DOJ Report On NSA Wiretaps Finally Released

oliphaunt writes "As regular readers will recall, after the 2004 elections the New York Times revealed that the NSA had been conducting illegal wiretaps of American citizens since early 2001. Over the course of the next four years, more information about the illegal program trickled out, leading to several lawsuits against the government and various officials involved in its implementation. This week several of these matters are coming to a head: Yesterday, the lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit against the Obama DOJ. The motion begins by quoting a statement made by Candidate Obama in 2007, acknowledging that the warrantless wiretap program was illegal. US District Judge Vaughn Walker has given indications that he is increasingly skeptical of the government's arguments in this case. In what might just be a coincidence of timing, today the long-awaited report from the DOJ inspector general to the US Congress about the wiretapping program was declassified and released. Emptywheel has the beginnings of a working thread going here."

Comments

Now That This IS Sanctioned By Law

[Philip K Dickhead]

It's the last whitewash report we expect to receive on the matter.

See you in Baghram!

Re:Now That This IS Sanctioned By Law

[Philip K Dickhead]

I don't care if they all look like Natalie Portman.

Can somebody translate this to English?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> CIA did the threat assessments until May 2003, when the Terrorist Threat Integration Center took over. Then ODNI--and the National CoutnerTerrorism Center--picked it up in April 2005. There's a lot of detail on how the ODNI did the threat assessments, including mention of DOJ review.

Above is from Emptywheel working thread. Can somebody translate any of this to English? Or we will just get lost in legal mumbo-jumbo here?

Ah yes

[Vinegar Joe]

The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.....based in Saudi Arabia, tied to Al-Qaeda and banned by the United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/

Re:Ah yes

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Since they are such an awful bunch(and to be fair, they do seem to be), it would have been really fucking easy to do the surveillance in a legal manner.

But hey, anything goes, right?

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

Right, because it's okay to violate the rights of bad guys. We never, ever get the "bad guy" designation wrong. Just ask Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil

It's not like the vast majority of the donations to al-Haramain went to feed hungry Somalis, teach poor Indonesians, or help sick Kenyans. It couldn't possibly be that there were a few sympathizers working in al-Haramain were skimming the money for al-Qaida.

No, no, no, we don't care about any of that. Some very, very important people tell us that these other people are evil, so why should we care if their rights get trampled on? They're only terrorists, just like Wakil.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

See my other post in this thread. Not all of al-Haramain's money went to al-Qaida. A lot of it went to very poor people for food, education, or health care. Only a small minority of it was skimmed by a few sympathizers.

That's the problem with the guilt-by-association game. If you're a large charity and any one of your employees helps al-Qaida, your whole charity's image is permanently tarnished, even if your employee was acting outside of official capacity.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

The preception by the administration was that it was a legal manner.

Your sort of arm chair quarterbacking here and using the later presumption of not being legal to invalidate the entire idea of thinking it was legal at the time it was done. Let's see if I can put this in a car analogy, if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?

Re:Ah yes

[Chyeld]

In the eyes of the law, it wouldn't have mattered, you were still at fault and liable for damages. Especially if you claimed you checked your blindspot and missed them, since that implies that you weren't paying close enough attention.

Similarly, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter that they 'thought' it was legal. Legal in this instance being them going to their lawyers and saying "I want you to tell me this is legal so I can claim I was told it was legal". It only matters if it actually were legal.

Re:Ah yes

[hondo77]

It doesn't matter whether you were malicious or merely erred, you were still at fault and should be held accountable for your actions.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think makes taping the phone call "unreasonable"?

The constitution.

Re:Ah yes

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think your analogy gives the administration way too much credit. The fact that you can find a hardcore loyalist who has passed the bar to tell you what you want to hear is hardly an excuse.

For the car analogy, if you pasted a picture of a nice, clear road onto your rearview mirror, and, after carefully checking that, hit another vehicle, it'd be all kinds of your fault.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

1) Yes, I expect the government to go before a judge and ask if they can wiretap a foreign target, because that's how we make sure they aren't wiretapping domestic targets. Remember, once they have the warrant, they don't need to ask a judge anymore.

2) Even if they're so lazy that they can't bother to get warrants for wiretapping known terrorists, there's still the emergency retroactive warrants.

3) Even Pentagon officials admit that the "charity" spent the majority of its money feeding hungry people, teaching poor people, and helping sick people. Only a small portion of it was skimmed by a few terrorist sympathizers who infiltrated the charity.

4) Actually, we don't let them continue to campaign. We had many of their branches in foreign countries shut down.

5) Do you seriously think that a handful of fools wearing sandals and turbans who hide in caves are going to take down 300 million people? Can you imagine the size of the force that would be needed to invade American soil? It's moot, anyway, because you're more likely to die of colon cancer in Wisconsin than you are to die from a terrorist attack.

6) ...it's lose, not loose.

Re:Ah yes

[Qzukk]

So ... you think the NSA should call back to the states to ask a judge "mother may I?" when one of their foreign, hostile targets gets a phone call, just in case it's an American lawyer calling

So ... you think the government is too stupid to find the other end of the wire? (Well, they did manage to mail the transcript there...) Maybe you think they're too lazy to bother with all that dumb paperwork? (Well, there were all those wiretaps that were cancelled because the phone company didn't get paid...) Maybe you think they're ignorant of the FISA law allowing them to take several days AFTER the wiretap to call back and ask a judge? (Well, YOU certainly are!)

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

The administration got a hack lawyer to say it was legal. It was so hacky that other administration officials who came on board later had no choice but to revoke the legal justifications used for the program. Any legitimate legal scholar who reads that opinion will point out that it's complete bullshit (it makes me wonder how many people they had to ask before they found one who would write the bullshit they wanted to hear)

Allow me to extend your analogy. You ask your passenger to tell you there's no one in your blind spot. The passenger looks over his shoulder and sees that there's a car in your blind spot, but tells you to change lanes anyway.

Oh, and good intentions cannot be used to find someone not guilty, only to mitigate their punishment.

Re:Ah yes

[Teufelsmuhle]

"Don't throw the Constitution in my face anymore. The Constitution is just a Goddamn piece of paper."

Re:Ah yes

[Teufelsmuhle]

Asking enough "experts" until they found one that gave them the answer they wanted was par for the course amongst the Bush Administration, and it was hardly restrained to legal matters. This behavior was common in a variety of scientific, environmental, and economic areas as well.

Re:Ah yes

[bogjobber]

Looks like the administration didn't check their blindspot as well as you think. It appears that the wiretapping program was approved in the same way most decisions in the administration were approved. They made their decisions, then cherrypicked the evidence and strongarmed those that disagreed with those decisions.

From the linked article:

The investigation stopped short of assessing whether the wiretapping program broke the law that required the Justice Department to get a court-ordered warrant before it could wiretap Americans' communications. But the report did find that legal reviews were often short-circuited or kept to such a small number of officials in the government that adequate review could not be conducted.

For instance, the report said that John Yoo, a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, gave the White House his first legal opinion endorsing the wiretapping in November 2001, weeks after the program had already begun, and that his boss, Jay Bybee, was not even aware of the program.

Moreover, John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, gave his legal authorization to the program for the first two-and-a-half years based on a "misimpression" of what activities the N.S.A. was actually conducting. The legal problems led to a showdown at Mr. Ashcroft's hospital room in March 2004, when top Justice Department officials refused to sign off on the legality of the program and threatened to resign.

Nonetheless, the report said, the White House allowed the program to continue the program by having Mr. Ashcroft's successor as attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, sign the authorization.

Re:Ah yes

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's not about high expectations with rose-colored glasses. It's about them making up the rules as they go along (the "Hey, look what we can do!" principle) and then going even further than that after not enough people step up and say, "Hey, wait a minute..."

Re:Ah yes

[TapeCutter]

"Even Pentagon officials admit that the "charity" spent the majority of its money feeding hungry people, teaching poor people, and helping sick people. Only a small portion of it was skimmed by a few terrorist sympathizers who infiltrated the charity."

I agree the threat has been blown out of all proportion, 65yrs in jail for charity work is nothing short of barbaric.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

In the eyes of the law, it wouldn't have mattered, you were still at fault and liable for damages. Especially if you claimed you checked your blindspot and missed them, since that implies that you weren't paying close enough attention.

Yes, but your not looking at the context. You are at fault if you hit someone. If it is an accident, you pay a fine and move on. If you hit the person intentionally, you are then charge with vehicular assault and face fail time.

The point is that the administration was under the impression it was acting legally.

Similarly, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter that they 'thought' it was legal. Legal in this instance being them going to their lawyers and saying "I want you to tell me this is legal so I can claim I was told it was legal". It only matters if it actually were legal.

The law doesn't really matter in this context. The person I was responding to said "Since they are such an awful bunch(and to be fair, they do seem to be), it would have been really fucking easy to do the surveillance in a legal manner." Now when the administration thought it was a legal program, then they did what the op asked of them even if it turned out to be wrong.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter whether you were malicious or merely erred, you were still at fault and should be held accountable for your actions.

It certainly does matter. Accidents are usually minor misdemeanors and don't carry any jail time. If it was malicious, then it can be a felony carrying several years in prison.

Re:Ah yes

[oliphaunt]

Or had your drunk 6-year-old child change lanes with his eyes closed. Which, when you think about it, is actually a pretty apt description of the way the Bushies ran the country.

Re:Ah yes

[countertrolling]

The point is that the administration was under the impression it was acting legally.

Yeah, that's their story, and they're sticking to it. That, of course, would be the smart move. "If the president does it..."

Re:Ah yes

[Chris Burke]

The preception by the administration was that it was a legal manner. Your sort of arm chair quarterbacking here and using the later presumption of not being legal to invalidate the entire idea of thinking it was legal at the time it was done. Let's see if I can put this in a car analogy, if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?

Oh please. The legal situation here is actually not terribly complex.

At the time, Bush and his legal advisers never claimed that the search programs respected the 4th Amendment, because they obviously didn't. The official legal argument was that it didn't apply because the President said it was important to executing his Presidential Duties that it not. So, it basically comes down to whether you buy that bullshit. Does the Constitution say the President can just write a note that says that he doesn't think he has to follow a law passed by Congress, or if he really has to he can ignore the Bill of Rights and that's it? Gee, that's not in the Constitution. So maybe you can make a legal argument for it, but don't tell me it's apparent, and that you aren't working backwards from the desired conclusion. As if lawyers, especially our previous two AG's, work any other way. Yeah, they "accidentally" broke the law due to a "misunderstanding". Not "thought they could pile up enough BS to get away with it."

And now Obama is caving in to the same shit, in part because obviously defending the executive branch and its power regardless of handovers to other parties is what Presidents and their legal teams do, and also not in the least because it's not worth the political capital to fight against the Congressmen from both parties for whom National Security(terror war al qaeda terror) is still a big issue. Like ordering Gitmo closed, then backing off as much as possible when they screamed about (alleged wah?) evil terrorists being held on U.S. soil in our normal civilian justice system.

So frankly I'm glad the Judicial Branch has come through once again and denied the specious reasoning no matter who is presenting it. The main reason all those Gitmo detainees are still in legal Limbo is because the Judicial denied Bush the ability to convict them of crimes in military courts. Funny how the least Democratic branch of government ends up being such a defender of our freedoms. Of course when they don't you can't do a lot about it, but that just makes the result all the more astounding.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

6) ...it's lose, not loose.

Everyone knows, loose is a bigger form of lose. Like we are loooosing our rights.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

The administration got a hack lawyer to say it was legal. It was so hacky that other administration officials who came on board later had no choice but to revoke the legal justifications used for the program. Any legitimate legal scholar who reads that opinion will point out that it's complete bullshit (it makes me wonder how many people they had to ask before they found one who would write the bullshit they wanted to hear)

Allow me to extend your analogy. You ask your passenger to tell you there's no one in your blind spot. The passenger looks over his shoulder and sees that there's a car in your blind spot, but tells you to change lanes anyway.

Oh, and good intentions cannot be used to find someone not guilty, only to mitigate their punishment.

My comment wasn't about finding someone guilty or not. It was about the parent which I replied to that said if the terrorist we so bad, they could have gotten a legal wiretap. The administration was operating for the most part under the assumption that they were legal, whether because of some hack lawyer or not. So saying they could have gotten a legal wiretap when at the time of this tap, it was presumed legal is not in line with correct logic.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

And your point is what? Did they or did they not assume the program was legal until it was determined not to be?

The op I respondid to said if those guy were so bad, they could have gotten a legal tap. Well, when that tap was made, they thought it was legal so the in effect did get a legal tap.

I'm in no way arguing their innocence with the comment. I'm stating that if something was thought to of been legal, no matter how they reached that conclusion, they were getting a legal tap even though later they found it to be illegal. It's not like they knew it was illegal and did it anyways in the beginning. And all the secrecy was because it was a secret program. You don't real go around asking everyone if this secrete program is legal, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore.

Re:Ah yes

[Bob9113]

if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?

Better analogy: Suppose you are a surgeon who wants to perform a dangerous operation. You start asking other surgeons to back up your decision, and promise them the most prestigious position in their specialty if they do. Suppose you find a surgeon who accepts the compromised position.

Now suppose he is the chair of the malpractice board. And that HIPPAA has been extended to give unlimited authority to seal records. Suppose you are the HIPPAA compliance officer and can seal all records that might implicate the chair of the malpractice board.

Now, suppose you were the patient in that situation. Would you get the operation?

One more: Suppose it weren't just a doctor we were talking about, but The President of The United States. Would that not be an even more unacceptable situation?

People with extraordinary power or risk -- military officers, detectives, surgeons, ship's captains, pilots, over-the-road truck drivers, structural welders, wildcatters -- have extraordinary obligations to diligence. The greater the power or risk, the greater their obligation, and the smaller the tolerance for error. The punishment for failure is termination from employ. The punishment for negligent failure is stricter than on people not in such positions. The punishment for willful negligence harsher still. And the punishment for premeditated and intentional abrogation of duty is truly severe.

