DNI Admits FISA Surveillance Violated the 4th Amendment

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNI Admits FISA Surveillance Violated the 4th Amendment

Posted by Unknown on Monday July 23, 2012 @09:39AM from the fox-mulder-reporting dept.

colinneagle writes, quoting Ms. Smith: "It's official; the government's spying efforts exceeded the legal limits at least once (PDF), meaning it is also officially 'unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) sent a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden giving permission to admit that much. This started with Sen. Wyden requesting that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) declassify some statements regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Although this FISA power is supposed to sunset in December 2012, in May a new Senate bill extended the warrantless wiretapping program for five more years. That vote was regarded as the first step 'toward what the Obama administration hopes will be a speedy renewal of an expanded authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the U.S. e-mails and phone calls of overseas targets in an effort to prevent international terrorist attacks on the country.'"

132 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Too late by freman · 2012-07-23 09:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
  Nope. I live only in fear that there won't be pancakes waiting for me when I wake up.
  Really, anyone living in constant fear is an idiot.
2. Re:Too late by Bill+Hayden · 2012-07-23 09:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I disagree. The very problem is that the government does not fear it's citizens. They are not beholden to the citizens any more.
  
  --
  Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
3. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  This.
4. Re:Too late by Aguazul2 · 2012-07-23 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Given the drought, your fear may soon come true. Your pancake-driven effort against the war on terror is lost!!
5. Re:Too late by Antipater · 2012-07-23 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Quick! Pivot to a wine-fueled offensive! When the corn crop fails, UNLEASH THE GRAPES OF WRATH!
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
6. Re:Too late by jhoegl · 2012-07-23 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, my government was supposed to beholdin me?
  Where can I sign up for this service?
7. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The very problem is that the government does not fear it's citizens.
  
  And when you step back and ask, "Who ARE they afraid of?", I just think about where the politicians' money is coming from.
  And I keep coming up with one answer: very wealthy business men hiding behind their corporations and Super PACs.
8. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:19 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Really, anyone living in constant fear is an idiot.
  That's where you're wrong. Only those who live in constant fear of ANYTHING bigger than they are can claim to be truly enlightened! Sure, all the added paranoia will mean I'll be dead by the age of 37 from stress-related complications and lack of sleep wreaking havoc with my health, plus I'll never be happy due to my all-consuming obsession over never-ending all-or-nothing demands for unrealistic, unfeasible, and/or unsustainable goals that anyone with even the most basic of real-world social research would understand the sheer absurdity of (if said demands are even well-defined at all, which is a big "if", on the scale of the original Laconic "if"), but would YOU rather die well past the age of 70 in relative happiness and comfort, being a productive member of society, accomplishing things, and having a social life that might extend outside of internet echo chamber chat rooms, knowing that all this time THEY might be looking at you at some point? Huh? HUH?
  Yeah, that's what I thought.
9. Re:Too late by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  and the UK. and Oz/NZ.
  (maybe poland too. lets not forget poland!)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
10. Re:Too late by freman · 2012-07-23 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Shhh dissing the US is how we help ourselves feel better about our own problems down under :(
11. Re:Too late by freman · 2012-07-23 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  I agree, I've had a coffee since my first post and your statement is what I wanted to say - a government that willingly attacks and deprives it's own citizens of liberties and justice clearly isn't afraid of them any more.
12. Re:Too late by shentino · 2012-07-23 10:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, the worst part is that OUR OWN LAWMAKERS are being restrained in what they can talk about.
  This is a direct affront to the principle of congressional oversight.
13. Re:Too late by Nyder · 2012-07-23 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
  The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
  The U.S.A. Government is the terrorist.
  They terrorize their citizens, they terrorize the citizens of other countries.
  You ask, how are they terrorist? Because they have been preaching and using fear to pass laws that limits our rights. Worse, we are letting them.
  You want to stand up to the terrorist problem? Start with the government.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
14. Re:Too late by c0lo · 2012-07-23 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
  The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
  And everybody seems to enjoy it? (otherwise can't explain why the situation is tolerated).
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
15. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Really, anyone living in constant fear is an idiot.
  That's where you're wrong. Only those who live in constant fear of ANYTHING bigger than they are can claim to be truly enlightened! Sure, all the added paranoia will mean I'll be dead by the age of 37 from stress-related complications and lack of sleep wreaking havoc with my health, plus I'll never be happy due to my all-consuming obsession over never-ending all-or-nothing demands for unrealistic, unfeasible, and/or unsustainable goals ...
  Overly dramatic, kiddo. I'm well past my 40-es and everything above haven't killed me... yet.
16. Re:Too late by slick7 · 2012-07-23 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Quick! Pivot to a wine-fueled offensive! When the corn crop fails, UNLEASH THE GRAPES OF WRATH!
  GRAPES OF WRATH, brought to you by Monsanto and DuPont. FTFY
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
17. Re:Too late by slick7 · 2012-07-23 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  They are not beholden to the citizens any more.
  They never were, the NDAA proves it.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
18. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
  The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
  I partially disagree... The government does NOT fear its citizens... And THAT is a huge part of the problem.
19. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Wait, my government was supposed to beholdin me?
  Where can I sign up for this service?
  I think all you have to do is purchase a long distance travel service (like a train or plane ride) and here in the USA all you have to do is say "I opt for the pat-down" and they will be holdin' you.
20. Re:Too late by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  The US has already lost it's war on terror - its government and its citizens live in terror every moment of every day.
  What you wrote is true to the same extent that the stories of the spread of penis stealing and penis shrinking magic from Africa to Australia and New Zealand have left all men outside of the armed forces (BTW, aren't you Australian?) as angry, emasculated remnants of their former selves. Is it true? Shall we call you "Little Richard"? Or are both rubbish?
  
