Slashdot Mirror
Attorney General Says Wiretap Lawsuit Must Be Thrown Out
Mr Pink Eyes writes with news about comments from US Attorney General Eric Holder, who said a San Francisco lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out, since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." From the AP report:
"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate. Holder's effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult. ... Holder said US District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can 'conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.'"
says wiretab lawsuit
Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administration’s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law.
Also, I thought he was assembling a cabinet critical of warrantless wiretapping?
My work here is dung.
Indeed. Looks like all the apologists who said his vote for the FISA amendments was just political expediency but that he'd work against wireless wiretapping once in office have a little egg on their faces.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Let me get this straight - the case is against warrant-less wiretapping, and since the case would expose on-going warrant-less wiretapping investigations, it should be thrown out? That's about the worst circular argument I've ever heard.
Why don't they just say it - they're going to do what they want, and it doesn't matter what anyone outside the "secret" circle thinks.
I believe the only thing that has changed is the people and the rhetoric.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
...so i ask, where is the justice?
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
same as the old boss
...we no longer have a democracy.
I'm probably not even going to bother voting anymore. These days, I can only choose between Kodos and Kang. It doesn't matter which side you pick, both of them suck.
Sometimes, I don't even know why we the people even bother voting these days. Three cheers for exercising our rights and all, but expecting things to get better when all we have to pick from are scumbags is like trying to lose weight in a restaurant that has nothing on the menu but deep-fried food.
..can be used to allow the gov to get away with absolutely anything.
The NSA/CIA can get over itself. The police do fine at apprehending criminals acting within the law (yes, anarchyfags, they do), and the NSA/CIA are just advanced policemen.
know how you feel:
Leadership
Eric Holder
Attorney General
Contact
Office of the Attorney General
(202) 514-2001
The quote "since going forward would compromise "ongoing intelligence activities." makes me think the Obama administration is still doing this.
I don't care if it is easier. We need to respect our constitution, even if it makes our security agencies do a little more work.
Power is so hard to give up. Once people have it, it corrupts them.
Sad day in American history.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I know the previous administration had an effect on us, but it appears to me that the current administration is actually handling this the right way. It may not be transparent to *us*, but matters of national security aren't supposed to be.
They provided the judge with the specifics, and let him decide. If the Bush White House had done that, rather than declare themselves above the law, we wouldn't be so jaded about executive privilege today.
This isn't as bad as it seems, and it's actually a huge step in the right direction.
Vote Barr next time.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
...same as the old boss. But this is not just a bit of education for Obama supporters, it is a valuable lesson for Bush II supporters as well. The extraordinary powers to further your agenda that you grant to your glorious leaders today are certain to be abused to further the agendas of their successors tomorrow.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
We absolutely have a Democracy, and now it's Tyranny of the majority..whatever majority is in charge that is.
...at tyrant's head (General Attorney Eric). Pull trigger. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....."
Warrantless searches are illegal, and if the courts won't protect the Constitution against domestic enemies, then We the People will do it instead.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough. She's pro-gun - good thing in my government conservative book because it's a Constitutional (Second Amendment) issue and the other things have no business being regulated by the Government. But the rabid anti-abortionists and bigoted anti-gay people don't mind having their civil rights and freedoms taken away (except the guns!) as long as the "fags" and those "baby killers" are controlled. Oh, and they're also the ones who think invading a country for oil is defending our country. What I mean is that politicians have to pander to those people to get elected and those people are ones who are controlling that side of the government.
Now, the other side..the people who actually think Socialism can work even though it has never before and big Government can solve our problems, have their own rabid beliefs.
There's no room for moderates or rational people in American Politics.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
For all of the howling the Obamessiah's followers made during the campaign about how evil Bush's policies were, he's sure continuing a lot of them that he originally pledged to do away with. Of course, nobody would DARE admit that maybe, just maybe, Bush was right...
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
hope. Granted it is only on the Republican side. Where grass roots Conservatives told their party elders to take a hike.
Still, it is hard to claim much freedom of choice when there are only two parties who can always get on the ballot, two parties who have done much to prevent other parties from having a chance. Where they could not do it by law they did by influence over media outlets.