It's about holding our elected officials to a higher standard. Not to sound too jingoistic, but this is America, dammit. We deserve the very best defending the principles of The Constitution. If a person who accepts that mantle fails in their duty, the punishment should befit the extraordinary nature of the position.

Re:Ah yes

[bogjobber]

I'm stating that if something was thought to of been legal, no matter how they reached that conclusion, they were getting a legal tap even though later they found it to be illegal.

That's absolutely, completely wrong. So very, very, very, very, very wrong. Whether or not you *believe* something to be illegal has no effect on whether it *is* legal, even if you're the president. And even if they acted in good faith, they can't use that defense because they didn't have a proper inquiry as to the legality of the wiretapping program.

And all the secrecy was because it was a secret program. You don't real go around asking everyone if this secrete program is legal, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore.

Bullshit. We're not talking about asking Joe Schmoe's public practice for legal advice. We're talking about the highest-ranking government officials here. You can ask the Justice Department and Attorney General to review the legality of a program, that's their job, and they're just as trustworthy as the administration or intelligence agencies that ran the programs.

Re:Ah yes

[TubeSteak]

"Don't throw the Constitution in my face anymore. The Constitution is just a Goddamn piece of paper."

::facepalm::
Long story short: It's the fake quote that just won't die.

According to Google, the last time I bothered to rebut it was March 2008:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=496572&no_d2=1&cid=22832270
And in that post, I reference an earlier post I made in Oct 2006.
Nothing has changed since then.

While I realize that quote has taken on the mantle of Truthiness in its condemnation of Bush Era policies,
and it now represents the general spirit of lawlessness, it'd be better to find something true to use as a cudgel.
"I'm the decider, and I decide what's best" would be a good place to start.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

I guess you're not familiar with the term "plausible deniability". See you set up a program where only the president is allowed to determine who has knowledge of it, and then you get a certain friendly lawyer to write you memos stating that it's legal and then you say "well I thought it was legal" even though you knew the whole time that you were just setting up plausible deniability so that you can say that your intent was to do nothing wrong. This is exactly how it worked for domestic spying and for torture.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

except that they didnt ask around because the president was the only person allowed to let people into the circle of knowledge of the program. It was the president HIMSELF who sent Gonzalez to Ashcrofts hospital bedside to override Ashcroft's deputry who was balking at the program. Yu was specifically chosen for the job so that they WOULDNT have to ask around, and thus could keep the program as secret as possible.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

You fail to actually gain knowledge on this subject and ignore facts of the matter like how even after people started to question the legality of the program the administration CONTINUED to perpetrate it. So even if at the outset they thought they were doing something legal at some point they full well knew that it was illegal but kept trying (and succeeding) to operate it.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think makes taping the phone call "unreasonable"?

The constitution.

Nowhere in my copy of the constitution is there any mention of phone calls. And the tricky thing is, there's no definition of 'unreasonable'. See, that's the tricky part - what's unreasonable and what is not. It's up to the courts, the legislature, and the executive to hash out. Not slashdot armchair lawyers. And not up to the summary writer who asserts the searches are 'illegal'. And it's not up to the New York Times, either.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Now when the administration thought it was a legal program, then they did what the op asked of them even if it turned out to be wrong.

That's not what they thought though.

They went out of their way to get a legal opinion that gives them the green light from a single DOJ lawyer (the same lawyer who found the CIA's waterboarding torture legal), circumventing all the higher level (more experienced and less willing) DOJ laywers.

It later on escallated in top DOJ officials refusing to sign off on that form of the warrantless wiretap program.

The administration here fully knew that they were acting illegally, and were trying all tricks in the books to create some sham 'legal opinion' that gets them off the hook.

At minimum the administration lawyer who signed off on Cheney's "dark ops" here should be disbarred. (Maybe that gives him the incentive to come forward with proof for how the Cheneys asked him for all this.)

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

5) There are 1.62 billion to 1.82 billion (2009) Muslims world wide. They have a growth rate over 8 whereas the U.S. has a growth rate of 2.11 including immigrants and illegals. If 10% are fundamental Muslims, that follow the literal teachings of Mohammed, that makes up a sizeable force. Camps are already on U.S. soil.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, but your fallacy fell flat. The link you gave is the UN trying to freeze Al Qaeda's assets, which are not the same as saying the UN banned Al-Haramain.

Re:Ah yes

[Hurricane78]

that gives all its money to a bunch of murderer

First of all, I do thing that Al-Quaeda is a bunch of crimial assholes.
But let's be objective for a minute:

You are paying how many taxes to the US government?
And how much of that budget goes into the war budget?
And how many people were killed by US soldiers because of that war? (Hind: A multiple of that of all terrorist attacks ever.)
So by your own definition you are not much better than that foundation, are you?

Now you might say that this as an unfair comparison, because the people that are killed by US soldiers are evil people, and the people killed by Al-Qaeda are good people.
While I doubt that more than a small fraction of the people killed by Al-Qaeda were not good people, I also doubt that this is any different from the people killed by US soldiers.
Simply because most people in the world are good and kind people, no matter where they are from or what they believe in. Or am I wrong with this? :)

I think killing people always is wrong. And I have the logic and philosophy to prove it. Because there never ever is an absolute right and wrong. These are things defined by society. They are relative to that society only. At least if you think trough the usual dogmas and social contitionings of "It's just right! I *know* it! (But I don't want to think about why!)" (aka. truthiness).

But at least, you are you. Which means you can change who you support, and not support murderers at all. It also means you can free yourself from any propaganda. (Of which the USA is the grand master of the "western" part of the world by the way. Remember the "orange revolution"? Well, turns out most the protesters were US agents and extras, including the stuff that went trough the news. As soon as the agents stopped having an eye on it, it flipped into the other direction.)

I am not saying that the US is bad. Or that the people there are bad. That would be a crime to state, in my eyes. I am just saying that they are not *better* than others. They are just like anybody else. Humans. With a criminal government. Like everybody else. ^^

No matter what side your so-called leaders are on: Free yourselves, and stop supporting murderers. Instead of just parroting the propaganda of your side, and calling all of the other side evil/worse per se. :)

Re:Ah yes

[Misterfixit]

With respect, it is irrelevant who kills or hates whom in this case. The statues clearly state that interception of communications within the boundaries of the USA and/or it's possessions and territories shall require FISA Court approval with appropriate warrants. If the NSA either figured out a way to circumvent the law or simply disregarded the law, then the issue, ipso facto, is: "did they violate the law?" My opinion is that we can detest which ever group we wish to detest, but the Constitution and Body of Laws which provide the social framework of our country absolutely must be obeyed. Therefore, I believe that the NSA and any other entity which violates USA law should be examined in court. Should it be an open court or one which is sequestered (like the YELLOW FRUIT(U) Courts Martials)? That status would depend upon the prosecution and defense hashing out revelation of Sensitive Sources and Methods (which I believe must be protected).

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Do you seriously think that a handful of fools wearing sandals and turbans who hide in caves are going to take down 300 million people? Can you imagine the size of the force that would be needed to invade American soil? It's moot, anyway, because you're more likely to die of colon cancer in Wisconsin than you are to die from a terrorist attack.

If somebody (Iran, North Korea) gives them access to nuclear weapons, all they'd have to do is suicide-bomb a few large American cities to pretty much destroy the US economy. That and the the accompanying political chaos would cause human misery on a scale that'd make today's economic woes look like a cakewalk.
So yes, I do think a few rag-headed idiots in caves could cause us serious harm. If wiretapping some foreign coversations might forestall that, fine by me.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

You fail in knowing the facts. The islamic group in question was tapped before the program was known to the public and considered illegal. This has nothing to do with the overall legality of the TSP or any right or wrong you are attempting to assign to it. When the op say's they could have gotten a legal tap, the problem is that they thought or was working under the assumption that it was a fucking legal tap. You cannot say they should have done X when they thought they were doing X and it turned out later to be Y for whatever reason. This is a logic problem, not you wanting to bash the bush administration.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

That's absolutely, completely wrong. So very, very, very, very, very wrong. Whether or not you *believe* something to be illegal has no effect on whether it *is* legal, even if you're the president. And even if they acted in good faith, they can't use that defense because they didn't have a proper inquiry as to the legality of the wiretapping program.

You are so wrong here is isn't funny. Where you are wrong is in the perception, the law has nothing at all to do with it. If a person a person does X believing it is legal to do X, then saying they should have done something X in a legal way would have resulted in in the same damn X.

The law at this point has nothing to do with it because they were working under the assumption that the TSP was legal and to date, no one has proven it not to have been legal. There is a court case that might show it to be illegal but it hasn't been ruled on yet. You stating that it is illegal is nothing more then you stating it is illegal, it probably is illegal, but it has nothing at all to do with the actions they took when they thought it was legal.

Quit letting your blind hatred for Bush screw with your logic.

Bullshit. We're not talking about asking Joe Schmoe's public practice for legal advice. We're talking about the highest-ranking government officials here. You can ask the Justice Department and Attorney General to review the legality of a program, that's their job, and they're just as trustworthy as the administration or intelligence agencies that ran the programs.

Lol.. So everyone in the government should know about all the secrete programs the government is conducting. Yea, right. That will result in no secrete programs remaining to be secrete. Get your head out of your ass.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

Oh please. The legal situation here is actually not terribly complex.

At the time, Bush and his legal advisers never claimed that the search programs respected the 4th Amendment, because they obviously didn't. The official legal argument was that it didn't apply because the President said it was important to executing his Presidential Duties that it not. So, it basically comes down to whether you buy that bullshit. Does the Constitution say the President can just write a note that says that he doesn't think he has to follow a law passed by Congress, or if he really has to he can ignore the Bill of Rights and that's it? Gee, that's not in the Constitution. So maybe you can make a legal argument for it, but don't tell me it's apparent, and that you aren't working backwards from the desired conclusion. As if lawyers, especially our previous two AG's, work any other way. Yeah, they "accidentally" broke the law due to a "misunderstanding". Not "thought they could pile up enough BS to get away with it."

Actually, there are times when certain parts of the constitution apply and don't apply. The 4th amendment never applied to telephone calls until 1968 and in that ruling and several afterward, the requirement for a warrant was specifically exempted from national security taps. The FISA laws which were put in place specifically because cops were getting the NSA and CIA to do "national security" taps on domestic cases and sidestepping the newly require warrant specification for tapping phones. And to that part, the FISA then as well as presently did not respect the 4th amendment in the way you are claiming it should have been.

As for breaking the law, I wasn't arguing otherwise. I can argue that if you want but I havn't in this story thread at all. What i was pointing out was that there is a logic problem saying they should have acted legally when their intentions was to act legally. In other words, the same shit would have happened because they thought they had a legal right to do what was done until more people found out and told them they didn't.

So frankly I'm glad the Judicial Branch has come through once again and denied the specious reasoning no matter who is presenting it. The main reason all those Gitmo detainees are still in legal Limbo is because the Judicial denied Bush the ability to convict them of crimes in military courts. Funny how the least Democratic branch of government ends up being such a defender of our freedoms. Of course when they don't you can't do a lot about it, but that just makes the result all the more astounding.

I agree however, I don't expect the judicial branch to rule the TSP illegal. I believe they will resort back to a separation or powers argument like the ones the Marshal court used quite a bit in the first supreme court to combat the feud between the Jeffersonians and the federalist. It may take several appeals and a judge who is not on a board representing one of the plaintiffs but it's likely to happen.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

I understand what you are saying but the question comes down to, at the time, did the surgeon believe he had a right to do the job or not. Even if he found the right somewhere and made arrangements to cover it up if something went wrong, the fact is he still believed he had a right to do the procedure.

So in the context of the parent post (not law or right or wrong or anything), saying that he should have done it legally would have resulted in the same exact actions because bush initially believed it to be legal. This is little more then a logic issue, If you believe your actions are X, then after finding out they were actually Y, saying you should have done X would have resulted in you doing Y believing it was X. Knowing that X was illegal and became Y after the fact does nothing to the perception of what you was doing was X because you didn't know it was illegal until after the actions were taken.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

That would require you to know the thoughts of the president at the stages of the program(s). You can't know that unless you are a magic mind reader or that he admits to it somehow and that information is passed back to you. Therefore, you are operating in pure speculation and attempting to impose malice over ignorance.

Re:Ah yes

[myyrk]

It doesn't matter whether you were malicious or merely erred, you were still at fault and should be held accountable for your actions.

It certainly does matter. Accidents are usually minor misdemeanors and don't carry any jail time. If it was malicious, then it can be a felony carrying several years in prison.

You are confusing punishment with accountability. In both of your examples someone was held accountable, but the punishments were different.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

Presumed legal, indeed.

If you want to pick nits about the definition of legal, then how about this. They could have gotten wiretaps that were consistent with the statutory law passed by the legislative branch and upheld by the judicial branch, rather than using some half-baked Unitary Executive Theory to justify ignoring clear case law and legislation involving national security wiretaps.

Normally, OLC opinions are peer-reviewed; this one was not. Even the head of OLC was unaware of this memo; it's that secret. Whenever other people at OLC finally got to review the memo, they pulled it because it was so god-awful.

They found a low-level OLC lawyer who would tell the administration anything they wanted, clearly ignoring the judicial branch's Supreme Court precedent set in Youngstown; imagine writing an opinion on whether abortion is legal, and not citing Roe v. Wade. Additionally, there was specific language directly in the FISA statute limiting Presidential war-time powers that Yoo ignored.

The only reason it was "presumed legal" was because they went out of their way to avoid standard operating procedure with such legal opinions so that no serious lawyers could put a stop to it, like they eventually did when it finally came out. And for that matter, they were engaged in warrantless surveillance weeks before Yoo's memo was issued.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

Okay. Now, they need more guns than us. Considering that the US spends about as much on defense as the rest of the nations on Earth, I don't think that will be a problem.

Then, how do they get here?

By airplane? I think it would cost a lot of money to fly a sufficiently large force across the oceans.

By car? The ocean makes that a bit difficult.

By sea? We could see them coming a mile away.

What if they nuke us, or engage in chemical warfare? I think that would be on a fairly limited scale, given the size of the US. Even if only a portion of it goes out, life will go on, just like after Katrina wiped out New Orleans.

