilemma for us is how do you modernize that law for the modern age? And we debated. For two years we debated and we finally came to closure. The good news is when it was finally voted, two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate voted for it and here's what it says today: if it's a U.S. person anywhere in the globe, you must have a warrant. A judge must grant you to conduct surveillance and the purpose of the surveillance can only be for one thing, foreign intelligence. Now, why would you do surveillance of a U.S. person for foreign surveillance? What if it's a spy that's been recruited by a foreign agent and you need to know what they're giving away? You would then have a warrant for surveillance of that person for a foreign intelligence purpose.

The other part of the law is no warrant for a foreign target regardless of where or how you intercept it. And the third part of the law was in today's world it's digital, it's global - you can't do it without the help of the private sector and so the private sector was authorized to give us that help and provided a level of liability protection.

That's the kind of dilemma that we face in making sure we balance our responsibilities for conducting surveillance of foreign targets that might wish us harm and respecting the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens.

...and again in comments on Charlie Rose (video):

CHARLIE ROSE: Okay, wire tapping is necessary and it's okay without a warrant because? In your judgment.

DIRECTOR McCONNELL: Wire tapping is essential. It is now probably more than half of

Reaction

[British]

Tired: http://website/
Wired: https://website/

End run

[moxley]

Okay, so they try an end run and use the court which they disdained and claimed would never work to suit their purposes to issue a ruling after the fact?

It shouldn't matter because it certainly wasn't legal when it was undertaken - hence all of the shady actions and attempts at ex post facto bullshit.

Can anyone say... JUST IN TIME.

[toby]

n/t

Only if you accept the party line.

[element-o.p.]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Funny. I can't seem to find the phrase that allows the government to intercept anything crossing the U.S. border in the paragraph above. Could you point it out for me? Thanks!

Re:Only if you accept the party line.

[AmaDaden]

Not that I agree with it, but the logic is that the calls in question are to/from out side of the U.S. Therefor one person involved is NOT a U.S. citizen and are not a member of 'the people' in question. Because of this they do not have those rights.

Re:Only if you accept the party line.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That still does not work. Firstly, even if one agrees with that interpretation, it would require a determination if the other party is in fact not a US citizen traveling abroad. But more importantly by opening that letter you are still violating the rights of the other end of the communication, i.e. the US citizen on US soil. There is simply no way around it because as far as the violation of the 4th amendment is concerned, the two ends of the postal communication cannot be arbitrarily separated (the "papers" in question belong to both the sender and the recipient at the same time while in transit).

Re:Only if you accept the party line.

[wumingzi]

I was going to find the constitutional case law behind this, but came up empty-handed after an exhaustive 5 minute search. You'll have to do your own search or take my word for it.

Long story short: There is very old case law which establishes that you do not enjoy the same rights at the border as you do in your home. This is why if you come back from a trip overseas, if the nice person at Customs says "open your suitcase", you argue the 4th amendment with them at your peril. Please note the little signs that state that you may be held at the border for up to 72 hours without charges before you do so. This has permitted Customs to board ships at sea, and border agents to dump your car since the early 1800s. (100 years before cars. Prescient mofos, weren't they?).

I am guessing that the current administration has probably pushed well past the intent granted by the courts in those earlier rulings, but none of the cases of their abuse has come up for judicial review yet, so my guesses aren't worth very much.

Re:Convention?

[Shakrai]

Sorry, but we'll never see a constitutional convention again

Why not? If 2/3'rds of the states want one then the Constitution would seem to require it:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I'm not sure if the parent post is actually off-topic.
At a glance, it seems to be on every possible topic.
Which I suppose is about the same :)

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wiretapping is good now. You are only saying what you are saying because of racism.

Obama WILL do it too, given his poor track record.

[Anonymous Coward]

Presidential powers are clear on this; this is not news at all. This whole thread is an utter waste of time.

Clinton did it, Carter did it and probably Reagan too. Obama will do it, given the facts that he has already abused his political power in attempts to silence his opposition, his dislike for the constitution and the fact that he consorts with know terrorist William Ayers.
 

You are totally mistaken

[GuloGulo]

" The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."

Despite there being Slavery at the founding of The American Government.

Despite everyone NOT having the same rights at the founding of the American Government (women couldn't vote for example).

Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.

Now, don't presume that I disagree with the idea that equality is universal, but your claims about it being historically true in respect to the American Government are unequivocally false.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[kingramon0]

The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens when it affirms the natural rights of individuals. Therefore, by saying that non-citizens have different rights, you would be adding meaning that is not supported by the text of Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.

The natural rights described by the Declaration and affirmed by the Bill of Rights were meant to apply to all individuals; they are inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, or natural rights we have by virtue of being human, whichever you prefer.

That is a philosophical statement. The political reality of the time is that slavery existed, and the Constitution could not have been ratified without the participation of the southern colonies, so some compromises had to be made for the time being. However, the founders thought that slavery would eventually end, so one of the reasons they avoided using the word 'slave' in the Constitution is so that future generations would not be embarrassed by the fact that slavery once existed in America.

As for women not voting: there doesn't seem to be any historical written evidence that they even wanted to. At the time, it was just accepted that the man of the house voted on behalf of the whole family. It wasn't until much later that women began to feel that they were being wronged by not being allowed to vote.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[PitaBred]

The definition of who is a person has changed, not the rights of a person. When the country was founded, slaves were not people, and women were only barely counted as such. I do agree about the constitutional protections only applying to US Citizens, though. I've never heard of constitutional protections extending elsewhere.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[osu-neko]

" The American government and Constitution were founded on the idea that everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not."

Despite there being Slavery at the founding of The American Government.

Despite everyone NOT having the same rights at the founding of the American Government (women couldn't vote for example).

Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.

Now, don't presume that I disagree with the idea that equality is universal, but your claims about it being historically true in respect to the American Government are unequivocally false.

The quote you claim he made in your last paragraph is indeed false. The claim he actually made (as you quoted in your first paragraph) is unequivocally true. The three middle paragraphs cite facts that in no way contradict the original claim. They point out that we have not always (indeed have never fully, even to this day) lived up to those ideals, but say nothing that contradicts the quoted statement.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[osu-neko]

I do agree about the constitutional protections only applying to US Citizens, though. I've never heard of constitutional protections extending elsewhere.

Actually, it's quite well established that they extend to non-citizens. For example, it's as illegal for the police to search the house of someone without warrant regardless of whether they're a US citizen or a UK citizen with a second house in the US. The 4th amendment says this is not allowed, and nowhere says "unless they're not a citizen".

Of course, the history books are full of examples of the US ignoring its own constitution, particularly when dealing with minorities, foreigners, undesirables, etc...

Re:You are totally mistaken

[avoiceinthewildernes]

The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document that applies to those who are part of the compact and as such (of course) only applies to citizens. The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.) Your point that the Constitution applies to all humans no matter what is just wrong--silly wrong, in fact.

When a State of War obtains, bad sh*t happens. That's why we should prefer to operate within civil society. But this nonsense about the civil laws and courts as the natural due of those who stand with respect to us as in a State of Nature and even in a State of War just has to stop.