In Obama's defense, promises made on the trail tend to fall by the wayside because reality sucks. The naivete of the Administration, let alone their voters, was astonishing. I think they both bought the hype. The problem of course is the world is harsh and all your "we love you love me" crap has no affect on the world stage.
Throw in a good dose of the Washington establishment (sorry - but his Chief of Staff was a dead give away the only change was the party who sat in the house) and how did anyone here honestly expect things to change? Then again I seem to recall a large number here who buy into Michael Moore's crap so no matter education or intelligence level snake oil sells.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
There is no political ideology or form of government that is not, on the face of it, well served by surveillance. Consequently, everyone will do it if they can. Anyone who sees surveillance as evil but a group of politicians as good should note this, because you will be sorely disappointed when your good people do evil. This applies in Europe as much as in the US.
I'd love to see examples of a significant withdrawal of surveillance anywhere in history that did not result from a revolution.
"In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently." Talk about some weak-foo.
We said that was horrible and despicable, but we've since decided that it is ok, but we came to the decision differently than those previous horrible/despicable people who did it, so it is ok when we do it.
For those who may be unaware:
hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hypocrisies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
Either it is ok and you were wrong about Bush, or it is NOT ok and you are a lying hypocrit. Choose 1 please.
wire tapes ensure we keep world peace. they prevent the bad guys from plotting to do bad things over the phone. We know we are tapping the right people because we say so. How dare you give opponents of such peace keeping policies.
Now drink this Cool Aid
Who suspects it might be a scenario where Obama went into office thinking one thing, and they sat him down in some briefing meeting and showed him something unexpected and he went "Oof. THAT'S why we're doing it. Well I guess I'll have to do a 180 on this and take the flak for it."
Just sayin'.
I used to think Bush was a dick for doing all this warrantless wiretapping, but now that I see Obama doing it, I'm starting to see a different perspective. They're both dicks, but I see now that despite losing popularity over it, it's worth it to them. I'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5% of their trust me in me for wiretapping, if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15%. It's not that clear cut, but no one can argue that terrorist attacks are good, and certainly Obama doesn't want one to happen on his watch.
If you've been watching the news, you'd know they have caught quite a few recently. I can't imagine their techniques for those were all legal. I don't agree with it, but I can sympathize with both Bush and Obama for why they did/are doing it.
Would any (real) lawyers on Slashdot care to comment on how the Federal Rules of Procedure regard ex parte communications between the respondent and the judge, held secret from the plaintiff?
Damn it...
...same as the old cliche.
That's why we need to elect Republicrats.
How about:
"Attorney General Says Wiretap LAW Must Be Thrown Out." ...Of course, I still believe in the America I learned about in civics class....I must just be old fashioned...at 37.
What do the Black Panthers, Chairman Mao, SEIU, Muslims, the Apollo Alliance, and no private property anywhere all have in common?
Barack Obama's appointments.
Death is Change too.
Not really
that is, many here have pointed out that fear mongering results in breaking laws and protections important to our society. this is correct
but i'd like to point out that fear mongering of another sort you see in comments here: that if someone in the government breaks our laws and protections out of fear, OMG WE LIVE IN A FASCIST AUTOCRACY, ITS ORWELL, THERES NO GOING BACK, etc., etc. zzz
obviously, wiretaps without warrants is a bad thing, and needs to be fought and corrected and reversed. but you have to recognize that all societies lie on a continuum of 100% free to 100% oppressed (never achieving 100% either way, that's impossible), and we simply have moved 0.5% towards the oppressed direction, and still come out by and large on the free side of things. in a way, a little backsliding after the trauma of 9/11 is to be expected. the backsliding is BAD and should be FOUGHT, but its almost a given from basic human pscyhology after a traumatic experience to function on fear and panic for a bit rather than being 100% rock solid level headed. the need to calm down and get a hold of your scruples is the mode we are in now
in other words, being a free society is not a binary either/ or state, its a continuum of interconnecting complex concepts, and this loss of freedom with warrantless wiretaps is a small part of a much larger picture. we can and SHOULD reverse it, and be angry about it, but there's no need to get our panties in a bunch about the fallacy that we are on a slippery slope, an unstoppable slide into oppression. does anyone seriously believe that? we've moved a couple inches in the direction of oppression, not a full mile, and we can move a few inches back. and we can, and we should, and we will, move back with calm, rational level headed effort
there's no need to fear monger and panic from the side worried about our freedoms disappearing. is that the best tactic? that kind of reaction reflects poorly on you if you care about your freedoms, because you need to be level headed and stable about your commitment to your freedoms, not worked up into a tizzy. if you are so easily upset, that betrays a lack of faith, and a lack of strong belief in the strength of your freedoms and their staying power. i believe in our freedoms strongly, and that gives me a faith that will carry me through the hiccups without turning into a hysteric about how my freedoms are going to slide out of my grasp completely on a moments notice. no: our culture and our commitment to our values and freedoms is strong and deep, and will not be trifled with
so stop freaking out some of you. it reflects poorly on the strength of your convictions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Fuckin' A, man. Right on.