Further, how many muslims are really going to be down with murdering? It's sortof against the rules, which is why it's only "extremists" who actually go out and kill people, because it's usually the extremists who feel obliged to ignore things like "thou shalt not kill", of which I'm pretty sure there's an Islamic equivalent.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

They would need access to a lot of nuclear weapons, which are pretty costly. Iran hasn't even made one bomb yet, let alone many, and North Korea's economy is supported by their weapons programs so they certainly aren't giving out nukes for free.

But, let's say they take out one American city. Katrina beat them to it already, but life moved on pretty well for the rest of the country.

Two? Well, Japan survived after we took out two of their cities with nuclear weapons.

To take multiplie cities, you'd need to do it simultaneously. Once you took out one, we would be on super-high alert everywhere else.

Oh, and you should read this NYT article that summarizes from the IG report how the warrantless surveillance program produced just about no intelligence, but a lot of wild goose chases.

They also discuss how the warrantless surveillance made us less safe because the information was limited to only a few people due to the secrecy surrounding a program of questionable legality. This prevented the intelligence from being used more widely by more agencies; most of the leads provided were vague and without context so as not to allude to the questionable nature of its acquisition. Note that this problem would not exist had the program been done with FISC approval, because there would be no dancing around how you got a hold of the intel.

Re:Ah yes

[stewbacca]

So if they got a warrant, even if it were rubber stamped by the FISA court, it isn't illegal. Duh.

Re:Ah yes

[stewbacca]

I guess that makes 2 of us who understand that our opinions don't determine what is or is not constitutional. Well stated! However, it is a relatively easy argument to make that wiretapping US citizens falls under unreasonable search and seizure.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

So if they got a warrant

Well, the "if" is the problem here. See, Bush's administration never bothered to produce a warrant to the court. In fact, they never even claimed that a warrant was issued. In fact, they outright stated that requiring a warrant to wiretap an American was a violation of the executive branch's ability to wage war (...against an American, which is the literal definition of treason, but I digress...) and that they openly stated that they refused to do so.

So, no. They didn't get a warrant, if they had, it would have put an end to the whole case years ago.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

No, I'm not confusing them, I'm stating that there are different laws you can be charged with because the action is then different. If the action is unintentional, the charge is one thing, if the action is intentional, then you are charge with another. This is because the action became separate offenses even though the mechanics were the same.

This is only impotent to the conversation because if you think you are doing something legally, and it turns out you were wrong, then saying you should have done it legally instead would have resulted in you doing the same actions then finding out you were wrong.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

They are in the U.S., check the link supplied in my message above. So far the killing has been limited to college campuses and recruitment centers. The other attacks were thwarted.

Fundamental not "extremists" follow the teachings of Mohammed in the Quran. We are infidels and should be killed, as per the Quran, if we will not convert. Don't believe me? then read it for yourself. Search it for infidel or unbeliever.

...because it's usually the extremists who feel obliged to ignore things like "thou shalt not kill", of which I'm pretty sure there's an Islamic equivalent.

Read the Quran, do some research, or you'll end up writing something totally false like the above statement. Ignore the threat if you want to it makes no difference to me.

Re:Ah yes

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a Muslim. You really haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you? Wherever you're getting your "education" from, it's certainly not anywhere that values truth.

Nowhere in the Qura'an does it permit killing of non-Muslims. In fact the only time in history that Christians, Jews and Muslims have lived peacefully in the same state was under Ottoman rule, which was an Islamic Sharia government. No such government exists today; all rulers of Muslim countries are tinpot dictators, propped up by the west and universally loathed by Muslims worldwide, especially the Saudi royal family.

The Islamic position on conversion is clearly stated several times, and it is that "there is no compulsion in religion". The belief is that Allah gives or withholds belief from people, and we as humans are instructed to accept his decision on the matter. So even if your child abandons Islam, at the end of the day it's his or her decision, and you can do little about it.

I challenge you to quote from the Qura'an where it says "kill infidels". I've seen people try this before, and it's always the case that they take a phrase like "kill people" from the sentence "do not kill people". Short of doing that, you'll find that there is no such line in the Qura'an.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

You won't find "kill infidel" in the Quran and I didn't put it in quotes. You will find this though...

The Cow: [2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

2.191 is why weapons are stored in Mosques, I'm guessing. 2.190 says there are limits but not what they are. The only thing that is certain is 2.193, that "religion should be only for Allah". So as long as people don't convert there's going to be trouble because of 2.191. Here is Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Nafisi illustrating these principles.

The Women: [4.88] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him. [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

4.89 indicates what should happen to a believer who rejects the faith. Is a person who rejects Islam an infidel?

Your comment above seems to indicate that you will disagree with my interpretation and would reject Professor Abdallah Nafisi statements in the video. I'm also assuming you wouldn't attend the Death to America rallies and wouldn't have danced in the street with the Palestinians on 9/11. But I would point out that there are millions of people who would and still do, and I live in what they call the Great Satan.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

When I read 2.190-2.193, the impression I get is "you can kill people who try to kill you,", especially given 2.192. That seems like a reasonable thing, and certainly not "go kill people who aren't Muslims".

As far as the other quote, I'm not sure there's enough context to properly judge the sentiment there. But I remember reading an interview with an Iranian cleric whose brother is secular. His reply was lengthy and surprisingly rational; here's an excerpt.

We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.

I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.

However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other.

I'm assuming you're not one who would be happy at the thought of killing Muslims, but I assure you there are plenty of folks in the US who think Muslims are a pretty awful bunch; my own father says they are like pitbulls - the pitbulls are bred to fight and the Muslims are bred to hate America. Like those who would call us the Great Satan, Islamophobes are just confused sheep who listened to the wrong person when forming an opinion.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

When I read 2.190-2.193, the impression I get is "you can kill people who try to kill you,", especially given 2.192. That seems like a reasonable thing, and certainly not "go kill people who aren't Muslims".

I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.

If you listen to the British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri when asked if he supports the actions of his brothers to kill innocents, he indicates that he will always stand with his brothers no matter what their position is.

As far as the other quote, I'm not sure there's enough context to properly judge the sentiment there.

That's all the context there is. The Quran is like that in many places. 4.89 seems to indicate that you are in the same position as we are because you are rejecting their Jihad against us. To the "true" believers you appear to "desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved," in 4.89. This is a dangerous position.

But I remember reading an interview with an Iranian cleric whose brother is secular. His reply was lengthy and surprisingly rational; here's an excerpt.

We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.

I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.

However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other.

He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother." Yikes, that can not right. What if your brother flies a plane into large buildings? How does that get justified? Answer: I've heard Mullahs say that there are no innocents so it's perfectly ok to take these actions. Therefore, we must be "those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings," otherwise they wouldn't attack us.

I'm assuming you're not one who would be happy at the thought of killing Muslims, but I assure you there are plenty of folks in the US who think Muslims are a pretty awful bunch; my own father says they are like pitbulls - the pitbulls are bred to fight and the Muslims are bred to hate America. Like those who would call us the Great Satan, Islamophobes are just confused sheep who listened to the wrong person when forming an opinion.

I'm just listening to Mullahs and they are very clear in their statements, which seem to agree with the scriptures. The bottom line is that they are at war with us, millions shout "Death to America." School children write essays on the subject and are raised to be the "pitbulls" you describe above. If you disagree with them they will eventually come for you.

You'll either have to take back your religion and concentrate on the Great Jihad, the struggle of self. Or, fight them.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

Response got attached to wrong message. See below for response.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

Response got attached as 2863935, sorry.

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.

They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.

That's all the context there is.

That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.

He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."

That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."

If you listen to the British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri when asked if he supports the actions of his brothers to kill innocents...

I've heard Mullahs say that there are no innocents so it's perfectly ok to take these actions...

I'm just listening to Mullahs and they are very clear in their statements, which seem to agree with the scriptures. The bottom line is that they are at war with us, millions shout "Death to America." School children write essays on the subject and are raised to be the "pitbulls" you describe above. If you disagree with them they will eventually come for you.

You'll either have to take back your religion and concentrate on the Great Jihad, the struggle of self. Or, fight them.

"I've heard Mullahs". Do you know how funny that sounds? Can you imagine someone saying "I've heard preachers talk about waging a holy war on Islam" in reference to some evangelical preacher going off on YouTube?

If I found a preacher on YouTube who advocated murdering innocent people because they practice Islam, would anyone who follows his orders (or "fatwa") be Christian? No, quite the opposite.

It's the same way with Muslims (imagine that, the other people are just like us!)

Remember, there are crazies everywhere - every religion, every nation, every race, they all have people who spout insanity and they are not representative of the larger group which they claim to be.

If you knew any Muslims in the flesh, I think you might find that you are more obsessed with jihad than they are.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

You're right I don't know that they were malicious, but it's not exactly inconsistent with their track record. Attempting to call it ignorance is being quite optimistic. I guess it's possible that they were ignorant at so many things, but that's hardly likely. After all these are the same guys that tried to pull the exact same moves regarding torture by using the infamous John Yoo. Finally, the ENTIRE point of plausible deniability IS THAT IT'S PLAUSIBLE.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

Firstly the guy I responded to was speaking about "the program" Secondly, do you understand plausible deniability? It's when you know that Z is illegal, but you come up with a PLAUSIBLE way of framing it so that you can then say "I thought Z was legal" when someone finds out what you did and says that you were wrong for it. The way these people did this typically was to have somebody tell them that it was ok, as in "yes your program is legal" "yes it's ok to torture people" "yes we think they have WMD's"...etc It would work like this in a practical though ridiculous example (assume that the legality of killing people is unknown). I want to kill Joe, but I think that killing is probably wrong. The thing is that I REALLY want to kill Joe, so I find an accomplice, particularly a lawyer. I have my accomplice tell me that killing is in fact ok. I kill Joe. Now, someone comes to me and says "killing is wrong" and I say "well I thought it was legal, see I even took the time to ask a lawyer and he told me it was ok." Now you might want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, but their track record suggests you'd be quite foolish indeed to do so.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.

They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.

That's all the context there is.

That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.

Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."

He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."

That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."

The full quote is: "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother."

Sorry but the phrase was so similar to the British Mullah's I ignored the context, my mistake.

You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.

RIZVI: What about the reported bombing of Ayatollah Khomeini's tomb? Do you think that this was also carried out by people planted from outside Iran? Could Mousavi's supporters have done this?

HASAN: See, this is what I'm telling you. This is not the kind of thing that Mousavi's supporters could have done. They may have had minor grievances with the other side, like the disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, but these incidents of bombings and destruction are all being done by people outside Iran that have been planted by foreign powers. They were showing on TV here that these are people who were given training in Iraq and then were sent over here to do these things. These people have been hired and paid.

RIZVI: Well, over here, because of the ban on foreign journalists covering the events in Tehran, a lot of the major media outlets have started to broadcast web-based images and videos that are being sent in by people on the ground in Iran. There are literally hundreds of videos and pictures that have come in this way showing large numbers of people protesting, and many of them show brutal violence, home invasions, and so on. There is one particularly gruesome video of a woman named Neda who was shot and killed on camera by paramilitary forces, and it has evoked widespread reaction. Are you familiar with these kinds of events?

HASAN: Look, in Iran, we have a few sources. We have two TV channels, radio, and then we have the newspapers, which are particularly popular among Iranians. Now, we also have the internet, and yes, we are familiar with these videos showing the murders of these people and the violence against them. I can tell you the impression of the people here... they believe that it is the people who are damaging and vandalizing, these planted forces from outside, that are committing these murders. This is what people believe in Iran.

Who are these "outsiders"? Where did they come from? Surely some must have been rounded up. Isn't it much more likely that the Iranians were unhappy that their votes were not counted at all? Four hours to count 39 million paper votes. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not that gullible. Of course there's the math to prove it is possible...

HASAN: Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very sma

Re:Ah yes

[DeadCatX2]

We should continue this in email before the comment section of this article closes. For my gmail account name is the same as my slashdot account name.

Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."

If you read what I said, there's conditionals like "if", "bet", etc. I don't know their culture at all, and I don't feel like taking the time to learn it. The difference between you and I is that I assume there is more context because in my experience with old mythologies you need to learn what life is like for the people who practice a religion, or it won't make any sense why they do the things that they do. Unlike me, you assume that there is no cultural context to add to the quote. However, like me, you aren't taking the time to verify 100%.

You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing [blogspot.com] carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.

I was hoping you would. I do agree with your general view that they seem to place excess blame on outsiders.

However, it's less crazy than you think, especially when you consider the tawdry past of the United States' interference in other countries' business. It takes more than one hand to count the number of times that the US has engaged in "regime change" in other countries. In fact, we've already done it to Iran before. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I didn't really care for much of whatever else this guy said, because I tend to think that anyone who is trying to place blame on others probably deserves a share of it himself. The Iranian leadership was internally treating their own people pretty brutally, and it's sad that they don't acknowledge it. But the media were making a circus of their protest, just like they made a circus of Iraq, and it was not helping their cause.

The only point I was really interested in was how a Muslim "preacher" manages to deal with his unbeliever brother. It's pointing out how trivial it is to "go find someone who says something on the Internet" - you find one that says kill unbelievers and I find one that says leave unbelievers alone. Who is right, then?

I wonder, if we asked all the Muslims one by one, whether they should kill unbelievers, what would be their answer? This concurrent poll (pdf) taken in 2006 doesn't ask exactly that, but it does discover - among other amazing revelations - that Americans are twice as likely to justify attacking innocent people as are Iranians (page 10)

You deny reality, attacks were ordered and carried out.

Deny reality? Are you kidding me? No, I'm being rational about this. If you watch the video, the very first words out of the host's mouth are "your own leader said 'I condemn the killing of innocent people'". It sounds to me, when watching this interview on BBC, that they went out of their way to find a crazy who could twist words to justify an insane point of view. Notice how there's only one "Mullah", I wonder if that's because he's the only one they found who would spout this non-sense and they didn't want a rational one on who would look at the other guy like he's nuts.

