Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's the last whitewash report we expect to receive on the matter.
See you in Baghram!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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/
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"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 :)
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.
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
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
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.
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Uhhh... The Pacers?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
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.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Since I wrote the summary, the EFF has a new page up with some analysis and commentary.
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.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
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.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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.
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.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
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.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
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.
Your mother is wrong.
It started a long time ago...
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Madison Avenue.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
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.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
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.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
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.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
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?
...but the pace is accelerating.
Your brain is not a computer.
-----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-----
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.
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.
:(){
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?
:(){
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.
:(){
Oops, I meant to say "On the one hand, you say that someone will destroy their own worth in order to kill their enemies."
:(){