There's a Republican in upstate New York who's probably going to lose because she's not "conservative" enough.
You put that in quotes. But what does "conservative" mean in this context? Try, fiscally responsible. Shouldn't they ALL be conservative....
The "Republican" you mentioned withdrew from the race yesterday - and promptly endorsed the Democratic candidate. So you see how Republican she really was... and you see the two sides of the same coin revealed together.
The great thing about voting for a "conservative" candidate is this - no matter how much you dislike any set of policies they may support, if they are reducing money the government will have less funds to bother anyone about those views. A perfect government is a collection of people who disagree with each other and keep spending to the minimum required.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...and that goes to the core of this issue.
Warrantless wiretaps are not illegal.
Warrantless wiretaps where a US Person is a deliberate target are illegal.
There are any number of ways to legally perform wiretaps without a warrant. There are even ways that it can be done where a US Person is one member of a conversation, as long as they aren't a target and proper protective measures are undertaken. There are ways to perform surveillance without a warrant to collect communications metadata (incoming/outgoing phone numbers, to/from information) in order to support collection against non-US Persons.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by a supermajority of both houses of Congress and signed into law, and the August 2008 FISC ruling affirm that collection within the US is legal when the target is not a US Person. Conversely, a warrant is now required to target a US Person anywhere in the world -- this is stricter than previous law. In order to support collection targeting, the metadata of traffic may legally be examined. (Also, the law was anything but clear from 2001-2007. The only thing that was clear is we needed to find new ways to collect on persons plotting against the United States, whose conversations were now traveling through a glass pipe in San Francisco instead of over the air via walkie-talkies on the streets of Yemen.)
Two important takeaways in this discussion:
1. The intelligence gap that exists as more information enters the digital realm from the old analog realms is being closed, and
2. Intelligence and national security interests transcend presidential administrations and politics.
I'd much rather have all my supporters lose 5% of their trust me in me for wiretapping, if I can avoid a major terrorist attack that would lose me 15%.
Or just maybe, both presidents wanted to save lives as badly as poll results...
I don't think it unreasonable to think that enters into the equation at all levels. Remember the presidents are the one that have to go survey the aftermath and talk to the families... think about how horrible that would be.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So when the super assassin that looks sorta like Markie Mark is known to be staying in a particular hotel room for a couple hours, the head of the team that created him can't just say, "Get a tap on that phone!" have her operator push a few buttons, and boom, you're listening to the trained killer order an extra large anchovy with original crust...that's going to all go away if we prevent unauthorized wiretapping.
Super assassin is in the hotel, but we've got to go find a judge, at this hour, to sign off on our report saying why we need to listen to this guy's pizza order. And what happens when our report claims that "anchovy" is really the president, "original crust" means a grassy knoll, and "extra large" means 50 caliber sniper rifle...then he goes to order a medium pepperoni with extra cheese. What the hell does THAT mean?
What I'm trying to say is...it's inefficient to have to ask to eavesdrop. Isn't the very DEFINITION of eavesdropping that you didn't ask?
I'm sure this rage over privacy will be moved to mainstream media soon, where the bad guy gets away because the judge had his cell phone turned off and the CIA wouldn't move on the tap without proper approval. The president is assassinated and do you SEE what your overvalued sense of privacy has done? Another politician dead! NOW what will we do?
Really early in the morning. Not even 9 AM here. Sorry for the stream of consciousness post.