And if that Mullah were serious, why isn't he trying to kill the host sitting across from him?

Please put link in for a well know Christian leader suggesting we should kill Muslims.

Not quite what you asked for, but this describes a group of "former Muslims" who are regularly trotted out by evangelicals to espouse the dangers of Muslims, saying they "all" need to be "converted or eradicated". They've been on Fox News. I found it by googling christians kill muslims.

Show us these prominent crazies y

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

There is this principle of reason behind actions. If you combine that with the mindset of ideology, you find some pretty fucked up reasoning. A drug dealer find a way to create a new (synthetic?) drug that mimics cocaine or methamphetamine but escapes all the current current laws prohibiting those drugs either by chemical composition or the lack of specific ingredients, it he acting legally when he finds that it isn't in violation of any laws or is he purposely subverting the law by acting illegally? Please note that in both cases, it would be a subversion of the law because the intent is more then the chemical compositions. OF course the answer is, you are acting legally because even though he got around the laws, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and our government laws work in a way that you are allowed to act unless specifically prohibited from doing so. This isn't limited to Bush or the republicans or democrats, it's expanded to us all. Anyways, if because of a strong ideology, I think we should be able to do something, ask a lawyer if it is legal and of he returns a "yes" because he is of the same ideology, then you are not breaking the law in your intent but acting legally until it is otherwise found out. OF course if you are actually breaking the law, you are liable for those actions but we are talking of intent here.

There is ample evidence that ignorance, compounded by ideology and a misunderstood need are at play here rather then malice with the intent to violate the laws.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

Firstly the guy I responded to was speaking about "the program"

I followed the parent links up, it seems as you were responding to me. I am the guy you responded to and yes, I meant what I said.

Secondly, do you understand plausible deniability? It's when you know that Z is illegal, but you come up with a PLAUSIBLE way of framing it so that you can then say "I thought Z was legal" when someone finds out what you did and says that you were wrong for it.

And unless someone specifically involved with the administration with insight into this, it is nothing more then speculation on your part. Because something could happen does not in any way mean it is what did happen. You are attempting to assert that through some sort of mind reading that the Bush administration knew it was acting illegally before he was told he was. I answered this in your other posts and I'm not sure why we are still on it.

The way these people did this typically was to have somebody tell them that it was ok, as in "yes your program is legal" "yes it's ok to torture people" "yes we think they have WMD's"

And here is where you are refusing to look at the facts. No legitimate source knew that WMDs were not in place until after the war, no major country with major inteligence operations knew that Iraq had no WMDs and in fact, believed that they did as well as that Iraq was confined and not a threat warranting oil. Of course the biggest protagonist against the war was also prime benefiters of secrete oil deals exploiting the UN sanctions for submarket deals causing the sanctions to be ineffective in requiring Saddam to completely verify his arsenal. Rumsfeld was correct in when he said there are unknown unknowns in which there are things we don't know we don't know about. You are attempting to assert that as if you have some insight into the situation yet you don't have anything more then your own biased opinion.

It would work like this in a practical though ridiculous example (assume that the legality of killing people is unknown). I want to kill Joe, but I think that killing is probably wrong. The thing is that I REALLY want to kill Joe, so I find an accomplice, particularly a lawyer. I have my accomplice tell me that killing is in fact ok. I kill Joe. Now, someone comes to me and says "killing is wrong" and I say "well I thought it was legal, see I even took the time to ask a lawyer and he told me it was ok." Now you might want to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, but their track record suggests you'd be quite foolish indeed to do so.

Lets put this into a better context. Suppose Joe wants to kill and harm you or your immediate family in your own home because you did some things he thinks is really bad. You want to kill Joe because of this in an effort to protect your family and ask a lawyer what you can do. The lawyer comes back and says you need to call the police and get a gun to protect yourself- kill him only as a last resort in your own defense. Someone then tells Joe you are getting a gun for your own and your family's protection and joe decides to act before you can learn how to use it. He comes over, kicks in your door, yells come profanities just before saying he was going to kill you all. You pull the gun and shoot him. Later, you are arrested because the cop says your self defense claim falls though because you antagonize the guy and elevated it.

Now here is the problem with your analysis. You are assuming that someone knew it wasn't legal rather then being blinded by ideology, ignorance and necessity. (BTW, necessity is actually a legal doctrine of defense too.) Everyone knows killing is bad and illegal but people are allowed to kill and get away with it legally, every damn day. Cops can shoot criminals, you can kill intruders posing an immediate threat to you or someone else, doctors kill people

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

I don't claim insight, I just have a more pessimistic outlook than you. neither one of us knows what happened I just put it out there that even though they claim ignorance it's entirely possible (by virtue of how plausible deniability works) that they were knowingly guilty. If you choose to be optimistic about that so be it, though I believe that this administrations track record of obfuscation and or lying suggests otherwise.

I'm waiting for you to invoke Cheney's defense of torture--why would be bother soliciting legal opinions if we were trying to do something wrong? I'll leave it to you to figure out why that is no defense at all (hint, it might involve who you solicit that counsel from i.e. John Yoo)

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

The government gets a legal opinion on almost everything it does which isn't already being done. This is a response to lawsuits over existing actions in the past. You may find it hard to believe, but there were actual legal opinions written before specific battles in both current wars. We are at war and needed or actually got a legal opinion to find if we were justified in engaging and killing the enemy.

Don't take the legal opinion to mean more then what it means. It's called cover your ass and this is not because they knew it to be illegal, it's to limit liability on what they know is legal.

As for being pessimistic, I think you crossed that line when ignoring other possible explanations. As you said, we don't know and it is all a guess at this point. Even the potential illegality is little more then a guess until such time it is adjudicated by a competent court of jurisdiction. You should also note a legal concept called necessity in which illegal actions are excused because the consequences would be worse. Examples of this in the past is where you run a red light or speed because someone in the car faces death without emergency medical treatment and not doing those things would have precedent the saving of their life. Another example is almost all self defense concepts that allow you to break a law within reason in order to save your life or the life of someone else. The most current example was with an escaped convict who was told by the warden that he would be murdered by a specific prisoner who was also transferred to his cell within the same week. He got excused for his crimes in breaking out of prison.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

We should continue this in email before the comment section of this article closes. For my gmail account name is the same as my slashdot account name.

Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."

If you read what I said, there's conditionals like "if", "bet", etc. I don't know their culture at all, and I don't feel like taking the time to learn it. The difference between you and I is that I assume there is more context because in my experience with old mythologies you need to learn what life is like for the people who practice a religion, or it won't make any sense why they do the things that they do. Unlike me, you assume that there is no cultural context to add to the quote. However, like me, you aren't taking the time to verify 100%.

That is a very long way to say you don't know. And, I don't really want to comment on the culture.

You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing [blogspot.com] carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.

I was hoping you would. I do agree with your general view that they seem to place excess blame on outsiders.

However, it's less crazy than you think, especially when you consider the tawdry past of the United States' interference in other countries' business. It takes more than one hand to count the number of times that the US has engaged in "regime change" in other countries. In fact, we've already done it to Iran before. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

So Obama has fake police and fake protesters (outsiders) shooting at each other in total chaos. Your right, the U.S. has tried regime change before, I'm sure they would do it just this way. Obama has been on an apology tour for months now and was quite clear he really didn't care about the protesters. They are still trying to make a date with Iran.

I didn't really care for much of whatever else this guy said, because I tend to think that anyone who is trying to place blame on others probably deserves a share of it himself. The Iranian leadership was internally treating their own people pretty brutally, and it's sad that they don't acknowledge it. But the media were making a circus of their protest, just like they made a circus of Iraq, and it was not helping their cause.

The only point I was really interested in was how a Muslim "preacher" manages to deal with his unbeliever brother. It's pointing out how trivial it is to "go find someone who says something on the Internet" - you find one that says kill unbelievers and I find one that says leave unbelievers alone. Who is right, then?

I found two, not one and both were on prominent TV networks. Neither of them are guys doing basement webcasts, they were on major TV networks first. Do you want me to find more? This Death to America Rally from the Islamic Republic of Iran is good. Starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he's one of those crazies you describe, right? I can find more because I've seen them before. I promise only to find prominent leaders.

I wonder, if we asked all the Muslims one by one, whether they should kill unbelievers, what would be their answer? This concurrent poll (pdf) taken in 2006 doesn't ask exactly that, but it does discover - among other amazing revelations - that Americans are twice as likely to justify attacking innocent people as are Iranians (page 10)

And there is this...

Three out of four Iranians (74%) had an unfavorable attitude toward Osama bin Laden, including 68 percent very unfavorable. Only 10 percent saw him in a favorab

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

I wonder what happens when you ask John Yoo about whether or not your wire tapping program is legal? Lets look at his latest opinion piece (today) in the wall street Journal:

The best way to find an al-Qaida operative is to look at all e-mail, text and phone traffic between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the U.S. This might involve the filtering of innocent traffic, just as roadblocks and airport screenings do.

Guess what he authorizes your program, and later all of his memos are critized by other lawyers, who say that he only worried about the 4th amendment, and not FISA....because guess what:

t is absurd to think that a law like FISA should restrict live military operations against potential attacks on the United States. ... In FISA, President Bush and his advisers faced an obsolete law not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind.

Maybe they thought this guy was legit, but its not hard to see why someone would ask THIS guy (of all attorneys) about a domestic wire tapping program. And it's even less hard to see why this calls into question the assertion that "well we asked for legal advice and the advice told us it was ok" when the advice is coming form this guy.

but maybe I'm just biased ! :)

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

I wonder what happens when you ask John Yoo about whether or not your wire tapping program is legal? Lets look at his latest opinion piece (today) in the wall street Journal:

Well then ask him and quit speculating and assigning malice with nothing more then your biased opinion. Fuck, the entire thread is about what they claimed they thought, not about what you want to think they thought. Get over yourself.

The best way to find an al-Qaida operative is to look at all e-mail, text and phone traffic between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the U.S. This might involve the filtering of innocent traffic, just as roadblocks and airport screenings do.

Guess what he authorizes your program, and later all of his memos are critized by other lawyers, who say that he only worried about the 4th amendment, and not FISA....because guess what:

t is absurd to think that a law like FISA should restrict live military operations against potential attacks on the United States. ... In FISA, President Bush and his advisers faced an obsolete law not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind.

The courts have already ruled that projects like Echelon and magic lantern were legal because computers do the searching and filtering and discard matched that don't fit the string ensuring privacy. Now it is absurd to think that congress or any other branch of government can impead the constitutional obligations and roles of other branched of government. I don't find fault in that statement. You would be likely find it just as absurd if the congress passed a law that said you have no free speech rights and the courts cannot review the law ever. The courts would be breaking the law by reviewing it but they wouldn't have to ever worry about that law because it couldn't ever apply. This is true just as the president cannot through executive order declare that all presidents after him cannot sign any global warming treaty or reverse the executive order. There is absurd reaches of other branches of government into certain branches and even though the law may be rash and applicable in one instance, it may be totally irrelevant in another while working over the same mechanics of similar situations.

Take for instance a law that says you cannot kill another person. But even though that is the law, in the defense of yourself or others, it becomes irrelevant when you are not the aggressor. In most states, this is 100% the case even though there is no self defense exception in law nor anything in the murder laws allowing it. Why, because the right to self preservation and the preservation of life in general when you are innocent of the aggression trumps the laws in place and it isn't aplicable.

Maybe they thought this guy was legit, but its not hard to see why someone would ask THIS guy (of all attorneys) about a domestic wire tapping program. And it's even less hard to see why this calls into question the assertion that "well we asked for legal advice and the advice told us it was ok" when the advice is coming form this guy.

It's highly likely, given the Woo's involvement here that he was privilege to aspects of the secrete program already. It's really not much different then asking your cardiologist about spots breaking out on your back when your already there to see him for whatever other reason. IF Woo was around, was close to knowing about the program, it is a logical step to ask that person standing there taking care of similar and related material.

Even from a legal aspect, I have asked my business attorney questions about a probate case while I was with him changing an owner's name on a LLC holding. Of course he referred me to an in house specialist on the subject but it is entirely possible that he could have handled the probate claims also. People, especially those who are ignorant of the legalities, ask th

Re:Ah yes

[Bob9113]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Especially for the number one cop in the number one country.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

I never said ignorance of the law was an excuse. What I said is given the option of being legal or not, the same decisions would have been made. It's a matter of only knowing what they knew then and not knowing what we know now. If Bush thought he was acting legally, then saying he should have did it legally would have resulted in the same exact actions happening given what he claims to of known at the time.

As I said in the previous post, in the context of the op and not the law or morals or anything, the actions would have been the same because the knowledge that is present now would still have been missing.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

hahahahhahaha, so John Yoo is just a normal lawyer, even though he believes the executive can disregard FISA because it's obsolete, and that we should just spy on all phone calls, text and email between here and Afghanistan + Pakistan? ROFLMAO. Yeah he's not painfully obviously biased at all. I mean go ask your business lawyer if the constitution doesn't prevent both of those things. You = the pot.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

hahahahhahaha, so John Yoo is just a normal lawyer, even though he believes the executive can disregard FISA because it's obsolete,

I don't believe I said that and I don't believe John Woo said that either. OF course if he has access to the administration and high level officials in the act of doing his daily job, he is not just another lawyer. And as for the obsolete, I believe his full comment was about fighting a war with enemies not traditionally defined, it becomes obsolete and not applicable.

and that we should just spy on all phone calls, text and email between here and Afghanistan + Pakistan? ROFLMAO

You can role around laughing all you want, they were attempting to do their job however misguided that was. People expected some level of action for their protection and that is what you got.

Yeah he's not painfully obviously biased at all. I mean go ask your business lawyer if the constitution doesn't prevent both of those things. You = the pot.

I have never ever said he wasn't biased or that he was innocent or that the administration was. I am saying which is still true today, that ignorance could be just as much or totally to blame rather then malice and your assignment of malice is completely arbitrary, without merit, and of your own bias. You already admitted as much when you said you had no insight other then your pessimistic outlook.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

Oh so laws that you consider obsolete are laws which you don't have to follow because they're "not applicable"??? Funny that every other lawyer that read his briefs said WTF.