More generally, people need to get ahold of their rational faculty and think about these matters more clearly. I think an irrational hatred of a specific administration is clouding judgment here. If Obama releases these folks and one of them commits an act of terror, the folks clamoring for these silly notions (e.g., that the same rules of evidence that should apply within the context of a civil authority should also apply to enemy combatants) will have done their own cause (which I assume--hope?--is Justice) a grave disservice.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[shaitand]

'The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.)'

No, its not another matter entirely. You can't separate the two. Without valid trials you don't know if there are innocents incarcerated. The reason we hold the requirement for fair trial in the first place isn't for the benefits of the guilty who might 'get off' its for the innocents who's rights outweigh any justice owed to guilty 'getting off'.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[kingramon0]

The preamble asserts, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . . " As should be obvious, the Constitution is a legal document that applies to those who are part of the compact and as such (of course) only applies to citizens.

So are you saying that Constitutional protections against bills of attainder, the right of free speech, the right not to self-incriminate, etc. could be Constitutionally denied to non-citizens?

The preamble is a statement of purpose for the Constitution. It's there so that when Congress makes laws it can look back at it and see if those laws further one of the goals that it was established for. It is also meant to clearly convey that the people, themselves, set up this government and it is they that have the ultimate authority to dispose of it.

The Declaration states basic natural rights, but detention and judgment against enemy combatants (even lawful ones) in no way abridges their natural rights. (Of course, if there are innocents incarcerated, their rights are violated, but that's another matter entirely.)

I agree. I have never stated otherwise.

Your point that the Constitution applies to all humans no matter what is just wrong--silly wrong, in fact.

Natural rights apply to all humans. The Constitution was crafted to protect those natural rights by limiting the power of the government it established. I agree that being a captured enemy soldier/combatant is not a violation of your natural rights, but being held indefinitely without the ability to defend yourself in court is. As long as there are clearly established rules for adjudicating those cases in a timely fassion, and not "I'm the president, I'll do what I want" then it would be acceptable - it doesn't necessarily have to be the same legal system we use domestically, but it does need to be a system established by Congress, not the executive. If we allow the executive to be prosecutor, and judge and allow him to keep potentially innocent people locked up forever with no evidence, then we are treating them as less than human.

When a State of War obtains, bad sh*t happens. That's why we should prefer to operate within civil society. But this nonsense about the civil laws and courts as the natural due of those who stand with respect to us as in a State of Nature and even in a State of War just has to stop.

More generally, people need to get ahold of their rational faculty and think about these matters more clearly. I think an irrational hatred of a specific administration is clouding judgment here. If Obama releases these folks and one of them commits an act of terror, the folks clamoring for these silly notions (e.g., that the same rules of evidence that should apply within the context of a civil authority should also apply to enemy combatants) will have done their own cause (which I assume--hope?--is Justice) a grave disservice.

I don't just hate the Bush administration. Obama doesn't look like he will turn out any better. The problem is too much power usurped by presidents over the last century. Congress needs to grow a backbone.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[mrchaotica]

Despit your claim that "everyone has the same rights, whether they are citizens of the U.S. or not." appearing NOWHERE in the Constitution.

Of course it doesn't; it doesn't need to! The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property...." It doesn't say "citizen," it says "person!" That means it applies to every person! Period! How much more fucking clear does it have to be?!

Re:You are totally mistaken

[GuloGulo]

"The quote you claim he made in your last paragraph is indeed false. The claim he actually made (as you quoted in your first paragraph) is unequivocally true."

I chose the claim he MADE which is "unequivocally" present in black and white.

It's not a "quote I claim he made", as HE ACTUALLY MADE IT YOU FUCKING MORON.

It's clear you have no idea what the fuck you're blathering about, and your mastery of the language sucks.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[GuloGulo]

"Of course it doesn't; it doesn't need to! The 5th Amendment says that "no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property...." It doesn't say "citizen," it says "person!" That means it applies to every person! Period! How much more fucking clear does it have to be?!"

What a colossally stupid attempt at a point.

Guess what dumbass, it discusses jurisdiction too. If the document DOES NOT have jurisdicstion, then it's claims of what behaviors are and are not allowed by government MEAN FUCK ALL because the document itself defines its jurisdiction.

So you're wrong, mostly because you confused your opinion with valid legal theory.

Re:You are totally mistaken

[mrchaotica]

Oh, I'm the dumbass? Read your own fucking sig! You apparently know just as well as I do that those 5th Amendment rights exist regardless of whether the Constitution enumerates them or not; you already AGREED with me before you even began writing your post!

Besides, any and every instance which would be outside of the "jurisdiction" of the 5th Amendment (if we even assumed such a statement made sense) would also be outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Government entirely! In other words, no agents of the government, including the military, would have authority to act at all.

What's the problem?

[John Jorsett]

A heavily Democratic Congress and a Democratic President can change the law to be whatever they want now. Don't like wiretapping? Change it. Given the endless rhetoric that's been going on regarding this topic, I expect them to do so on January 21, 2009.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dreamer.

They won't end wiretapping. They will just wiretap different people - Republicans to be specific. Democrats are good at this. Remember the 900 FBI files in the Clinton administration? Remember the recorded cell phone conversation?

No, not dreamer. Idiot.

Easy to persuade a judge

[Anonymous Coward]

When you think about it, it's not too hard, with the awesome powers spy agencies have nowadays, to create the circumstances to "compel" or "influence" judges towards making certain legal decisions or findings. You just have to carefully analyze their lifestyles, psychological profiles, habits, etc.

Some judges will respond well to direct threats to their families, others will become indignant and may need another approach, still others can probably be bought or persuaded with financial or other "benefits". Others might have something to hide, giving you even more leverage. Most judges are probably ambitious, no?

If a judge has complete moral integrity and none of these would work, you can always try the subtle game of (mis)information.

The agencies are experts at conning people. It's just a game of probability and risk management, the agencies probably have whole teams assigned to ensuring each judge rules the way they want.

FISA isn't Constitutional?

[jjo]

What particular aspect of the FISA court is unconstitutional? By the FISA statute, Congress has gone over and above the requirements of the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) for protecion of international communications. Pre-FISA, warrantless wiretapping of international communications has been ruled acceptable under the Fourth Amendment. Let's face it, it's not obvious exactly how

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

maps onto electronic communications. The Supremes have mapped it into a broad protection of domestic communications, with significantly less protection of international communications. The FISA statute is a means of prescribing a regime for protecting such communications without compromising legitimate intelligence needs.

And naturally the damage done

[msimm]

by their short-sighted attempts to help the American people (by eroding our protections) will be provide opportunity for people with increasingly self-serving motives. Because rights are almost always easier to take away then the civil uprisings it almost invariably takes to get them.

see George Carlin on "rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

c.f. The Carlin opinion on your "rights" listed on "It's bad for ya".

Actually, it is different.

[davidwr]

If you send your communication via a human being who has memorized your message, and who can convincingly say "no" when asked "are you carrying any information into the country on behalf of a third party?" then as far as customs is concerned, he's not carrying anything.