  The worst part is the government fears its citizens and the citizens fear their government.
  American citizens continue to control their government by means of elections. There are some members (no offense) of society that do bear watching. The price of getting it wrong is a bit high.
  Horror at Fort Hood: Gunman Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13, wounds 31 in rampage on Texas Army base
  FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 17, 2012
  
  Detroit: ‘Underwear Bomber’ Sentenced to Life in Prison for Attempted Christmas Day Attack
  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “underwear bomber,” was sentenced to life in prison as a result of his guilty plea to all eight counts of a federal indictment charging him for his role in the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253.
  FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 10, 2012
  
  Minneapolis: Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Somali-Based Terror Group
  Ahmed Hussein Mahamud pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to al Shabaab, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, in its fight against the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) and the Ethiopian military, which supports the TFG.
  Chicago: Chicago Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Provide Funds to Support al Qaeda in Pakistan
  Raja Lahrasib Khan, a Chicago taxi driver and native of Pakistan who personally provided hundreds of dollars to an alleged terrorist leader with whom he had met in his native Pakistan, pled guilty to attempting to provide additional funds to the same individual after learning he was working with al Qaeda.
  Washington Field: Revolution Muslim Leader Guilty of Soliciting Murder, Promoting Extremism
  Jesse Curtis Morton, aka Younus Abdullah Muhammed, pled guilty to using his position as a leader of Revolution Muslim Organization’s Internet sites to conspire to solicit murder, make threatening communications, and use the Internet to place others in fear.
  FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 3, 2012
  
  Tampa: Florida Man Indicted for Attempting to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Sami Osmakac, of Pinellas Park, Florida, was charged with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction against persons and property in the U.S., as well as possessing an unregistered machine gun
  FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012
  
  Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
  Jams
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
21. Re:Too late by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree. The very problem is that the government does not fear it's citizens. They are not beholden to the citizens any more.
  Utter rubbish. The United States continues to elect its governments as it always has. The bureaucracy is as dependent on the legislature and president as always.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
22. Re:Too late by evafan76 · 2012-07-23 12:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, the worst part is that OUR OWN LAWMAKERS are being restrained in what they can talk about.
  This is a direct affront to the principle of congressional oversight.
  In this case I agree. This is complete crap. A Congressman having to GET PERMISSION from the Executive Branch to inform those he represents that the 4th Amendment has been breached by the Executive Branch makes one wonder about what he wasn't allowed to say, and why the hell he had to get permission in the first place. However, there are somethings I believe that politicians, no matter the branch, should shut up about, such as information that gives away a source, or puts the lives of those who have helped us in jeopardy. But even that has to take a backseat to the Constitution.
  Go ahead, mod me down.
23. Re:Too late by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 13:21 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  And when you step back and ask, "Who ARE they afraid of?", I just think about where the politicians' money is coming from.
  And I keep coming up with one answer: very wealthy business men hiding behind their corporations and Super PACs.
  If what your wrote is true, the events listed below should be impossible. Since the events below actually happened, what you wrote is absolute rubbish.
  Former Chairman and CEO of Kellogg, Brown & Root Inc. Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Foreign Bribery and Kickback Schemes
  
  WASHINGTON—Albert “Jack” Stanley, a former chairman and chief executive officer of Kellogg, Brown & Root Inc. (KBR), was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by participating in a decade-long scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials to obtain engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts and for conspiring to commit mail and wire fraud as part of a separate kickback scheme, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division today announced.
  U.S. Sues Kellogg, Brown & Root for Alleged False Claims Act Violations Over Improper Costs for Private Security in Iraq
  
  WASHINGTON—The United States has filed a lawsuit against Kellogg Brown & Root Services (KBR) alleging that the defense contractor violated the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, alleges that KBR knowingly included impermissible costs for private armed security in billings to the Army under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract. The LOGCAP III contract provides for civilian contractor logistical support, such as food services, transportation, laundry, and mail, for military operations in Iraq.
  Former TBW CEO Sentenced to 40 Months in Prison for Fraud Scheme
  
  WASHINGTON—The former chief executive officer (CEO) of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker (TBW) was sentenced today to 40 months in prison for his role in a more than $2.9 billion fraud scheme that contributed to the failure of TBW. At one time, TBW was one of the largest privately held mortgage lending companies in the United States.
  U.S. Charges Ex-Worldcom CEO Bernard Ebbers
  