I wouldn't call this administrations, nor John Yoo's track record an "insight" but I would call it suggestive.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

No, laws that were designed for one thing don't apply when the situation has change and that one thing is now something different and conflict with the constitutional role of a branch of government. That is what Woo said. Now quit putting your own damn bias on it, only paying attention to what you think supports your ideals, and effectivly coming up with something else.

Re:Ah yes

[m1xram]

Numbers Correction:

You sent me that wonderful PDF with stats. 10 percent like terrorism on page 11. If that number carries to the major Muslim populations which are 1.62 billion to 1.88 billion it equates to roughly 620 million on the low end. Say the number is off by half and it's really only 5%, that's 310 million. So "millions" is correct, but hundreds of millions would be more accurate.

I made a mistake, 10 percent of 1.62 billion is 162 million, not 620 million. 5 percent is 81 million, not 310 million. So, hundreds of millions would not be accurate until their population increases. With and 8 to 1 growth rate it shouldn't take too long.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

I'm glad that his legal theory was supported by his colleagues /NOT :(

And that ultimately is why the administrations story is unbelievable. They just happened to ask the one lawyer who has a crackpot theory about FISA not applying. It just happened to be a coincidence!

Unfortunately John Yoo was much more biased than you allege that I am :( According to him the constitutional role of the government ("protect" us) is to violate the constitution (spy on all traffic) :(

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

I'm glad that his legal theory was supported by his colleagues /NOT :(

And your point is what? I never said his particular theory was right or wrong, just that the concept is well established and in practice today.

And that ultimately is why the administrations story is unbelievable. They just happened to ask the one lawyer who has a crackpot theory about FISA not applying. It just happened to be a coincidence!

Actually, no, it is not a crack pot theory. In fact, there is so much support for the theory that congress refused to impeach bush and they are refusing to prosecute the administration after they are out of office. This suggests that they know the relevance is somewhat logical and outside of politicking to fool you into voting for specific candidate affiliates, they made absolutely nothing more of it.

Unfortunately John Yoo was much more biased than you allege that I am :( According to him the constitutional role of the government ("protect" us) is to violate the constitution (spy on all traffic) :(

What the hell are you talking about? No one violated the constitution unless you are using some abstract interpretation that doesn't fit with established case law or reality in general. You need to spend more time looking at the facts and less time drawing lines between what little you know and your bias.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

The legal justification for the Bush administrationâ(TM)s warrantless wiretapping program was handled with unprecedented secrecy that sidestepped usual Justice Department procedure, the Washington Post reports. Only three Justice officialsâ"John Ashcroft, John Yoo, and staff attorney James Bakerâ"were made aware of the program and participated in drafting memos that established its legality. Yoo drafted the controversial memos in November 2001, but his superiors didn't learn of them until late 2003. They put âoewarrantless searches that protect the national securityâ outside of the purview of FISA, a report by five government inspectors general says. The memos thus dodged a rigorous departmental review process. The Bush administrationâ(TM)s arrangements were âoeextraordinary and inappropriate,â the report says, and âoeunderminedâ the Justice Department's function.

And long before this report was generated people within the DoJ expressed concerns about the legality of the program (remember that originally Yoo, Ashcroft (maybe), and James Baker were the only DoJ staff to know of the program (out of around a dozen people in total ) which basically means they had concerns with the memo's that Yoo wrote (in fact this is usually what they had problems with) ). It's no small coincidence that Yoo is the guy that gave the Bush admin legal memos for both spying and torture, both of which have turned out to be not exactly legal.

But back to the report:
Deficiencies in Yoo's memorandum identified by his successors in the Office of Legal Counsel and Office of the Deputy Attorney General later became critical to DOJ's decision to reassess the legality of the program in 2003.

Also interesting to note that after legal concerns had been expressed:
It was then explained to the group that [Deputy Attorney General James] Comey "has problems" with some activities authorized under the program. Mueller's notes state that Cheney suggested that "the president may have to reauthorize without the blessing of DOJ."


Anyway you might also want to consider this quote, considering that Yoo is the guy that said that nothing short of organ failure or death was torture:
But I would like to say that it is my understanding that the United States does not engage in torture, and that the reports of abuses that have occurred in Iraq or elsewhere appear to have been the result of individuals acting outside official policy.

Of course when you make a memo defining out of existence basically all forms of torture you can claim that no one was tortured.

You might want to learn the facts about how basically everything this guy authorized was later rescinded and called into question.

But hey I'm the biased one for pointing it out :(

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

Forgot to mention that advocating wholesale spying on all traffic between the US and Afghanistan/Pakistan is clearly unconstitutional. But according to Yoo the president in order to fulfill his constitutional requirement to protect us is supposed to violate the constitution in spying on all traffic.

Just because a political body, congress, refuses to proescute doesn't mean nothing wrong happened. It's in their political interest to drop it because there is no public outrage. Many have suggested this is the specific reason why Obama decided not to release the torture pictures after all, because there hasn't been enough outrage over the torture to justify the political flack from the right that he would take over releasing the pics.

In any case politicians are motivated by political forces and their action or inaction has little to do with what is right (like prosecuting people for crimes).

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

And long before this report was generated people within the DoJ expressed concerns about the legality of the program (remember that originally Yoo, Ashcroft (maybe), and James Baker were the only DoJ staff to know of the program (out of around a dozen people in total ) which basically means they had concerns with the memo's that Yoo wrote (in fact this is usually what they had problems with) ). It's no small coincidence that Yoo is the guy that gave the Bush admin legal memos for both spying and torture, both of which have turned out to be not exactly legal.

No, it doesn't. It means that it is a secret program and a way to keep programs secret are by keeping them fucking secret. Christ, half the NSA and CIA actions are secret to all but a handful of people, many of which work with others who have absolutely no clue of the project. And I already laid out the very plausible situation in which Yoo would have been the guy they went to because he handled other projects and keep them secret. Your doing your best to ignore easily seen pasterns here and destroying all concepts of Hanlon's Razor as well as Occam's razor just to place your bias onto it and come out with something that satisfies your world view.

Of course when you make a memo defining out of existence basically all forms of torture you can claim that no one was tortured.

Again, you are subjecting your mental wills to the picture. First, torture is subjective- Amnesty International cited loud music, lack of sleep, exposure to extreme cold and hot weather temps, irregular meal patterns and so on as torture. Never mind that this mirrors a college student's life at a northern university because it also mirrored the life of people in the middle east deserts. But hey, when you are looking to assign malice, I guess their own lifestyles would be torture when repeated by the US government right?

You might want to learn the facts about how basically everything this guy authorized was later rescinded and called into question.

God damn, are you just fucking stupid or what? Anything that happens later is irrelevent to this conversation because you are assigning intent. Intent is something that has to be looked at only when it happens. Being right or wrong does not change intent. Fuck, we just spent the better part of a week discussing that with you claiming you had no fucking insight into their mindset outside of your politicking worldview in which you wanted to look at them in a pessimistic value to satisfy your own ego. You start losing the battle on the wire taps and now you have to bring in a totally unrelated subject of torture. Get a grip man.

Also, other people's opinions are just that, fucking opinions. The only opinions that matter of the trier of facts, or in terms you can understand, the court's. Congress never impeached Bush or Cheney even though articles were introduced several times because they knew that there was necessity in it and that there was some legitimacy to the claim. Necessity provides a legal defense to all charges if they actually are wrong (even though it is still happening today), and congress feared that of Yoo was correct in his interpretation of the constitutional powers of the president, that they would then lose a lot of power and control they exert over the office currently.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

Forgot to mention that advocating wholesale spying on all traffic between the US and Afghanistan/Pakistan is clearly unconstitutional. But according to Yoo the president in order to fulfill his constitutional requirement to protect us is supposed to violate the constitution in spying on all traffic.

No it does not violate the constitution. Here is a prime example of where you have no fucking clue. First of all, the constitution never applied to phone conversations until 1968. And in the ruling that made it apply, the court specifically stated that it was ruling on domestic us phone tapping and assumed that for basis of national security, the administration had the right to tap phones. There was even a later case where the national security allowance was upheld where two American's conspired to dynamite a federal building in Michigan and the courts said the national security part was valid but not applicable because it was a matter of domestic law enforcement instead of national security.

Just because a political body, congress, refuses to proescute doesn't mean nothing wrong happened. It's in their political interest to drop it because there is no public outrage. Many have suggested this is the specific reason why Obama decided not to release the torture pictures after all, because there hasn't been enough outrage over the torture to justify the political flack from the right that he would take over releasing the pics.

Yes it does. When the DOJ and congress refuses to take action when a crime has been accused, it's significantly indicates that no evidence of a crime happened. It is in their political interest to drop it because they knew there was legitimacy to the claims and that those claims would remove a large amount of perceived powers over the administration. Furthermore, congress in turn made into law, the ability to do the same damn warrantless wiretaps knowing of the importance of the program. Obama is not acting because he was right in the middle of congress when this happened and he knows this too.

In any case politicians are motivated by political forces and their action or inaction has little to do with what is right (like prosecuting people for crimes).

Lol.. You are a little wrong there. Besides, in what crazy world are you living in where congress is the only government branch that can make a prosecution? The DOJ, which can act independently of the administration but is under an entirely new administration is refusing to act. It's because they don't think they will get a conviction. And no, plausible deniability doesn't absolve people of a crime, it limits their punishment. That is a political image concept in which politicians attempt to look innocent by being decieved and to not lose their support.

Again, quit imposing your word view onto everything and you will see things for what they really are. Then and only then, if you have an opinion, state it as such and not as some absolute as if you are a fucking magical mind reader and know everything despite being so wrong when spouting it.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

Hahah so everyone else collectively looks at Yoo's opinions and calls them insane but he had no malicious intent. It's just a big coincidence? Occam's razor is bullshit and exactly the principle behind plausible deniability. without it then plausible deniability doesnt work. The obvious pattern which YOU cant see is that this administration was corrupt beyond belief.

No one prosecuted because congress wanted to get reelected and feared that the right would lambast the shit out of them, like they already do. what is politically pheasible is often short of what is right.

Glad you have to resort to name calling and insults.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

Wow, you really have no concept at all of why they didn't prosecute. You live in a fantasy world where lack of prosecution implies innocence.

To deny that the right would totally go ape-shit over the left trying to prosecute the bush admin on this is insane. And yes the the DoJ COULD try to do it on their own but Obama would get blamed, and the same situation would ensue. Obama wants to move on so that the right can't keep lambasting him on these issues, so he just drops them because its politically better to drop them than to be a martyr.

Seriously man stop living in a right wing tower isolated from the potentialities of the bush administration being thoroughly corrupt.

Yeah you're right national security claims allow wholesale tapping! / please. Yoo doesn't want to tap suspects but EVERYONE....thats some national interest claim.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

Hahah so everyone else collectively looks at Yoo's opinions and calls them insane but he had no malicious intent. It's just a big coincidence? Occam's razor is bullshit and exactly the principle behind plausible deniability. without it then plausible deniability doesnt work. The obvious pattern which YOU cant see is that this administration was corrupt beyond belief.

No idiot. One more time, because his opinions were called insane, it does not indicate malice. Get it straight this time. You have no proof of anything outside of your imagination and until there is proof, it is only your opinion. Occam's razor is only bullshit because you need it to be in order to perpetuate your myth.

No one prosecuted because congress wanted to get reelected and feared that the right would lambast the shit out of them, like they already do. what is politically pheasible is often short of what is right.

If they had a clear right, then they would have done it. The republicans attempted to do it years before, Clinton was impeached. Are you saying that the republicans have more balls then the democrats?

Glad you have to resort to name calling and insults.

I'm not sure what recourse you have left me. You admitted this is only in your head, that you have no special insight or proof and yet you still refuse to acknowledge that this is your opinion and not fact.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

Wow, you really have no concept at all of why they didn't prosecute. You live in a fantasy world where lack of prosecution implies innocence.

No, lack of prosecution implies legitimacy. It's two entirely different concepts. You should learn about them.

To deny that the right would totally go ape-shit over the left trying to prosecute the bush admin on this is insane.

Who really cares, and yes, there was quite a few republicans claiming the programs were illegal too. Again, you are acting like something in your head is fact when it isn't.

And yes the the DoJ COULD try to do it on their own but Obama would get blamed, and the same situation would ensue.

Nice how you neglected the fact that the program was known and thought to of been illegal but the "vote for me" crowd for at least 5 years during the Bush administration.

Obama wants to move on so that the right can't keep lambasting him on these issues, so he just drops them because its politically better to drop them than to be a martyr.

So tell me, which is better, and administration that appears to have broken a law or an administration who does nothing about it because it is politically advantageous?

eah you're right national security claims allow wholesale tapping! / please. Yoo doesn't want to tap suspects but EVERYONE....thats some national interest claim.

Umm.. look up the cases yourself. National security allows a lot of things otherwise bared. Searches at the borders are one, the very first congress of the US, one that was comprised of many of the founding fathers, implemented border searches without warrants and the courts backed them up completely. And no, it wasn't everyone, it was international calls and information- crossing the borders. Anything other then those claims is more of your imagination at work. But seriously, don't take my word for it, educate your sorry self and look the shit up yourself.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

the pattern is the insight. I told you I wouldnt call it insight though.

Yes the republicans have 1000x the balls of the democrats because their base is 1000x stronger.

Occam's razor is arbitrary. It doesn't take into account corruption and has us presuppose that power hungry people actually in power are just innocent. If you really want some folk wisdom how about "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...try applying THAT to this situation.

Re:Ah yes

[floodo1]

How is it not all information when he says phone calls, texts emails originating in or going to afghanistan / pakistan.

There's a far cry difference between border searches (for physical goods) and spying on people.

Lack of prosecution only implies innocence in simple cases of unilateral DA's prosecuting. It's an entirely different game when politics come to bear full force.

YOu really think that the bush administration DoJ was going to prosecute bush admin officials?????? Especially when the president himself is the one behind this? PLEASE.