Likewise, if information is being carried using good-enough steganography, then it won't be detected and will be let through.

It's relatively easy to hide plans to blow up a large office building even from a determined adversary. It's pretty hard to hide explosives.

If you are really sneaky, you can embed your hidden message in religious tracts. Imagine the bad press if the border guards stopped you from bringing in copies of The Holy Bible, copies which you'd hidden secret messages in by careful use of typography and layout during printing.

Who's on 1st?

[Hordeking]

I'm almost entirely sure the USSC could invalidate a lot of this, if somehow someone could get it to them (you know, without being thrown out because the secret courts or president's administration won't cough up evidence).

Last I checked, the USSC was still the supreme court of the land, not the military courts (which would technically put them under the judicial branch, not the executive one, I believe)

Re:Who's on 1st?

[Coolhand2120]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=SCOTUS+
It's called SCOTUS not USSC.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing that out so you can better argue you points in the future.

Re:Who's on 1st?

[Hordeking]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=SCOTUS+ It's called SCOTUS not USSC. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just pointing that out so you can better argue you points in the future.

Toe-may-toe, ta-mah-toe. It's all a matter of what one prefers, I suspect.

United States Supreme Court vs Supreme Court of the United States.

I think I managed to convey my message relatively unambiguously, at the very least./p?

Very interesting timing of this court ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

"I see this as a move by the Bush administration to avoid any culpability and any scrutiny."

Just in time as well, as his lot will be out of power very soon. Just in time, to try to cover up their crimes.

Irony

[deblau]

Doesn't the court realize that by ruling FISA entirely useless, they just ruled themselves useless?

Big Surprise

[Atrox666]

Foxes guarding henhouse rule hens have no cause for concern.

Nothing to see here move along.

What exception?

[Anonymous Coward]

It found that the Protect America Act did not violate the Constitution because the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, contained an exception for the collection of foreign intelligence information.

No it doesn't

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No exceptions there...

i'm going to take an unpopular stand

[circletimessquare]

if you put someting out on a wire, you are sacrificing your privacy, no matter what the law says

frankly, i don't understand the slashdot attitude that expects the government to protect your privacy

its YOUR responsibility to protect your privacy

on other topics, such as users with weak passwords, who complain about convenience, plenty here would be ready to scold the user saying that they need to make the extra effort to ensure their security

why can't you see the parallel?

look: it is possible for all sorts of people to spy on anything you put out on a wire, from well placed hackers, to corporate drones at telecommunications company, to yes, the government

in other words: you put it out on the wire. which means you implicitly gave up your right to privacy right at that moment, no matter what the legal environment, if you understand anything about how the internet works, which, on a forum like slashdot, should be de rigeur

if you have something to say that needs to be private, encrypt, or go walk on a secluded beach somewhere with a pounding surf to interrupt the guys with the telescoping microphones

and if this is too much work for you, if you think it is unfair to impose this extra burden on you to enforce your own privacy, then you really don't understand, philosphically, what the concept of privacy really is

doesn't it strike a lot of you as absurd that you are explicitly asking the GOVERNMENT to protect your privacy for you?

The Constitution is a Treaty.

[tjstork]

The reason that the Constitution is so short, and so vague, is that it is a Treaty among the states that could not agree on anything. Prior to the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the states, having just rebelled against a Federal Power in Great Britain, did not want any power over them at all. They only adopted the Constitution because the founders recognized that there existed a need for a small, but powerful, Federal Government, to provide for some basic, common things, like military and regulation of commerce among the states.

Anything else, not in the Constitution, is explicitly left to the states, and that says, essentially, that if it is not in the Constitution, then the Federal Government is NOT allowed to do it.

So yeah, you could make a pretty strong case that, in the strict sense, Bush's wiretapping is illegal as it is not an enumerated power. However, this country, perhaps wrongly, largely believes that the Constitution is a "living document", not the treaty that it is. While this view is propagated by the American left wing - Obama even spells this out in his book, it is also true that the right wing, particularly under President Bush, has also taken the "living document" approach. Thus, the Federal Government now has the power to regulate the environment, local schools, hiring practices, voting within the states (and THAT is blatantly unconstitutional), and any other number of things.

So, it's not just that Bush is unconstitutional. It's that, every President since even Jefferson and arguably even George Washington has been unconstitutional! Jefferson, you will recall, argued rather violently against a strong federal government, but then had no problem with actually going out and purchasing the Louisiana territories from the French, lying to Congress, fighting an undeclared war against the French and Barbary Pirates, all the while writing about Freedom in an enormous set of letters to Madison and everyone else, bitching about slavery while knocking his own slaves up.

So yeah, you -could- make the case, that all the Presidents are unconstitutional, and the whole damn thing was a failure, except that, there were those who actually saw the Constitution as the creation of a President as essentially a king for a democratically restricted length of time, his power for war and taxation removed from him, but pretty much able to do whatever he wanted, and within that history then, you would really have to square Dick Cheney's view of the Presidency as Hamiltonian, more than anything else.

Re:The Constitution is a Treaty.

[osu-neko]

So yeah, you could make a pretty strong case that, in the strict sense, Bush's wiretapping is illegal as it is not an enumerated power.

Actually, it'd be a pretty weak case. All constitutional powers that any official in the US has are necessarily not specific. The constitution, for example, does not authorize the President to order troops to invade Canada. It does, however, authorize him to command the military, and thus he can give this order, despite that specific action not being specifically authorized by the constitution.

So, in order to argue that the wiretapping is illegal because it's not an enumerated power, you can't simply point out that it's not specifically authorized, you must also demonstrate that does not fall under the rubric of anything that is authorized. So if the president is authorized to repel attacks on the United States, you have to prove that wiretapping does nothing to repel attacks on the United States. That's not so easy a case to make.

I personally think the action in question IS illegal, but the much better and easier case to make is that it violates the 4th amendment, not that it's not an enumerated power.

Re:The Constitution is a Treaty.

[2short]

"They only adopted the Constitution because the founders recognized that there existed a need for a small, but powerful, Federal Government, to provide for some basic, common things, like military and regulation of commerce among the states."

Well, the military was handled in common before the Constitution, at least as far as external threats (c.f. Continental Army). It was really more that by centralizing power, the southern plantation owners and northern merchants could force their preferred monetary policy on the agrarians, who were strong regionally, but lacked a national power base. Um, I mean, The Founding Fathers could provide for better regulation of commerce...

Note that I'm actually a huge fan of the founding fathers and the Constitution. But like most successful political efforts, theirs succeeded not only by being a good idea, but because it was good for people who were powerful, and the people it screwed were weak.

"...you -could- make the case, that all the Presidents are unconstitutional"

No you couldn't. Actions and laws can be unconstitutional; Presidents cannot. Presidents can show more or less respect for the Constitution. If you'd like to argue other Presidents have had as little respect for the Constitution as this one, you've got a tough sell.

You could even argue the founders intended the President to be a temporary but largely unfettered King. It's a pretty convincing argument as long as you heavily skew your interpretation of Hamiltons views, and steadfastly ignore every other founder.

"...really have to square Dick Cheney's view of the Presidency as Hamiltonian, more than anything else."