With each passing year you're losing more and more rights and liberties. It's no longer a democracy, not even a republic really. If things continue like this I don't think you're going to have *any* rights whatsoever. The future looks rather bleak, doesn't it? Or can someone point me to a list of case law with some positive victories...?
It's kind of interesting how communism led to this, and this was the main argument everyone had against it and socialism, and now "democracy" or "the democratic republic" is leading to pretty much the same thing. So I guess democracy no longer works either. What are our alternatives?
Now that's change I can believe in. The kind that doesn't happen.
"Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk."
~Joaquin Setanti
The TL;DR is that Holder is trying to persuade Walker that there are ongoing surveillance programs that are (may be) legal which would be compromised, so please don't make the Administration explain why it violated the 4th Amendment Rights of everyone that made a phone call or sent an email, your honor.
...Binge and Purge, Binge and Purge, Binge and Purge; on and on and on it goes.
There is a better way and it was completely derived from and developed as a consequence of the cultural phenomena of the Internet - ie, if you've been voicing your opinions and dissent on the web in the last decade or so, this is the result of that. Cost: you have to start thinking differently about how things are going to be and start acting toward that goal. Actually, for now I suppose all you have to do is act differently. You don't even really need to mean it so long as you do it. Eventually, if you repeat a behavior long enough your thinking will change, no?
Short of another "Revolution" where one form of "power" takes the place of another and millions of otherwise innocent human lives are once again thrown into pits, I personally don't see any other way out. And I've been living with this bullshit government "of the people/by the people/for the people" hoax for nearly half a century. It's never worked for me, only against me. Ever. Why? Because at the heart of it's so-called "democratic" social contract, I have to work against you and you me.
Personally, I could do without that nonsense for a change. Be nice to just shake hands and get to know someone out of the blue without wondering what they wanted from me.
Or, you can just keep binging and purging.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
...the Obama administration is saying, "Bush was right". Hmmmm.....
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Okay, I know this post probably won't get modded up too high, given Slashdot libertarian groupthink, but: the Constitution doesn't say warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Let's take a look at the text of the Fourth Amendment:
This only says that searches must be "reasonable". It does not say "no search whatsoever can occur without a warrant". It mentions warrants, but doesn't say when exactly they're required. So, it's as legitimate an opinion as any to say that the government should have to get warrants for all domestic wiretapping, sure. But the Constitution doesn't say that.
Court precedent (based partly on the Constitution) might say that warrantless wiretapping is illegal, of course. Or it might not. There's no decision on the matter that hasn't been overruled, so it's an open question. I imagine, however, that most of the people calling warrantless wiretapping illegal and, e.g., advocating (+4 Insightful) assassination of the attorney general, are not lawyers and aren't really qualified to have an opinion on what the legal precedent implies.
So, might I request that we all make it clear what our personal opinions are, but don't claim support of the Constitution if it doesn't actually say anything clear on the issue?
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
I think that an enterprising person who built a decent voice encryption module for POTUS equipment could make some serious bucks.
With good encryption, who cares if they wiretap?
-
But it is also because each administration refuses to give up the illegality of its power.
Obama doesn't want to prosecute a previous administration for things he is about to do himself.
but somehow my damn twitchy mouse highlighted "funny" and i didn't realize it till after i hit the moderate button and i saw that your score said "funny". sorry, but i am undoing the mod by posting. hopefully someone could mod you up with an appropriate tag.
ahh, checked the label options, and funny is directly beneath informative on the pulldown menu, so when i drug the pointer away....
In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration's position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently.
In driving over this cliff, I agree that I'm doing the same thing as Thelma and Louise, but I insist I took a very different route to get here, so I'm sure I'll be OK...
Support the FairTax
Next time you walk into a voting booth, and elect a congresscritter, choose one that is neither R [n]or D. Nor C.
In my opinion there was no need for war.
We should have ignored Bin Laden the same way we ignore Internet Trolls. Don't feed them with a response. Was 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, and so was the challenger disaster, and the New Orleans flooding, and so on. Rather than declare war, we should have just picked up the pieces, secured the border the same way you install a more-solid door on your house after a breakin, and continued to live in peace.