Go ahead pretending the bush administration wasn't corrupt as hell. Go ahead and pretend that they didnt go on an absolute rampage with abuse of power. Go ahead and pretend that they didn't have severe special interests in mind and do anything they could to help them out. Go ahead and pretend that the bush administration wasn't a group of people who made plans for a decade while they were out of power. Go ahead and pretend that they're just an innocent group who was looking out for you and me.

"well just cuz its unknowable means we have to assume innocence"...it's not a court here. Unfortunately they set it up so that we can't know and are only allowed to piece it together from the fragments that we have. Again I cite the operation of plausible deniability.

yes you're conception is plausible BUT UNLIKELY. to add some more occam's razor quality knowledge "if it smells like a fish, it's probably a fish" /useless :(

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

the pattern is the insight. I told you I wouldnt call it insight though.

But the pattern only exists in your head with the malice applied. You are imposing it because of your worldviews. If you did not do so, everything can easily be explained away by ignorance and a desire to aid the countries safety. Seriously, what does the administration have to gain by the TSP other then securing the safety of the country? You can't point to any other agenda then that.

Yes the republicans have 1000x the balls of the democrats because their base is 1000x stronger.

And that is why the republicans lost both houses and the administration seat in the last few elections? Wake up man.

Occam's razor is arbitrary. It doesn't take into account corruption and has us presuppose that power hungry people actually in power are just innocent. If you really want some folk wisdom how about "absolute power corrupts absolutely"...try applying THAT to this situation.

You still haven't addressed Hanlon's Razor nor have you show a benefit of the corruption. Simply saying the accumulation of power doesn't fit because the administration peacefully gave their power up in January. As for absolute power corrupts absolutely, when did the administration ever have absolute power?

You seem to have invented this "i need more power" reasoning to justify your positions then are attempting to apply a principle that history has shown wrong on several occasions as if they already have the power in order to justify your positions leading to the justification of the previous position. The problem is that neither position held to support your worldview is complete without you assuming many things that only exist in your head. When you can arrive at a solid conclusion without attaching some made up attribute, then your point of view would have more legitimacy. But as it stands, you claim more power was the motivation when he gave the power up, you then claim absolute power corrupts when attempting to assert the acquisition of more power as a motivator.

Re:Ah yes

[sumdumass]

How is it not all information when he says phone calls, texts emails originating in or going to afghanistan / pakistan.

You are conflating a statement made with the TSP program as if it was one and the same. They aren't. The TSP and the warrantless wiretaps were between international calls in which one person was believed to have been a terrorist or had connections to terrorist. Echelon and magic lantern already do what he said needed to be done and both have been shown to be legal by all the challenges to date in a court.

There's a far cry difference between border searches (for physical goods) and spying on people.

Really? So all your records on your laptop are open at the borders right? Yes, the courts have already supported that. And this is different from inspecting anything that crosses the border in what way? I mean the TSP only dealt with calls in which one party was outside our borders. Attaching the words spying is disingenuous. It implies something more then there ever was as some point of separate to make the claim worse. It doesn't, it's no different outside of the person knowing they were being searched. And within 2 years of the TSP, everyone had reason to believe that their international calls were being monitored so again, were is the separation?

"well just cuz its unknowable means we have to assume innocence"...it's not a court here. Unfortunately they set it up so that we can't know and are only allowed to piece it together from the fragments that we have. Again I cite the operation of plausible deniability.

You really don't get it do you? You are stating opinion as fact when it is nothing but opinion. You have so many things wrong in your attempts to do so, you have admited that all your proof is nothing more then a mental construct in your own head, and here, you claim that you not knowing proves your point. It doesn't, it only makes you jump to conclusions derived from within you mind completely that lack support in the real world. For instance, what was their end goal of doing this maliciously? If you say the collection of power, then how do you explain them willingly and peacefully giving that power up when the term was over or the Vice President not running for office to continue that power grab. In your other post, you attempted to claim absolute power corrupts yet you also maintained there was no absolute power because he was still attempting to acquire power.

Unknowable doesn't mean the lack of malice, it means your accusation of malice is nothing more then your opinion. It is not fact and never will be until such time as someone actually knows.

yes you're conception is plausible BUT UNLIKELY. to add some more occam's razor quality knowledge "if it smells like a fish, it's probably a fish" /useless :(

It's only unlikely when you add your own made up information to the mix. That does not make it so, it only makes you think it is so. And yes, there are mammals that smell like fish which aren't fish as all. Dolphin for instance smell like fish but aren't fish. Occam's logic is more then a singular completion, a more accurate piece of knowledge would be "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is probably a duck". You see, more then one piece of real and not made up validation with a probable and not a definite explanation.

The Big Question is:

[Nautical Insanity]

What is the Federal Government going to do with all the data that has already been collected? Personally, I'd like to see it destroyed. That and I'd like to have a monopoly on a magical river of inflation-proof cash.

Re:The Big Question is:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They are going to feed it to the pony that you've been wishing for.

Campaign promises?

[R2.0]

There's no way on earth a judge is going to hold that a statement made on a campaign is anything binding. If he were to, Obama would be utterly buried in lawsuits, as would every other president.

Re:Campaign promises?

[Rene S. Hollan]

And this would be a bad thing?

Re:Campaign promises?

[CajunArson]

Yes, because the president is supposed to lead the country, not waste taxpayer money every time somebody has a real or imagined beef with the federal government. If you want to change the government, the Constitution has these things called "elections", not "lawsuits". I don't even agree with Obama on most topics, and I'm 100% convinced that his expansions of the federal government that Slashdot seems to completely approve of will have a vastly higher negative impact on my individual rights than the hypothetical outrage that people here feel that somebody in Al Queda might have had his "right to privacy" intruded upon. However, the proper way for me to affect change in the government is not by suing every time they adopt a policy I don't agree with.

Re:Campaign promises?

[CajunArson]

s/affect/effect near the end there... preemptive grammar strike.

Re:Campaign promises?

[JesseMcDonald]

No one is suggesting that the president should be open to a lawsuit over every minor disagreement over how the government is run. It makes perfect sense, however, that all politicians--the president included--should be held liable for the promises they make during their campaigns, to at least the same extent that commercial entities are held liable for their advertising promises. Promising something to get elected and failing to carry out that promise afterward can reasonably be considered a form of fraud.

Also, no suggestion has been made that the government should fund the legal defense, so no additional taxpayer money would be wasted. They made their campaign promises as individuals, ergo ensuring that those promises are carried out is also their responsibility as individuals.

Re:Campaign promises?

[oliphaunt]

I don't think the intent is to make the promise binding on this case. I think the intent is to make Obama look like a hypocrite in front of the whole world. The problem isn't with this judge, it's with the Obama administration's approach to dealing with the wholesale criminality of their predecessors. People can try to change that policy by winning lawsuits, or they can try to change it by shaming Obama into actually sacking up and doing something about it. This case just presents a nice opportunity to do both at the same time.

Re:Campaign promises?

[sumdumass]

Obama can't do anything legally. Public officials are pretty much exculpated from acts done in good faith in public office. Breaking a law to avoid a death is a common excuse to violate the law. For instance, it you jaywalk in order to pull a small child out of the street, should you be cited. If you are, a legal principle called "necessity" would get you out of the fine. It's illegal to shoot someone, illegal to discharge a firearm within so many feet of a dwelling and illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits in most areas, but you won't ever be charged with any of that if you shoot an aggressor to save your life or the life of someone else who isn't the aggressor in most places. The president and his administration claimed it was to prevent another 9/11 and the nations security depended on it.

Anyways, Obama knows that nothing will happen and he will just look more like a bitter old fool like he does when it get's pointed out that the stimulus hasn't created one new job yet and he referred to inheriting the economy from Bush.

Re:Campaign promises?

[TheRaven64]

Yes, because the president is supposed to lead the country

Does anyone remember when we elected people to represent us, not to lead us?

Re:Campaign promises?

[hondo77]

Promising something to get elected and failing to carry out that promise afterward can reasonably be considered a form of fraud.

Only if one is a simpleton.

Re:Campaign promises?

[R2.0]

Sure - in November I voted for a "representative" to represent me, and a president who presides over how the government is run - aka, a leader. I also voted for a senator that is supposed to represent the interests of the states, but the 17th amendment pissed that away.

Re:Campaign promises?

[Chris Burke]

Does anyone remember when we elected people to represent us, not to lead us?

No, I don't remember, from my life or from history. The President has always been Leader, not representative. Do you think the people voted General George Washington to represent or to lead the nation? We vote for Congressmen, aka Representatives, to represent our interests in creating the law that governs us. We vote for Presidents to lead the nation, to guide its direction in war or peace. You vote for a leader you think is capable of the task, and who wants to lead the country in a direction you want to go. They're the Executive both in name and in terms of the powers granted them in our Constitution. That's what President means -- leader of the Republic.

Re:Campaign promises?

[k1e0x]

In America we have no leaders. We lead ourselves.

Sovereign (n.)
1 a: one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c: an acknowledged leader : arbiter

I am a Sovereign Individual, not Obama's subject. You can be a subject if you like.

Re:Campaign promises?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless that person is 150 years old.

Re:Campaign promises?

[dwpro]

With your mention of the constitution, I would think you wouldn't have to put "right to privacy" in quotes. Illegal wiretaps are a clear violation of "the right of the people to be secure...from unreasonable searches", and are due more than hypothetical outrage.
 
Our presidents take an oath and are bound by the constitution, and if we don't hold them to that, we deserve the government we get.
 
You seem to imply that the proper way to effect change is to wait until the next election and vote them out. I'm damned sure not waiting that long for a redress of grievances.

Re:Campaign promises?

[Chris Burke]

Oh please. And when I was a Boy Scout Patrol Leader, that made the other scouts my Subjects who'd sacrificed their self-determinacy to me. That you had to specifically pluck a word from the dictionary with the connotation you want just proves how vacuous the argument is. The President isn't a King, that's why he can't just order the people around. There are different types of leader than just sovereigns.

Re:Campaign promises?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution has this thing called the "Judicial Branch", whose express purpose is to limit the power of the other two branches. One of its functions is to prevent The People from enacting stupid laws just because they happen to be momentarily popular. Lawsuits are an excellent way to effect change in the way the government behaves in cases where an appeal can be made to laws (such as the Constitution) that the government cannot easily change.

Re:Campaign promises?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, you mean if this went through, politicians wouldn't be able to make all sorts of crazy wild promises that they never even intend on thinking twice about?

From the old mathematics joke...

[Tackhead]

US District Judge Vaughn Walker has given indications that he is increasingly skeptical of the government's arguments in this case. In what might just be a coincidence of timing, today the long-awaited report from the DOJ inspector general to the US Congress about the wiretapping program was declassified and released.

"NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced legal analysis including legislation, lobbying, and litigation. If you'd like a circular describing these research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your lawyer, and ask for one!"

- With apologies to any crypto geeks who got hired by talking to their grandmothers about mathematics on an open line :)

interesting..

[Anonymous Coward]

personally ide like them to set up some kind of database where you can use your identification (ss number or something) to see if you were one of the people being spied on, and what they found or what they recorded, and it would be for the persons eyes only, kinda like after the fall of the berlin wall.

Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to nationalizing the auto industry, confiscating the retirement savings of GM bond holders and giving it to the UAW, taking over the banking sector, eventually passing the economy killing cap and trade bill, planning to ration health care.

Barry is worse than the most ridicules hyperbole dreamed up about Bush.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Philip K Dickhead]

It's worse than that. Bish got rid of Habeas Corpus after 800 years. Obama now reserves the Executive Privilege to detain indefinitely, those acquitted and exonerated!

Obama claims right to imprison "combatants" acquitted at trial
By Bill Van Auken
10 July 2009

In testimony before the US Senate Tuesday, legal representatives of the Obama administration not only defended the system of kangaroo military tribunals set up under Bush, but affirmed the government's right to continue imprisoning detainees indefinitely, even if they are tried and acquitted on allegations of terror-related crimes.

This assertion of sweeping, extra-constitutional powers is only the latest in a long series of decisions by the Democratic administration demonstrating its essential continuity with the Bush White House on questions of militarism and attacks on democratic rights.

The testimony, given to the Senate Armed Services Committee by the top lawyer for the Pentagon and the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division, came in the context of a congressional bid to reconfigure the military tribunal system set up under the Bush administration.

In 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in an attempt to lend legal cover to the system of drumhead courts set up to try so-called "enemy combatants," which had been found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The high court subsequently ruled against the congressionally revised system as well.

This latest effort, like the one carried out three years ago, is aimed at fending off successful court challenges to the system. The Senate Armed Services Committee introduced new military commission legislation last month as part of the 2010 military spending bill.

As the committee's Democratic chairman, Carl Levin of Michigan, put it, the aim was to "substitute new procedures and language" that would "restore confidence in military commissions."

As the administration's lawyers made clear, however, any changes will amount to mere window dressing in an Orwellian system where the government decides who is entitled to trial, whether defendants are brought before military or civilian courts, and even whether or not to free those who are found not guilty.

The Justice Department attorney, David Kris, told the Senate panel that civilian and military prosecutors are still debating whether scores of detainees who have been marked for trial will be brought before a military tribunal or a civilian court.

"This is a fact-intensive judgment that requires a careful assessment of all the evidence," Kris said. He acknowledged that some form of trial was preferable to simply continuing to hold the detainees as "unlawful combatants."

What is clear, however, is that this "fact intensive" process is aimed at determining which detainees can be convicted in a civilian court, which of them must be sent to military tribunals because of the weakness of the evidence against them, and which will simply be held without trial because there is no evidence that would stand up in either venue. In such a system, all must be found guilty--the only question is by what means.

Undoubtedly another major concern is keeping out of open court cases which could make public the heinous crimes carried out by the US military and intelligence apparatus in the "war on terror," including acts of "extraordinary rendition," torture and murder.

The Obama White House has repeatedly demonstrated its determination to cover up these crimes, including by defying a court order to release Pentagon torture photos and the Justice Department's attempts to quash legal challenges to the criminal practices of the Bush administration, including rendition, torture and illegal domestic spying.