More than "dangerous to the very fabric of our society"? I think not.

Re:The Constitution is a Treaty.

[ppanon]

If you'd like to argue other Presidents have had as little respect for the Constitution as this one, you've got a tough sell.

I think that some of Richard Nixon's comments and actions show a significant disregard for the US constitution, quite possibly comparable to George Bush's. The difference is that, 30 years later, George Bush was backed by a Congress, with similar disregard for the constitution, that gave him much more free rein to exercise that attitude than Nixon ever got. I don't know enough about Presidents prior to the mid-20th Century to say if the same also applied to any of them.

Re:The Constitution is a Treaty.

[neomunk]

Could you explain the purpose of the 10th Amendment as it fits into your paradigm, please?

Re:The Constitution is a Treaty.

[shaitand]

'The constitution, for example, does not authorize the President to order troops to invade Canada. It does, however, authorize him to command the military, and thus he can give this order, despite that specific action not being specifically authorized by the constitution.'

While such a thing is considered true today, it is probably in actuality contrary to the constitution. The constitution gives the right to declare war squarely to the congress. After it is declared the military is commanded by the president. And outside of wartime the federal government isn't even supposed to have a standing army for more than 2yrs (only a navy). States are supposed to have militias, those militias are conscripted by the federal government in time of war to form a standing army, which the president then commands.

At no point was the president supposed to have the authority to order attacks outside of wartime. Now we just look at it as a question of money, he can't have any extra money unless congress gives it to him. In other words, its okay for the president to break the rules right up to the point where there is a practical limitation that prevents him from continuing the abuse.

Re:Police Negligence

[conureman]

Before "9/11", the biggest cover-up for police malfeasance was ignorance, (Which way did he go?) now I guess anytime they have to break the law, they'll be forced to admit they bungled the rules (again) and it'll be okay. Better than a pack of Mentos!

Summary and story is incorrect

[rhizome]

The FISA court ruled that the passage of the law was legal. That's it. They said that Congress was within their powers to pass the PAA as a bill. That's it. They didn't rule on the legality of the program before it was passed, and they didn't rule on the legality of the law after it was passed. They only said it was OK to pass it. Whether the program itself (that is, the content of the bill) is legal is a different case.

But we do have a declaration of war.

[tjstork]

Except that contrary to popular belief we are not in a legally defined war. We haven't been since the end of WWII For that purpose there has to be a formal declaration from "Congress" to that effect. Without that, you cannot invoke the authorities given to you given a "State of War".

Actually, this is totally wrong, and came about in several ways. Bush, and now Obama, has too blank checks in his hand.

a) Congress basically gave Bush the power to do anything in its first war on terror legislation following 9/11. Essentially, this legislation allowed the President to declare any state a terrorist state and to take military action in any way he sees fit.

b) Congress further affirmed the war on terror with its Iraqi war resolution.

You can say that these resolutions are not "declarations of war", but in my mind, when you say, "the president is authorized to use the armed forces of the united states to do whatever he wants to bad guys", that, sounds a lot like a declaration of war to me.

Of course, with all that said, I agree that the mindset of being in a continual war is cancerous to democracy. If we are to have a war, we should have raised an army of 5 million men, taken over the entire middle east, occupied the place, burned all the mosques, and ethnically cleansed Islam down into yet another European style Democracy that we imposed on Germany, and now can't even live up to ourselves.

Back to the Basics.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main idea here appears to be that the NSA can listen to conversations without a warrant (how ever they are able to discern between a non-resident calling from and American phone or an American traveling abroad calling his children back home is beyond me.)
The idea i want to cement in here is that why not care about safety? if the guy they're listening to turns out to be an American so what? if they arrest him because he said some really suspicious crap then he'll go through our legal system and if there isn't any real problem then he'll counter-sue for invasion of privacy and make a boatload of cash. but if he has a bomb then i'd feel safer if he went to jail (i don't care what nationality you are nut jobs exist everywhere.)

and even they tap my call to some 1-900 # or my work i don't care so long as they don't jump on the line and interrupt my good time (or in case of work important business)

paranoia keeps you on your toes and out of trouble most of the time, but if you complain about some guy (who is 1000 miles away) listening to your conversation then your just being a cry baby yelling hypocrite and arguing principles when you don't comprehend the situation from both sides of the picture.

even though it may seem unfair and lots of people only think about themselves the guys making these laws are smart and are constantly needing to consider 1000's of other laws at the same time. if you've totally given up faith in people the go ahead and whine then remember you're human too and go jump in a lake.

remember everyone is a hypocrite. so every pot calling the kettle black needs to relax and let these people do THEIR jobs.

-Ben

Re:Wiretapping Program Ruled Legal

[Hordeking]

Well Duh. Mod down if you want, but the law is pretty clearly written. Don't like it? Vote out the Democrat dominated Congress that blessed it.

That won't have any effect on the law. A bill is hard to pass. Once passed that law is even harder to get rid of.

The individual right to bear arms was unanimous.

[maillemaker]

Even the "liberal" members of the Supreme Court in Heller held that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. On that point the justices were unanimous.

Summary is imprecise.

[hey!]

As of 2007, the NSA program is perfectly legal, accoring to the court. It does not necessarily mean that the program has always been legal. In fact, it's pretty likely that it violated a number of statues, and that's what's technically important here.

The powers of the President to wage war and to protect national security are subject to Congressional oversight and regulation. While most people are aware that the Constitution names the President "Commander in Chief", the powers granted to him are significantly less than those of a military dictator, even with respect to the policy and management of the military. For example officer commissions are approved by the senate Although this is largely a pro forma affair. Indeed every aspect of running and employing the military is subject to Congressional regulation.

This is important because in US Constitutional law, there is no explicit right of personal privacy, and the exact extent of the implicit right of privacy (under the Ninth Amendment) is not perfectly clear. If the Executive Branch is empowered to do something, that means it is up to Congress to see to it that it does not violate the Ninth Amendment.

It is largely due to Congress's power regulate Executive functions that we have many restrictions on wiretapping at all. While the reach of the Fourth Amendment has been considerably widened by court opinions in the 20th Century (e.g., Katz v. US) for criminal investigation, intelligence investigation inherently requires a violation of the "expectation of privacy", something that Katz says can only be done with a warrant in criminal cases.

So, if Congress says the President can intercept phone calls for intelligence purposes, it seems probable that this will be treated by the courts as constitutional. If that's not the case, it is Congress that has failed in its duty to safeguard Americans from the Executive Branch.

The strongest reason is to overthrow!

[Coolhand2120]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff100991.html

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson

And he in large part wrote the constitution!
So perhaps you can rethink your previous statment? Or maybe you can link to a credible reference to back up your assertion?

Re:The strongest reason is to overthrow!

[Qrlx]

A simple google search for
second amendment slaves

Should get you started down the path towards the history you seem intent on denying.

The point of view I presented in my original post is not particularly historically controversial.
But it does ruffle the feathers of those who adhere to the mythology of the Founding Fathers and the ideals of Liberty they espoused.

(It happens a lot on Slashdot, which is very understandable, what with this being a hotbed of Libertarianism.)