I'm at a loss for words. Would you have advised that we ignored Pearl Harbor? That if we just grieved and then ignored it, that was acceptable policy? That Japan would have went "Oh look, those Americans aren't a threat to our interests after all. Let's give them a wide berth from now on"?
I can think of no worse policy for national security than ignoring a major attack and then going "La La, we don't care, we're just going to keep on living". You just sent a message to every nation in the world that your country can be attacked with impunity, and no consequences will come of it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"The people originating all those half million dollars mortgages to hairdressers and gardeners knew they would eventually implode"
No, they honestly didn't think so. They thought that housing values could never drop, and if they did, Uncle Sugar would take care of things. Fannie and Freddie, despite being privatized years ago, were perfectly comfortably selling the illusion that they were a government-backed agency, because in part they believed Congress would never turn their back in case things went bad. And they were largely right. Uncle Sugar to the rescue.
"There is absolutely NO WAY subprime mortgages to people with either no proof of income, or insufficient income, could ever warrant AAA bond ratings."
In a real free market... where there are consequences to everyone's actions... no, of course not. But like the subprime lenders themselves, the raters assumed that the government would insure that everyone was covered should things go wrong. Politicians wanted to keep a political constituency happy with subprime loans, and banks and rating agencies decided to play along and make money if this is how things were going to be.
This was a politically created mess, more than a market mess. It's not so much that the market failed as that it was corrupted and not allowed to operate as a market.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Hey, is this a new calling plan from AT&T: Secret Circle of Friends?
In cooperation with the NSA and the FISA court, AT&T offers the new Secret Circle of Friends calling plan. Place your friends' names on our surveillance list, and all of their calls are monitored for "quality assurance", while you receive credit for "rollover" testimony when you rat them out in a star chamber hearing.
Earn bonus points for entrapping the stupid into terror plots while earning frequent "no-fly" miles that can't be redeemed on any airline!
Ask Me About... The 80's!
After the excesses of the Bush Madministration the near-term collapse of the dollar was already pretty much assured. They seem to be following the path prescribed by neo-con guru Grover Norquist, who openly proclaimed that they intended to run the debt up so high that there was no room left for anything but the military and debt servicing. In his own words, they intended to shrink the Federal government to the point where he "can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub." Never before had the United States been run by people openly committed to its destruction.
I think Obama has already surrendered to the inevitable, and is just using play money to hopefully soften the blow.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Moreover, the rule of law is not about how citizens must act, but about how governments must act.
That is the heart of the matter. The constitution is the entirety of the legal authority for the federal government. When it does anything beyond the powers granted by that document, its action is illegitimate.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm at a loss for words. Would you have advised that we ignored Pearl Harbor?
1: Pearl Harbor was a real act of war, performed by a nation. WTC was an act terrorism, performed by fanatics.
2: Attacking Iraq after WTC made as much sense as attacking China after Pearl Harbor would have done.
Highlighted for emphasis:
You just sent a message to every nation in the world that your country can be attacked with impunity, and no consequences will come of it.
It was not a nation. USA should have dispatched dispatched crack troops to hunt down Bin Laden. And not too much else.
Hijacking a plane like 9/11 was impossible from the next day, without a single measure taken. People learn, this time they learned to die before surrendering to a hijacker.
Any money spent would have been better spent on a war against traffic deaths, which killed an order of magnitude more people than 9/11. And still does, every year.
The actual reaction was awful and playing right into terrorist hands. Seriously, Bin Laden could not have gotten a better result than a decade-long witch hunt and billions of American dollars flushed into the toilet that is the war in Iraq.
Add the finance crisis as sugar coating on top, increasing US debt even further, and giving any religious fanatics every reason to believe God is on their side.
Comparing the losses in 9/11 with the losses in the aftermath, I am sorry to conclude that USA played straight into terrorist hands. You have unleashed so much more damage upon yourself than the original attack ever did. Partly due to being the Military-industrial complex you are and such self-destructive action benefiting the people in power.
Never in the history on man have a terrorist attack been more efficient, triggering such immense long-term damage.
You just sent a message to every nation in the world that your country can be attacked with impunity, and no consequences will come of it.
And what message did you send? "Terrorism works". Even if you annihilate Bin Laded and co., it will have cost more than it was worth.
I lost my sig.