Appearing with Kris was Jeh Johnson, the chief lawyer of the Defense Department, who made the case for the president's supposed power to continue holding detainees without bringing them before any court and to throw men acqui

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Waffle Iron]

confiscating the retirement savings of GM bond holders and giving it to the UAW

There were no savings of GM bond holders. GM went bankrupt, and its liabilities far outweighed any conceivable future profits. The bonds were already worthless, and the retirement savings were already lost.

The government may have wrongly given a bunch of taxpayer bailout money to the UAW, but that still doesn't mean that GM bond holders deserved any of the taxpayers' money either.

taking over the banking sector

Likewise, the entire banking sector was insolvent. Flat B-R-O-K-E. Either the US government, the Chinese government, or Middle Eastern investors were going to end up owning all of the pieces of that entire industry. The American people opted for the US government.

planning to ration health care.

Heads up: your health care is *already* rationed, by your PHB.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Philip K Dickhead]

Uhhh... The Pacers?

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Long standing bankruptcy laws give preference to the bond holders over the employees. The bond holders should be the new owners of GM and Chrysler, not the UAW, who were just as culpable as the idiot executives in running the companies into the ground.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Waffle Iron]

There was NO MONEY for the bond holders *or* the UAW to have "preference" over. The UAW got new money from the taxpayers. That's a different issue, but the bondholders didn't have a valid claim on this new money either.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[sumdumass]

t's worse than that. Bish got rid of Habeas Corpus after 800 years. Obama now reserves the Executive Privilege to detain indefinitely, those acquitted and exonerated!

Um.. Not 800 years. Lincoln got rid of it for a lot more people just 140 years ago. Almost the entire south was without it at one point in time.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[bryan1945]

So much for change. I have the feeling these detainees will just be held until Obama is out of office, where it's 4 or 8 years. Just pass the problem on. I think for once my mom is correct, the country really is starting to go to hell.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Philip K Dickhead]

Your mother is wrong.

It started a long time ago...

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, the entire banking sector was insolvent. Flat B-R-O-K-E.

It wasn't broke UNTIL the governernment started bailing people out. (Look at the timeline)

One bank screws up, and might have to make some big cuts to stay in the black.
Government bails bank out.
Wallstreet goes apeshit and bank's stock tanks.
Bank's partners now need bailouts.
Bank's partners get bailouts.
Wallstreet goes apeshit again then everyone's stock tanks.
Now "free" taxpayer money for all [executives].

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

BOND HOLDERS should be the new owners of GM.

Barry made a political payoff to UAW. It stinks to high heaven and if Bush had done anything close to this, the Left would shitting bricks and rooting in the streets.

As a point of principal, the people who had a MAJOR role in bringing down the U.S. auto industry ( spelled U.A.W) should not be rewarded with ownership in the new company.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

There was NO MONEY for the bond holders *or* the UAW to have "preference" over. The UAW got new money from the taxpayers. That's a different issue, but the bondholders didn't have a valid claim on this new money either.

Find me a Chapter 13 bankruptcy prior to GM where a union or group of employees got a significantly larger or even just larger share of the company then SECURED creditors. I won't hold my breath waiting because the idea of a secured creditor was raped by the Obama Administration.

Also, the tax payer bailout was prior to the bankruptcy so the bondholders did have a valid claim on that money.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Madison Avenue.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[k1e0x]

It's worse than that. Bish got rid of Habeas Corpus after 800 years. Obama now reserves the Executive Privilege to detain indefinitely, those acquitted and exonerated!

Um.. Not 800 years. Lincoln got rid of it for a lot more people just 140 years ago. Almost the entire south was without it at one point in time.

Just because it was done in the past doesn't make it ok.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[sumdumass]

I didn't say it was ok, I said it wasn't 800 years.

And the reason it is in the constitution is because England suspended habeas corpus on the colonies in several instances and the founders saw that it might be necessary at some time, they wanted to limit that time to when it was absolutely necessary. So even if we remove the 140 years ago with Lincoln, we has 250 years ago with king George.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Waffle Iron]

BOND HOLDERS should be the new owners of GM.

Technically true. However, BOND HOLDERS would have gotten something like 1 cent on the dollar in a liquidation sale of GM's office supplies, trademarks and machine tools to obscure Chinese industrial conglomerates. However, the total humiliation that the United States of America would have experienced in such a fire sale would have in the long run damaged our country far worse than these bond defaults. We'd have to erase "Apple pie and Chevrolet" from our vocabulary.

Anyway, BOND HOLDERS could have listened to my advice 10 years ago: Don't invest in a company that sells 1950's era body-on-frame vehicles that get 14 MPG for $30,000+. The slightest hiccup in the world's oil supplies or economy would tank that business model. And it did.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[rachit]

There was NO MONEY for the bond holders *or* the UAW to have "preference" over.

What are you talking about? GM had plenty of assets. In a bankruptcy, the guys who hold GM debt (bondholders) should be able to decide to sell all the assets to pay off as much of the debt as they can.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heads up: your health care is *already* rationed, by your PHB.

Bullshit! Health insurance companies have never rationed anyone's health insurance. You can get all the medical what-have-yous you want. Uh, you just have to pay for them when they deny you because it's in their benefit to do so. You, of course, can take them to court. Where you may win or, most likely, lose. But, you know, you might get them to pay for some of your medical procedures. But, as long as you keep paying your money you'll always be able to go to court over you largest fees.

See, there is no rationing at all.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Waffle Iron]

Yeah, hey had assets, the value of which I summed up here. The insignificant residual value of GM's foreclosed assets to bondholders was a tiny fraction of its psychological value to this country.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[FiloEleven]

...but the pace is accelerating.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

confiscating the retirement savings of GM bond holders and giving it to the UAW

There were no savings of GM bond holders. GM went bankrupt, and its liabilities far outweighed any conceivable future profits. The bonds were already worthless, and the retirement savings were already lost.

The government may have wrongly given a bunch of taxpayer bailout money to the UAW, but that still doesn't mean that GM bond holders deserved any of the taxpayers' money either.

That just shows you don't know what a bond is. The bond holders are legally supposed to be first in line for any assets GM has. And GM definitely had assets: all its factories, among other things. Being worthless as a whole doesn't mean the bond holders get nothing--that means the STOCK holders get nothing.

Re:Seems like nothing now...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is money for the bond holders: all the property of GM. Although it is true the government basically gave its stock to the UAW, and the bond holders couldn't prevent that, even though it's weird the government would bail out the second in line (UAW) but not the first (bond holders).

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

[Mc_Anthony]

It's sort of clear now why BO backed down on this early.

Re:Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

[poetmatt]

The whole thing dodges everything from 2001-2005. All they do is put it on Mr. Yoo. It's very light on details to a good point un until 05-07. Surprise = 0. The whole thing is a giant circljerk/clusterfuck about whose fault it is.

Re:Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

[oliphaunt]

It does kinda seem like the people running the show picked the fall guy in advance. Emptywheel's thread does point out one interesting detail - After Comey refused to sign off, George W. Bush personally called Ashcroft at the hospital, to try to hide what was going on just one more time.

The man's entire presidency was an exercise in law breaking and ass-covering.

Re:Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

[Jeremi]

The man's entire presidency was an exercise in law breaking and ass-covering.

Bush didn't see himself as breaking any laws. The way he saw it, as "War President" he wasn't bound by any laws. The ass-covering part was merely an attempt to avoid the hassle of having to explain that to a bunch of naive liberal lawyers who foolishly believed what they were told in civics class.

Re:Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

[oliphaunt]

Bush didn't see himself as breaking any laws.

the fact that he was wrong doesn't make his conduct lawful. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Re:Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation

[Chyeld]

And the Crusades were (if not started, at least kept alive) by people legitimately believing they were doing God's work by liberating the Holy City from heathens.

That's the scary part of life, villians aren't the handle-bar mustache twirling evil-doers that we see on TV. They, for the most part, aren't acting out of pure self interest and a desire simply to cause misery. Most 'villians' are people who quite clearly seem themselves in the role of the Hero (with the capital H required) in the story, doing what must be done to save the rest of us from our folly.

Whether they are heros or not depends more on if you see the world the same way as them than it does on their actual actions. I know people who still think Bush was the greatest president since Washington. I know people who spit whenever they hear Lincoln's name. And, sadly, I know people who fit both statements.

We told our lawyers to tell us it was legal...

[P0ltergeist333]

Comes down to the same BS of: "We told our lawyers to tell us it was legal, and so it was." Will the Bush administration EVER answer for their crimes? I think not at this point.

Ah yes

[Qzukk]

American lawyers.... based in America, and protected by the Constitution no matter how fast the Republicans spin the word "People".

The lawyers are the aggrieved party here, having received a copy of their own wiretap in the mail and therefore being the only people outside of the government able to prove that these wiretaps occurred. That they just happen to be lawyers for an Islamic foundation that gives all its money to a bunch of murderers would be a good reason to put in a request for a warrant from the secret FISA court that rubber-stamped almost every single request ever, shame Bush's administration just couldn't be bothered to obey the law.

EFF updates their commentary

[oliphaunt]

Since I wrote the summary, the EFF has a new page up with some analysis and commentary.

the IG report does confirm that the warrantless surveillance involved "unprecedented collection activities," beyond the surveillance program of Al-Qaeda touted by President Bush. The report described the scope of the additional spying only as "Other Intelligence Activities." Collectively, the so-called terrorist surveillance program and the Other Intelligence Activities were referred to as the "President's Surveillance Program." The report does not use the program's code name, Stellar Wind, which remains classified. Given the scope of the Nixon Administration's illegal spying (which led to FISA in the first place), it is sobering to consider that the Other Intelligence Activities were unprecedented.
[...]

The report damns the effectiveness of the program with faint praise. [...]

The IG report provided a dramatic summary of the dispute in March 2004, when dozens of Bush Administration officials nearly resigned in protest over the Other Intelligence Activities. The Department of Justice could find no legal support for these activities, and found that the factual basis for prior legal opinions was substantially incorrect. [emphasis mine]

that last bit is referring to some of John Yoo's embarrassingly shoddy 'legal' work, which (now 9th Circuit Judge-for-life) Jay Bybee signed off on.

politics

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a "politics" section of Slashdot, you know. Here's a hint: if you're linking to fucking FIREDOGLAKE then it's a goddamn politics story. (It's also probably bullshit, but that's neither here nor there.)

Is an electronic version asking too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government is ususally pretty good about releasing reports in PDF form which do not consist of scanned bitmasked documents that can't be searched. I can understand scanning of historic documents written >60 years ago but there needs to be a law that crap like this be prepared in electronic form!!

It almost makes me wonder if the release of said document was done intentionally because with all of these words and phrases crossing the wires it would make the NSAs data mining machine go haywire.

Oh, so McCain was a free choice? NOT

[k1e0x]

Elections do not change our government. In the last election we had the choice of continuing Bush's foreign policy OR continuing Bush's foreign policy with nicer rhetoric. We had the choice of bailing out our economy with favours to those corporations that favour fascism or bailing out our economy with favours to those corporations that favour socialism. We basically had the choice of Bush the third in white or Bush the third in black.

They don't let us vote on real change, allowing the people a choice on the truly important topics is never allowed. .. Beyond this we are NOT represented at all. Somewhere around 1% to 2% of the public supported the 700 Billion Bailout... I mean "Rescue" bill and it was forced upon us because the elite in Washington thought we didn't know better. Doing something people refuse to support, regardless of their reasons, is not representation.. it doesn't matter how hard you squint.. it's not representation, it's fucking tyranny. It's leaders ruling over others, not preforming their wishes. We have an elected dictatorship where the ruling class only presents us limited options.

The federal government threatens us with it's foreign policy, is a extreme burden to each and every last person financially by doing little more than placing us all in debt, and a disaster in ever area attempt to provide a service that people would actually want from a government. It's time the states declared independence from this cancer and failure of a free nation.

Re:Oh, so McCain was a free choice? NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere around 1% to 2% of the public supported the 700 Billion Bailout...

It's time the states declared independence from this cancer and failure of a free nation.

(USA Today/Gallop poll) Nearly eight out of 10 Americans - 78% - say Congress should approve a historic bailout of the nation's financial markets, ...Only 11% in the poll taken Wednesday night say Congress should take no action to ease the current credit crisis

Which state government do you recommend as a model?

Which party/group do you recommend we join and support?

I would hate to waste my time in the wrong group and seek your advice.
To me, the groups seem to fall into two camps.

There are the groups that just hates the United States. An example would be the Alaskan group, the founder of which is quoted as saying "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." This was the group the Palin's supported and belonged to. I could show support for both by joining this one.

Or groups that are so patriotic and fond of flag waving, they want to show there love for America by succeeding from her. I believe this is Texas Gov. Rick Perry's party.

I've also heard of several other groups, commonly in the South, (though not exclusively as the Alaska example shows) that advocate secession.

As a preliminary planning guide, how many nations do you advocate the current United States be broken up into? Should there be 50 or more separate nations or do you think small groups of states could form worthy governments?

My heart bleeds

[Frantactical Fruke]

The NSA tapping American phones? I would feel really bad about that, if I did not just recall that I'm European and that the NSA requires no warrant or reason to invade my privacy. It was expressly created for that. Do not expect me to feel sympathy when a Chinese agency snoops on your communications. You never gave it a thought whether indiscriminate spying on 'them danged furriners', i.e. me, was ethically justified.

Re:My heart bleeds

[Anonymous Coward]

And Europeans have been taping American phones for years without a warrant, so I'm not sure what you point is. Especially considering there are deals between European and American governments to tap each others citizens just to avoid warrants.

Criminals.

[crhylove]

Every high ranking member of our government has been criminal since they shot JFK in the face.

The public is subsequently drugged into complacency, but even the drugged out losers know:

This government is a fascist police state, and Obama is just the latest puppet, served up as a media distraction.