Discriminating between the propaganda and the true motive is always a challenge. You should consider the ulterior motives that may have induced Jefferson, a slave owner living in a slave state, to present the argument you quoted.

Jefferson's lofty words would certainly have been a lot more palatable to an abolitionist than saying "We Virginians would like to join your Federal government. But, since our way of life is dependent upon slavery, we are going to need an explicit guarantee that the Federal government does not have the power to disarm our militias."

Re:The strongest reason is to overthrow!

[Coolhand2120]

A simple google search for second amendment slaves

But I guess you can't be bothered to show evidence to support your argument?
You're arugment really does not make since anyway. Why would "we the people" require weapons to put down a slave revolt? Couldn't the police, army or state militia put down a slave revolt? Just the same way the Army put down a city wide riot in the New York Draft Riots. And mind you thoes were not slaves, but full citizens that have a right to bear arms.

Seems to me you're in dire need of reading, in full, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Just a single sentence from the Declaration of Independence refutes slavery.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Also note that the U.S.A. was the first country in the world to abolish slavery, before France, before England. In fact some African, European, and Asian countries still support slavery today!

Perhaps you should read a bit of history about Abolitionism before you start throwing blame around. Realize the conservitive Republicans' were responsible for abolishing slavery. It's also interesting to note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex was passed down party lines after Republicans overcame a 54 day filibuster by southern Democrats!

A lot of people don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, he was the first abolitionist president, he fought a bitter civil war to end slavery with Republicans in the north calling themselves The Union and Democrats in the south calling themselves Confederates attempting to cede from the union. Also, there is no refuting the huge role that the Christian Quakers played in the abolition of slavery.

Again, if you can provide me with some solid evidence to back up your claim I'm happy to read it, you claim it's "simple" to find, I did the search and just found a bunch of conspiracy theorist web sites and nothing that actually backs up your claim in the least bit. Our country was founeded on Stoic Natural Law. Stoics emphasized the universal ideas of individual worth, moral duty, and universal brotherhood. The idea of slavery is against Stoic Natural Law.

If I've failed to sway your opinion perhaps our friend Thomas Paine can. Just read the first few pages of this book and then tell me what you think of the 2nd amendment.

Re:The strongest reason is to overthrow!

[Qrlx]

You just proved my point when you said "state militia." The Second Amendment means the Federal government does not have the power to disarm the state militias. As you noted, those militias were used to put down slave rebellions. Sure, the army could be called on to put down a slave rebellion, but without the Second Amendment, the army would be the only ones capable of doing it. What if the Army is not available? What if the Army is directed by Congress not to intervene?

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document like the Constitution is. It's more like propaganda. You can't go into court and claim your rights under the Declaration of Independence not being honored. I mean, you could, but you would be laughed at.

Your comments about abolition of slavery have little place in this discussion, as that didn't happen for another century or so after the States ratified the Constitution. Slavery was very much alive in 1789, "All men are created equal" notwithstanding. (In fact, the Constitution explicitly counts a slave as being 3/5 a person, for purposes of determing proportional representation in government.)

Re:The strongest reason is to overthrow!

[Coolhand2120]

You just proved my point when you said "state militia." The Second Amendment means the Federal government does not have the power to disarm the state militias.

"Militia" is not the national guard. The "Militia" referred to in the 2nd amendment is more along the lines of the minute men. It does not say "national guard", it does not say "state by state militia", it says "militia", as in the hundreds of well regulated Private militia forces, legally operating in the U.S. under 2nd amendment protection. Your idea that the 2nd amendment tells the government that it's OK to have a Militia is not well thought out. Every existing government has a tiered military starting with your local police, or is your argument that the 2nd amendment also prevents the federal government from disarming the police as well?

You claim the Declaration of Independence is "propaganda" but you don't have to know that much about it to realize the significance of the document, a legal document that held power over an entire country. And you totally misrepresent the reason for the 3/5th vote. to make it sound like people were trying to treat salves like less than a person. But it's really quite the opposite:

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers.

The most annoying thing about your posts is you refuse to provide any information to backup your arguments. What you're saying, unless you can back it up with some sort of documentation, is just pure conjecture. I'm very aware that in your opinion the U.S. is an evil slave state that is irredeemable. I'm just asking that you provide some actual proof of the wild accusations you're making.

Re:The strongest reason is to overthrow!

[Qrlx]

I'm very aware that in your opinion the U.S. is an evil slave state that is irredeemable. I'm just asking that you provide some actual proof of the wild accusations you're making.

Welcome to my "idiots" list.

http://www.vpc.org/press/9805bog.htm

there, was that so difficult? It's the second Google hit for "slavery second amendment" -- and it's referenced in the first hit.

This doesn't clear the White House

[blair1q]

This opinion wasn't ruling on the White House's breach of the law in ordering warrantless secret wiretaps.

It was ruling on the legality of the Congress' passing a law after the fact that allows the White House to order warrantless secret wiretaps.

The White House still clearly broke the law that was in force before this law was passed.

Fing NYT

[visible.frylock]

The opinion did not directly rule on the legality of the once-secret operation authorized by President Bush between October 2001 and early 2007, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the international communications of Americans suspected of ties to terrorists. The disclosure of the program's existence in The New York Times in December 2005 set off a national debate on wiretapping, privacy and the limits of presidential power.

This is the second time I've seen NYT using weasel words to make it sound like they broke this story. If you remember, it was USA Today. I'm not really a fan of either one, but give credit where it's due.

Re:Fing NYT

[visible.frylock]

On a second look, maybe I'm mistaken.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/25/0029204

Re:Fing NYT

[forceman130]

Perhaps they are trying to imply to no one of importance reads USA Today, so their publishing of it is what made it big news.

Yeah, yeah, nobody but you

[Chris Burke]

No one actually cares about the truth here, any of the issues at play, nor the legality of any programs.

Yeah, yeah, nobody but you. Yet even though you keep quoting the FISA Amendment, and even linked to the definition of U.S. Persons (inline definition for those reading along: A U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, and anybody who is on U.S. soil legally), you haven't explained how reality falls within those legal guidelines. To get a mere pen register, you don't need to shunt the entirety of traffic going through AT&T switches into a separate room. If they were getting more than that, then they were getting the communications of U.S. Persons which requires a warrant. Warrants they did not get.

The job of our foreign intelligence services is to collect information on the activities and plans of US adversaries. This activity has never required a warrant, because these individuals are not protected by the Constitution of the United States.

What tripe. A U.S. citizen who is also a dissident plotting to overthrow the government is an "adversary", and is absolutely protected by the Constitution even though they may be guilty of treason. So in other words, sometimes this does require a warrant, sometimes it doesn't. When you pay no attention to which situation it is and never get a warrant, then you're surely operating outside the law.