Parts of the report read like a novel

[davide marney]

Imagine you are a staff attorney being asked to sign off on the legality of a secret government program. You read the legal analysis, written earlier by your successor, and realize that not only are parts of the analysis legally flawed, but some the facts aren't even right. Not only does the analysis set aside an entire act of Congress, it fails to describe accurately the program itself.

In its current state, there's no way you could sign off. Problem is, the President of the United States has already been using it to authorize the secret program for a long time, and the program is really useful. How do you tell the President that you think the program is probably illegal, and at least some parts of it should be stopped immediately?

The report reads like a novel. The clash between the White House, the FBI, and the Department of Justice is a classic balance-of-power struggle about who decides what is the meaning of the law.

illegal?

[Danathar]

Not backing up the NSA in any way but WAS it in fact judged illegal by a court? I thought the matter was still to be decided by the judicial system?

Catholic Marauders

[j0ebaker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Catholic marauders (Jesuits, Knights of Malta, etc...) are responsible for the sinking of the Titanic, the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the Vatican itself was instrumental for intentionally sewing seeds of discontent in the Islam relegion by planting Mohammad as a prominent religious leader of Islam.

We have all been mind fucked and lay as dizzy almost dead on the side of the road as road kill to the information war (which we are loosing) and to the war between the Masons and the Catholics for dominion of the world, and to the war for complete tyranny by the US government and it's puppet master, Israel.

Honoring government only leads to your neighbor's imprisionment for j walking. Please study anarchy and detach yourself from every system of authority you are under and realize that you are sovereign - NOT A CITIZEN. That you are bestowed by the creator of the universe with the inheritance of the land, and inalienable rights. One of those rights is to be free to associate with others without being easedropped on. Use PGP/GnuPG encryption for crying out loud for even emailing your grandmother.

I have a bug report in about Slashdot not allowing PGP style signatures in postings here:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2817084&group_id=4421&atid=104421
It could use some more emphasis to get action on it.

Government is a tired old game of mental manipulation of the masses --- to "Govern" "ment" (Minds). We simply don't need that anymore. As a rule we all get along just fine thank you until somebody gets the idea that "It's my job to...." like a policeman enforcing "rules".

Oh, god, I could go on and on and on and on about all this. Go back and re-watch the matrix and ask yourself how many aspects of life are like the matrix?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpYylYACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmALYQCdHprxBHBZjCq/WHrPaSoCIosV
Eu4AoIQmDiw0WBLHwP7rj/XSWY/srbWY
=8pIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re:Catholic Marauders

[j0ebaker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Apparently they had already took action on the PGP key issue. I'm Delighted! Thanks Slashdot!

Sincerely,
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpY4xwACgkQ7J1dPd3sAmCrRACgkodaonuRg7Z2Xd/6ozqBNCv7
fQYAn1aGRkZ8wrW4Qam4xcjt7aY3tZRB
=3ycJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The quote has legs because it feels right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush's behavior made it clear that, even if he never said this, he believed it with every fiber of his being. Showing that Bush probably never said this only shows that he had the minimal forethought not to speak his mind. He shat on the Constitution every chance he got, and then engaged in merely illegal activities when there were no opportunities for breaking the Constitution.

They could do it, w/out firing a single shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"5) Do you seriously think that a handful of fools wearing sandals and turbans who hide in caves are going to take down 300 million people? Can you imagine the size of the force that would be needed to invade American soil? It's moot, anyway, because you're more likely to die of colon cancer in Wisconsin than you are to die from a terrorist attack." - by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Friday July 10, @08:27PM (#28656513)

Good point: That'd be quite unlikely, this country has a LOT of "muscle"... so, winning a street fight with it, IS unlikely... BUT, IF the our enemies in the middle east REALLY wanted to raise hell here, they could do so, easily... how?

Well, with all of their wealth, especially IF they "pooled it", they could simply BUY THIS COUNTRY UP (& don't even think there aren't ways to get money in here from foreign interests to do so without anyone knowing), & then, once you have controlling interest, simply MISMANAGE THE HELL OUT OF IT, after buying it up via "proxies" (i.e.-> Those acting as agents for foreign powers to do so, because they're foolish enough to be in "love with money" or those that have made money "their God" (plenty of THOSE types out there, no questions asked))...

(Think about it - win a war, without even firing a shot (& destroy your opponent, from the INSIDE, with the means provided, because it's "legal"))

APK

P.S.=> This is what scares me, because face it: This nation? It is "FOR SALE", & so are many of our "political leaders", plus, the stock market makes it entirely possible, for any publicly held company @ least... then, hire the biggest idiots around to make stupid, short-term decisions, and there you are... instant disintegration & failing companies, left & right + economic collapse... apk

Re:They could do it, w/out firing a single shot...

[DeadCatX2]

People who love money that much aren't going to waste it all just to destroy someone they don't like. If they mismanaged the hell out of things, they just lost all their cash that they used to buy the country.

The Saudis have a vested interest in our economy. So does China. Without the US economy to drive, the price of oil would plummet, and China wouldn't have anyone to sell their stuff to. In fact, I would wager that most wealthy people are wealthy because of the US and they aren't going to waste their wealth destroying their cash cow.

Besides, we don't need foreigners to screw up our companies, we do it ourselves.

Your last sentence? May not BE us @ all

[Anonymous Coward]

My boy, you'd be surprised...

E.G.-> Look @ what Edison did to Nicola Tesla, whose birthday was yesterday by the by (wiped him out of the histories almost, & attempted like HELL to discredit alternating current as well, though it doubtless cost he a fortune), & it was motivated sheerly on EGO alone almost, let alone the fact that direct current was NOT as cost-effective as alternating current (less repeater stations needed for AC is why, in large part), & not hatred for killing one's family (as might be a motivator for middle easterners to do so in fact), for instance...

Think about it.

(You really don't understand human nature, do you? Not meaning to pick on you, but wealthy people, corrupted by the power of money, are capable of the silliest things & for the SILLIEST reasons, because they have the power, & that leads to a sense of "superiority" in their ego, & they quite often will not stand for anyone making them look bad even)

APK

P.S.=> I am merely making a point: IF they wished to do so, because they are SO heavily invested in us & you are correct in that much? They could...

Especially based on your last sentence, I want you to think about this -> THEY MAY BE @ THE ROOT OF IT ANYHOW, ALREADY... "drink that in, & digest it"... apk

Re:Your last sentence? May not BE us @ all

[DeadCatX2]

If someone hated us so much and had that much spare wealth, it'd be easier for them to buy a black market nuke and donate it to al-Qaida than it would be to try and buy a majority ownership in enough companies to cause us severe harm.

Your condescending tone ("my boy", "you don't understand", etc) combined with the conspiracy theory attitude at the end ("I want you to think about this") reduce the impact of any message you wanted to deliver.

Individual human nature might drive individuals to do some crazy things, but you'd need a lot of people working together and they'd need to be extremely careful because if even one wrong person finds out, the whole world will know. It becomes a problematic trade-off; without enough people, they don't have enough cash to do what you suggest, but with enough people, it's too hard to keep secrets.

Seriously, what are the odds that a sufficiently large group of people who are wealthy enough to buy majority ownership of most American companies are all demented enough to throw away their fortunes in order to destroy an entire country full of people who enable those fortunes will keep this whole scheme a secret? One individual, sure. Five or ten, maybe. But hundreds of billionaires?

Re:Your last sentence? May not BE us @ all

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone hated us so much and had that much spare wealth, it'd be easier for them to buy a black market nuke and donate it to al-Qaida than it would be to try and buy a majority ownership in enough companies to cause us severe harm.

As your economy collapses in flames around your ears, you scream blindly at the wind. The truth is there if you open your eyes: China, Saudi Arabia and others own your ass. AIG's bailout of Goldman Sachs was a pittance compared to the money doled out by AIG to foreign banks.

keep this whole scheme a secret?

Secret? What secret? It's no secret, it was all done in the open, people spent years pointing out the warning signs and being laughed at, and now you're wailing "who could have foreseen this" at the very people who DID. These people are not alone, "conspiracies" operate in the open all of the time: consider PNAC, who openly laid out all of their plans for American domination of the world, complete with invasion of Iraq (ahead of 9/11). On their own public website, even! And yet again the sheep blinded themselves to the truth, of course Saddam had to go down "because 9/11"! Anyone who suggested otherwise was a conspiracy nut!

Who is their WORST enemy & what do they love?

[Anonymous Coward]

First: See my subject-line above, & ask yourself THAT question (&, don't wonder WHY the "World Trade Center" was bombed first of all)...

The Arab nations, for example, don't hate the U.S. imo, per-se, so much as their ages long enemy, who oddly IS from the same genetic strand/ancestral peoples in antiquity...

(Mainly, because 1st of all, Arabs do "have their own" here also + realize the NORMAL FOLKS are subject to the whims of our leaders who are subject to the whims of big money - why harm innocents, if you can help NOT do so, & harm your own here in the USA also (I'd attempt to avoid that personally IF possible))...

"IMO" @ least?

They are ONLY OUT TO TAKE OUT THEIR LONG TIME ENEMY, who loves "GOLD" & MONEY, who is entrenched in this nation & controls a SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS WEALTH, COMMUNICATIONS, LEGAL & POLITICAL SYSTEMS, + has lands in the middle east now, taken from Palestinians... + when said enemy generates large portions of their wealth here?

(Think about that one - Do I have to "spell it out" for you? I hope not...)

"Seriously, what are the odds that a sufficiently large group of people who are wealthy enough to buy majority ownership of most American companies are all demented enough to throw away their fortunes in order to destroy an entire country full of people who enable those fortunes will keep this whole scheme a secret?" - by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Saturday July 11, @09:25PM (#28664721)

Do you LOVE anyone? Seriously LOVE someone?? Like a child of yours etc. et al???

If so, I think you can find the answer to THAT, as to motivations to BLOW ALL YOUR WEALTH EVEN if need be to achieve your ends, quite easily enough... &, right inside your own heart!

(While you ask yourself this - Please, think about Arabs being killed, & their loved ones, + their enemy of ages being defended by said nation (US), & don't even hesitate to think what YOU MIGHT DO, in their shoes)

You asked for motivations, as to WHY it might be done as I stated? Look NO farther than that, because were I to say, kill your only child? I think you'd be SURPRISED how motivated you'd be, & what lengths you'd go to, to make ME & MINE suffer thus... so, once more - "drink that in, & digest it", please...

LASTLY: You can attempt to "put down" the phrases, or conjecture/speculations, I used... that's ok by me:

I only ask that you "entertain possibilities" is all... mere conjecture (or, is it?)

APK

P.S.=>

"If someone hated us so much and had that much spare wealth, it'd be easier for them to buy a black market nuke and donate it to al-Qaida than it would be to try and buy a majority ownership in enough companies to cause us severe harm." - by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Saturday July 11, @09:25PM (#28664721)

TOTALLY ILLOGICAL IF NOT SUICIDAL:

Well, nukes, are like "flatulations" - blow it off in the corner of the room? The WHOLE ROOM (planet) gets the stink (radiation)... wouldn't make sense, because it would get to they & their LOVED ONES too, via the weather systems, wind & rain - in "hard radiation" poisoning possibly... AND DEATH?

Death is final (too final AND TOO QUICK, & especially in a direct blast zone of a NUKE, radiation death might be suffering but it spreads - NOT practical, & can "frankenstein monster" them, and others who ARE innocent)...

That's NOT long term suffering (like heartbreak is when you lose loved ones)... & certainly NOT one "zeroed in" on the interests of your MAIN enemy either!

E.G.-> Next BEST thing? Well - take away what said party LOVES THE MOST & IMPOVERISH THEM + THEIR ERSTWHILE BACKERS, US/USA (per what I stated above, instead of insta-death), & where they generate MUCH OF IT FROM (USA)? Might be WORSE than death to said parties, as it also is something they love, BUT, what they use to protect themselves also as well as to puppeteer others... & thus, You have a possible answer... So, think about THAT, also! apk

Leader of the Country

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the president is supposed to lead the country

It makes me sad that so many people (i.e. a majority of voters) agree with you on that. Millions of school children (and I guess I was one of them) are being told the president is merely the top executive of the government. But by the time they grow up, so many of them are ingrained with idea that fascism is the best economic system (because it has brought so much happiness to so many people in the past), that they vote for it. Leader of the government and leader of the country, are essentially the same thing to them.

The country exists to fulfill the goals of government. So do the citizens. So ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government.

Re:Who is their WORST enemy & what do they lov

[DeadCatX2]

On the one hand, you say that someone won't destroy their own worth in order to kill their enemies. Mind you, if you waste your wealth on leveling people you don't like, you won't be able to take care of your loved ones anymore, and you will still end up ruining the lives of innocent people.

Then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that they won't give a nuclear weapon away to destroy those same enemies, because it might hurt the ones they love and kill innocent people.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. If if is so important for you to spread your message, then you should be more careful in how you present the argument. Drink that in, and digest it, please.

Re:Who is their WORST enemy & what do they lov

[DeadCatX2]

Oops, I meant to say "On the one hand, you say that someone will destroy their own worth in order to kill their enemies."

Practice what YOU preach... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"If if is so important for you to spread your message, then you should be more careful in how you present the argument. Drink that in, and digest it, please." - by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Monday July 13, @01:42PM (#28679477)

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1298971&cid=28679477

LMAO!

(Practice what YOU preach...)

APK

P.S.=> It's just speculation, that's all... anyone that makes war like the folks in the middle east? Is nuts (especially for so long) because the really ODD part is?? THEY ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER... I.E.? They DO MAKE WAR ON THEIR OWN & DESTROY THEIR OWN - go figure it out! They've been trying to, for ages, in their "hatfield vs. mccoy war" that's been raging for centuries! apk

You changed the conditions I gave you...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mind you, if you waste your wealth on leveling people you don't like, you won't be able to take care of your loved ones anymore" - by DeadCatX2 (950953)
on Monday July 13, @01:42PM (#28679477)

That's changing the scenario I gave you, of "only child" being snuffed out... so, if there are no more loved ones, that's a pretty strong impetus for revenge, & yes: Even to the point of BLOWING YOUR ENTIRE STACK to get it.

APK