Speaking of tripe, here's a bit from Director McConnel:
Now here's the other thing that most Americans don't appreciate, haven't been exposed to. When we redid that law, the law now says any U.S. person, any U.S. person, that's targeted for foreign intelligence must be protected by a warrant anywhere on the globe. So we actually have a much more stringent law today protecting Americans and civil liberties --

What bull crap! The old FISA law said any U.S. Person who was a party to the conversation being targeted, regardless of whether they were the target of the tap or not, must be protected by a warrant. If I read the new law correctly, it only applies when the person specifically being targeted is a U.S. Person. And the whole "anywhere on the globe" bit is inherent to the definition of U.S. Person!

The old law had more stringent protections. But since getting a warrant and respecting rights is apparently so hard, they had to do away with some and then double-speak their way into saying it's better. What a crock.

Re:Yeah, yeah, nobody but you

[daveschroeder]

Yeah, yeah, nobody but you. Yet even though you keep quoting the FISA Amendment, and even linked to the definition of U.S. Persons (inline definition for those reading along: A U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, and anybody who is on U.S. soil legally), you haven't explained how reality falls within those legal guidelines. To get a mere pen register, you don't need to shunt the entirety of traffic going through AT&T switches into a separate room. If they were getting more than that, then they were getting the communications of U.S. Persons which requires a warrant. Warrants they did not get.

That's the point. No one here is in a position to comment on what they were getting, or how. What we do know is that the courts, including FISC, the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, the executive branch -- which will soon be headed by President Obama, legislation which speaks to this issue, the legal advisors of NSA and the Intelligence Community, and the Justice Department, are aware of what is implemented, and how, and it has been judged to be legal under the Constitution and under the law. I am not certain just how much more determination is required. You (and others) are focusing on what you feel, without access to all of the information, is an overbroad technical implementation and ignoring all other review, oversight, and controls.

What tripe. A U.S. citizen who is also a dissident plotting to overthrow the government is an "adversary", and is absolutely protected by the Constitution even though they may be guilty of treason. So in other words, sometimes this does require a warrant, sometimes it doesn't. When you pay no attention to which situation it is and never get a warrant, then you're surely operating outside the law.

Implicit in my comment was that this would not be a US Person. Sorry I didn't include it there, though my meaning should be clear from my numerous comments on the issue; namely, that it is non-US Persons which can legally be targeted without a warrant, even when the collection occurs within the US. If it is a US Person that is an "adversary", and as such becomes the target of intelligence collection, they are, of course, covered by the warrant requirements.

The old FISA law said any U.S. Person who was a party to the conversation being targeted, regardless of whether they were the target of the tap or not, must be protected by a warrant. If I read the new law correctly, it only applies when the person specifically being targeted is a U.S. Person. And the whole "anywhere on the globe" bit is inherent to the definition of U.S. Person!

No, the old law still allowed identifying information and content of incidental traffic from a US Person to be redacted, and a warrant was required only if the collection resulted in routine interception of traffic from the same US Person. The anywhere on the globe thing is NOW legally inherent to the definition of a US Person, but they were only protected under the old law in the context of foreign intelligence collection if they were inside of the US. Now they are protected anywhere. So the new law, is, in fact, stronger with respect to protection for US Persons. That was part of the give-and-take compromise that allowed for foreign collection on non-US Persons to happen within the US without a warrant.

Re:Yeah, yeah, nobody but you

[Chris Burke]

That's the point. No one here is in a position to comment on what they were getting, or how. What we do know is that the courts, including FISC, the Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate, the executive branch -- which will soon be headed by President Obama, legislation which speaks to this issue, the legal advisors of NSA and the Intelligence Community, and the Justice Department, are aware of what is implemented, and how, and it has been judged to be legal under the Constitution and under the law. I am not certain just how much more determination is required. You (and others) are focusing on what you feel, without access to all of the information, is an overbroad technical implementation and ignoring all other review, oversight, and controls.

What does Obama taking office soon have to do with the Bush administration's opinion on whether his program was legal, and for that matter why the hell should I care what the NSA legal counsel and the Bush DoJ think? "Oh yeah it's totally illegal, but we advised the President to do it anyway"? That's ridiculous. This is the same DoJ that gave its opinion that the President could essentially ignore any law he wanted.

The only groups you mentioned who I have any reason to think are actually aware of what was implemented and how would be FISC and the Intelligence Committee, and I know Bush pulled executive privilege on the committee has tried to do the same in every non-FISA court so I'm not even so sure about that.

As far as myself, this isn't about what I feel, it's about what little I do actually know. I know they installed hardware in the telcos far in excess of what is needed to perform limited surveilance or create a pen register, and I know that they admitted to warrantless tapping of people in the U.S., and I know at least one group of U.S. citizens was in fact targeted by warrantless wiretaps because they were accidentally handed copies of the call logs. So yeah, I may not know everything, but I know enough that when they say "Oh we can't tell you any details, but trust us it was all on the up-and-up" I say "No I don't trust you."

Just because I don't know that you're pissing on my head doesn't mean I'm going to care about your careful assurances that despite being yellow and smelling of ammonia, that's definitely not piss so don't worry.

No, the old law still allowed identifying information and content of incidental traffic from a US Person to be redacted, and a warrant was required only if the collection resulted in routine interception of traffic from the same US Person. The anywhere on the globe thing is NOW legally inherent to the definition of a US Person, but they were only protected under the old law in the context of foreign intelligence collection if they were inside of the US. Now they are protected anywhere. So the new law, is, in fact, stronger with respect to protection for US Persons. That was part of the give-and-take compromise that allowed for foreign collection on non-US Persons to happen within the US without a warrant.

Bullshit. The original definition of U.S. Person was a U.S citizen (no provision for location), or anyone on U.S. soil legally. That's been the case since the original passage of FISA. Unless the new definition includes non-citizens outside U.S. jurisdiction -- which makes no sense -- then no, they didn't improve that. And the original law required a warrant any time a U.S. Person was known to be a party, it was quite explicit. It was only in the case where there was incidental recording of a U.S. Person's communication while surveiling a non-U.S. Person where redaction was allowed.

So basically those on the protecting-freedoms part of this compromise got scammed. But then again most of these were the same idiots who actually believed that USAPATRIOT powers were going to only be used to fight terrorism and never read the bill.

Re:Yeah, yeah, nobody but you

[daveschroeder]

What does Obama taking office soon have to do with the Bush administration's opinion on whether his program was legal, and for that matter why the hell should I care what the NSA legal counsel and the Bush DoJ think? "Oh yeah it's totally illegal, but we advised the President to do it anyway"? That's ridiculous. This is the same DoJ that gave its opinion that the President could essentially ignore any law he wanted.

The only groups you mentioned who I have any reason to think are actually aware of what was implemented and how would be FISC and the Intelligence Committee, and I know Bush pulled executive privilege on the committee has tried to do the same in every non-FISA court so I'm not even so sure about that.

Chris, what it means, in the political context, is that when President Obama's administrations continues intelligence activity under the current law, that means it wasn't the exclusively political issue people made it out to be. It means that it perhaps was an opportune time to update foreign intelligence policy with respect to the digital era, and the initial rounds of this necessary exercise were executed imperfectly.

If you give any credence whatever to FISC, then the most important decision is the one that is the subject of this very article, FISA Amendments Act of 2008 aside.

Bullshit. The original definition of U.S. Person was a U.S citizen (no provision for location), or anyone on U.S. soil legally. That's been the case since the original passage of FISA. Unless the new definition includes non-citizens outside U.S. jurisdiction -- which makes no sense -- then no, they didn't improve that. And the original law required a warrant any time a U.S. Person was known to be a party, it was quite explicit. It was only in the case where there was incidental recording of a U.S. Person's communication while surveiling a non-U.S. Person where redaction was allowed.

That's not accurate: the application of the law, previously, understood the warrant requirements to be a combination of 50 USC 1801 (i) and (j), which define a "United States person", and "United States", in a geographic sense. Even that interpretation was imperfect, but the application ended up being that whenever foreign intelligence surveillance powers were used under Title 50, section (j) -- the definition of "United States" as a geographic area -- determined where a warrant was required, regardless of an individual's status. This meant that persons under section (i) -- the definition of a "United States person" -- did not have the specific protections -- namely, protection anywhere they might be, globally -- granted under the current law. The current law changes the current law from a question of geospatial consideration to one of consideration of legal status.

Re:Yeah, yeah, nobody but you

[Chris Burke]

Chris, what it means, in the political context, is that when President Obama's administrations continues intelligence activity under the current law, that means it wasn't the exclusively political issue people made it out to be.

And you know that Obama will continue Bush's programs how? Every pick of his for DoJ is 180 degrees away from the Bush DoJ regarding these issues. Though really, if Obama obeys the current law, then that means he absolutely won't be continuing the same intelligence activity Bush did, because the current law says you can't tap U.S. Persons without a warrant, and Bush did. So again, how exactly would this vindicate Bush and suggest it wasn't a political issue?

That's not accurate: the application of the law, previously, understood the warrant requirements to be a combination of 50 USC 1801 (i) and (j), which define a "United States person", and "United States", in a geographic sense. Even that interpretation was imperfect, but the application ended up being that whenever foreign intelligence surveillance powers were used under Title 50, section (j) -- the definition of "United States" as a geographic area -- determined where a warrant was required, regardless of an individual's status. This meant that persons under section (i) -- the definition of a "United States person" -- did not have the specific protections -- namely, protection anywhere they might be, globally -- granted under the current law. The current law changes the current law from a question of geospatial consideration to one of consideration of legal status.

Wrong! 50 USC 1801 (i) defines "United States Person" in a non-geographic sense, saying simply "citizen of the United States" (and then of course other definitions for non-citizens and types of organizations). It's essentially exactly the same definition you're claiming is "new". But it isn't. The original FISA protected U.S. citizens anywhere in the world.

(j) even says that the definition of "United States" only applies to the term "United States when used in a geographic sense". Interpreting the words "United States" in the phrase "citizen of the United States" in a geographic sense makes no sense, and could equally non-sensically be applied to the "new" definition of U.S. Person which is really the old one.

Re:Yeah, yeah, nobody but you

[daveschroeder]

And you know that Obama will continue Bush's programs how? Every pick of his for DoJ is 180 degrees away from the Bush DoJ regarding these issues. Though really, if Obama obeys the current law, then that means he absolutely won't be continuing the same intelligence activity Bush did, because the current law says you can't tap U.S. Persons without a warrant, and Bush did. So again, how exactly would this vindicate Bush and suggest it wasn't a political issue?

The intelligence activity you're referring to must be TSP, which hasn't existed since January 2007. So, if not TSP, I'm not sure to what you're referring.

To be more clear: the Obama administration is likely going to continue collection under the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which is exactly how collection has been happening for the last two years.

Wrong! 50 USC 1801 (i) defines "United States Person" in a non-geographic sense, saying simply "citizen of the United States" (and then of course other definitions for non-citizens and types of organizations). It's essentially exactly the same definition you're claiming is "new". But it isn't. The original FISA protected U.S. citizens anywhere in the world.

(j) even says that the definition of "United States" only applies to the term "United States when used in a geographic sense". Interpreting the words "United States" in the phrase "citizen of the United States" in a geographic sense makes no sense, and could equally non-sensically be applied to the "new" definition of U.S. Person which is really the old one.

I know what paragraphs (i) and (j) say. What I said was that the old application of FISA considered BOTH for purposes of collection. In practice, what this meant was that intelligence agencies did not consider (i) for foreign intelligence collection outside the US -- they considered (j). And that was because that was the inverse of the accepted metric required for foreign collection inside of the US -- namely, that all collection inside of the region defined by (j) required a warrant, even when (i) wasn't met.

In other words, it was just as imperfect as the system we have now, albeit less explicitly defined.

Intercepted transmission

[Anonymous Coward]

Intercepted transmission:
Ehab, my good friend (Allah be praised). This may be the last time we are able to communicate freely. Our "Friends" at the New York Times have been disrupting the efforts of that dog Bush to use wiretapping against us in planning our next "event".

It was good of them to let us know that we were being monitored, but the best part is how they managed to ruin his reputation in his own country. They managed to get many of these unbelievers believing that he was doing more damage to their "constitutional rights" than we planned to do to their unworthy lives.

The NYT have now announced that they were wrong, and that the bashing of the president will cease. I am sure it is a coincidence that this comes days before the end of his presidency, but it is good indeed that his reputation will never be allowed to recover.

Allah Akbar!

MODDED DOWN For +1, Informative

[Anonymous Coward]

for my statement: The U.S. has collapsed. The criminals-inCongress will not announce this for fear the revolution will be TELEVISED.

U.S. democracy? You're kidding, of course.

Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout

Right Wingers Would Have You Believe

[maxxdogg]

For the truth about this ruling and what it means I suggest you read Glenn Greenwald who actually knows what he is talking about rather than repeating right wing talking points and spin...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/index.html

hahahahaha

[p51d007]

I bet old BHO won't be using this to spy on people he doesn't like...LOL...just like ole Bill Clinton did. Amazing the timing of this...held up while Bush was in office, but now its ok...just in time for BHO to use it.

No front page?

[Anonymous Coward]

After years of Bush's "illegal" wiretaps making the headlines I find it very interesting that this story did not make the cut.

Nothing new here, move along.

[nsaspook]

Boo Fucking Hoo. If you are calling from the middle-east, Damn right your call is monitored.

NYT Lichtblau doesn't know what he's talking about

[sameer_bhai]

This article is bunk, and its implications are false. For the real story on NSA wiretapping, you should check Glenn Greenwald and others before giving too much credence to this one reporter's less than sure grasp of the issue. See http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/fisa/index.html (you might need to go through the salon ad to get to Greenwald's article).

Get ready

[dataninja]

to wear anal proves in the name of freedom and all that represents evil. Because we know that career politicians knows better than the constitution. I am pissed off at the constant gang rape of our individual rights, privileges and liberties. I am not anti-American, I just want a better place for my self and my kids. For those who like sucking to the government and being told what to do in order to feel safe move to Cuba or North Korea "A-Hole". However, I am 19 years old and have plenty of time to keep fighting the idiots who believe privacy is a danger to freedom. I will introduce Bush and all of those involved in the (government) violations to my kids as the equivalent of a child rapist / killer. I promise.

Digg based constitution

[dataninja]

The solution is to create a constitution based Digg, now let me give you an example.

• A few months after the 9/11 attacks the nation would log on to their Digg accounts to vote and whether the evidence on IRAQ was relevant. Keep in mind a lot of people would be pissed off, voting yes to the invasion.
• Some years have gone by and the evidence provided seems to have been the result of copy & paste by Dick "face" Cheney and his loyal mascot GW. Now some people are questioning the government, this time the government gets about zero Digg's.
• Ann Coulter comes back from the dead to spread lies, her legs and make a buck out of the situation.
• After realising we were lied (Duhh) the people of Digg vote to bury the government. Meaning Dick and GW are put inside a 50ft deep hole which is them filled with concrete.

Internet democracy.

legal is irrelevant.

[FatSean]

Ethical is relevant. Owning humans was once legal, after all. As the legal laws are not applied consistently to all members of our society, I feel no need to play by the 'rules' of the society. I feel no need to honor any law I personally find unjust. In fact, breaking unjust laws is very satisfying. There is always the risk of getting caught...but I'm not to worried about our incompetent law enforcement agencies who couldn't stop 9/11 despite all the warnings.

So while you're watching me, nosey government, the real enemies outside out shores are plotting to blow up another skyscraper. If it happens again, we'll know that you failed us again because you didn't trust the citizens you are supposed to protect.

recursion

[Anonymous Coward]

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

And that's not the right way to quote a discussion. The oldest text should be the deepest quoted/nested. E.g.:

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

And that's not the right way to quote a discussion. The oldest text should be the deepest quoted/nested. E.g.:

you are aware that U.S. citizens are being held at Guantanamo?

Citation?

Obama's continued reiterations that he intends to repatriate the detainees at guantanimo starting immediately after his inauguration?

That does nothing to confirm the original statement.

RE: Criminal Wiretaping

[Anonymous Coward]

'A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected' ...

"is expected" ... after the George Walker Bush Wooper Pardons ....

Really.

Which "federal intelligence court' and who 'is expected' I do say.

Georgie Porgie's Puddin Pie Wooper Pardons are goning "OFF" as expected ... a case o' masterbation I'd say.

However, in real terms, there are so many coo-pliticious' in the "acts", except Russia, that, how could there be a war crimes tribunal of GWB and 'his beloved masterbatin hunchback, Dick Cheney,' for whome he calls, GWB, as his beloved stooge.

Whose stooge is whose.

warrentless eavesdropping on terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, most have learned about this from the media, which has badly distorted the issue (surprise, surprise!). The program only collected on suspect (identified terrorist phone numbers overseas), and only on US calls if those numbers called US numbers. It did not collect on US originated calls unless a warrant had been secured.
I realize that these facts are not good news to "anything Bush did = bad, anything Bush against = good" proponents, but they are the facts. Sure, anything can be abused, as we are now witnessing with the global warming scam, but there were stricter restrictions on use of that intelligence than on most information - such as what anyone can gather on you from the internet.

Priorities of us and them.

[Anonymous Coward]

"even when Americans' private communications may be involved"...

Good manners and decency suggest being even more careful with the rights of those outside your group than those within... many countries would do well to try to understand this.

vice versa?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Justice is allowing the Government to do eavesdropping on Citizens, then logically Citizens should be allowed to do eavesdropping on the government as well: Hackers time to speak for yourselves!

Re:Convention?

[TaoPhoenix]

"Seem".

However you missed my Burlesque satire:
"Although a convention would have been required, such requirements have been suspended under the PATRIOT act because such an upheaval cannot be allowed in this time of crisis. If you need more, we'll get a secret court to declare this legal."

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[firstfreethenserve]

Slashcode does not allowed comprehensive replies in the discussions section. So please go here: http://slashdot.org/~firstfreethenserve/journal/221523

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[firstfreethenserve]

allow* Typo! Ugh.

What a surprise, Just in time!

[elkto]

Of course its Ok now; Now that the current regime takes power.

Trust us, we are Liberal!

United Socialist of America; NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN presiding.

Re:Wiretapping, bugs, Watergate, Obama inauguratio

[firstfreethenserve]

Now that's a much saner response. Thanks indeed. Mainly it helps to know that this discussion is public. In the sense that if Bill Clinton reads a whole thread about how a single casual remark of his makes people scrutinise to this level, he knows that he shouldn't be doing crap out there. I'm referring to my bringing up "love the rug" comment. I don't really know what powers he has or will have. I just hope that Bush has not left any "loyals" back at the White House, who weren't there before 2000. All those people must be known to a sizeable section of the public. If everyone's happy with Obama and everyone's going to help him, what could be the problem in publicising their names? The lesser the secrecy in the White House, the better for America, and consequently for the world. That's all I am trying to emphasize using all sorts of questions. If you don't ask pointed questions, people don't think. And they vote, in that state.

It's Illegal. I don't care what their Mommy says.

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal organization says other Federal organization's actions were legal.

Fuck all of you who believe that the Patriot act is patriotic in any way.

Fuck all of you who believe that giving up INALIENABLE RIGHTS can in any way give you SAFETY.

One of those inalienable rights is to not have a "Big Brother" type government.

We're supposed to be a "HANDS OFF" style of Federal govt.

So..... to everyone in the govt who believes they have the right to listen in on my communication without my consent or a JUDICIAL ORDER allowing them to......

GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF OF ME!

Leave us alone and this country will automatically right itself.

Yes.... WITHOUT YOUR HELP!

So... only slave states had militia?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of crap.

Slaves can and have been handled without firearms for centuries. Firearms are just more convenient.

Repelling a govt that sends armed soldiers without weapons is pretty ridiculous and our forefathers knew this intimately.

Dealing with your OWN hostile govt without being able to use firearms is also ridiculous and or forefathers knew THAT intimately as well.

Our country was involved in separating itself from a TYRANNICAL govt. and forming it's own country.

YES, Tyranny was at the TOP of the list. (Duh!)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that slave states didn't benefit from having the right to bear arms.

I WILL say that I have a very difficult time believing it had any more than a minor influence on the wording of that statement.

Illegal searches are legal now too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.

We're quickly becoming a Fascist state.

It has been deemed legal by the supreme court to allow evidence to be admitted that was obtained through a search warrant that was later determined to be illegal. (Typographical error)

Our law enforcement can now falsely obtain a search warrant (typoes are easy) and keep the illegal evidence they obtain for additional charges.

So.... we basically don't have ANY rights anymore?

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the network the packets are going over public networks, then the government can look at the networks, just as policemen can look at roads. In the case of the network, most packets are transparent, so just by monitoring, they can view the contents, which is the same as having some type of item openly displayed in a clear window on your vehicle. There's nothing really illegal about the NSA doing this. The question is, how do you protect your personal communications going over the network, so they are implicitly protected by your rights?

You are also wrong

[GuloGulo]

"The definition of who is a person has changed, not the rights of a person. When the country was founded, slaves were not people, and women were only barely counted as such. "

"Barely counted as suh" still means they were people, so you're mooting your own point ith your post.

Which was pretty stupid to begin with.