  JOHN ASHCROFT, the Attorney General of the United States, DAVID N. KELLEY, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and PASQUALE D'AMURO, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI New York Field Office, announced today the unsealing in Manhattan federal court of a Superseding Indictment charging BERNARD J. EBBERS, the former Chief Executive Officer and President of WorldCom, Inc. ("WorldCom"). The Superseding Indictment charges EBBERS with conspiracy and securities fraud in connection with his participation from September 2000 through June 2002 in a scheme to inflate artificially the price of WorldCom common stock by hiding from investors the truth about WorldCom's declining operating performance and financial results.
  Two Former Canopy Financial Co-Founders Sentenced to 15 and 1
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
24. Re:Too late by betterunixthanunix · 2012-07-23 13:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Except that third parties are left at a deliberate disadvantage by those in power, the police invade the homes of unarmed citizens and using grenades and assault rifles, and the executive branch of government has the power to declare laws and then arrest people for violating those laws...
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
25. Re:Too late by jo42 · 2012-07-23 13:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Above posted by your local Republicantard shill.
26. Re:Too late by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  Third parties are at a disadvantage due to the American political system mitigating against extremes by its nature. The fight is for the middle - stray too far and you won't have enough support to be elected. That is why the media has had to work overtime on behalf of certain candidates. The police are most likely to behave as you suggest when they either have the wrong address, or the offense involved is one prone to involvement with violence, such as drug cases. The executive branch has zero power to declare laws, although it can regulate. None of what you wrote negates what I wrote. The bureaucracy is as dependent on the legislature and president as always.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
27. Re:Too late by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, the worst part is that OUR OWN LAWMAKERS are being restrained in what they can talk about.
  This is a direct affront to the principle of congressional oversight.
  Over time the legislature has determined that providing America's enemies with things such as its war plans and lists of its intelligence agents is a bad thing.
  Congressional oversight occurs in hearings and results in votes, all of which continue all the same.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
28. Re:Too late by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-23 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  American citizens continue to control their government by means of elections.
  Elections are not binding in any way. After you were elected, you can do what you want. Obama was elected on "hope & change", and everybody kind of assumed he meant that in contrast to what Bush was doing. It wasn't, so what can the Americans do? Wait 4 years, then fall for the next one, or the same one again. And then they will AGAIN have nothing to say.
  And you call that "controlling" something? I control my keyboard. Mainly because I am NOT sitting on the street, whispering suggestions to it, but am actually pressing keys.
  "Unfortunately, you can't vote the rascals out, because you never voted them in, in the first place." -- Noam Chomsky
  
  There are some members (no offense) of society that do bear watching. The price of getting it wrong is a bit high.
  Yeah, but those aren't watched, are they. They continue to be operate in impunity and luxury. Oh wait, that's not what you meant.
29. Re:Too late by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Above posted by your local Republicantard shill.
  You have no data to prove me wrong.
  You have no argument to prove me wrong.
  So name calling is what you go with? Do even 5th graders respect that?
  What might the great "Republicantard shill" Abraham Lincoln say? - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
  They Don’t Know Us
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
30. Re:Too late by trawg · 2012-07-23 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  I disagree. The very problem is that the government does not fear it's citizens. They are not beholden to the citizens any more.
  But... but... you have all those guns!?! Isn't that the point of having them?
31. Re:Too late by betterunixthanunix · 2012-07-23 16:33 · Score: 2
  
  The police are most likely to behave as you suggest when they either have the wrong address, or the offense involved is one prone to involvement with violence, such as drug cases
  I know the media paints a scary picture, but most drug dealers or producers do not turn their homes into fortresses. SWAT deployment should be limited to extreme cases, where there is good reason to believe that the suspects are heavily armed and dangerous. Right now, SWAT assaults are routinely used to execute search and arrest warrants, regardless of there being any suspicion of the suspect being armed. Here are some typical examples of the excessive use of SWAT:
  
  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/criminalizing-everyone/
  
  http://www.ktsm.com/news/las-cruces-coach-accused-child-porn-passed-background-checks
  
  There is no need for SWAT to arrest a man accused of downloading child pornography, and there is certainly no excuse for deploying a SWAT team to arrest someone who is accused of illegally importing orchids. These are not armed robbery suspects or terrorists, and there is no reason to think they would have even put up a fight had the SWAT team not shown up. Yes, by the way, these are typical examples:
  
  http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america
  
  The executive branch has zero power to declare laws, although it can regulate
  The executive branch has the power, under the Controlled Substances Act, to declare that a drug is illegal to possess or distribute for up to a year without any congressional or democratic process whatsoever -- and the same organization that has been delegated that power, the DEA, is also responsible for enforcing drug laws, which includes such declarations. A ban is not "regulation" by any sane definition of the word, and sending people to prison for possessing a substance is not "regulating" that substance in any way. The executive branch also has the power to overrule recommendations on drug scheduling to create bans that are not supported by regulatory agencies like HHS or the FDA.
  
  This is not about "regulation" -- this is about a law enforcement agency, the DEA, which is part of the executive branch, having both the power to declare a drug illegal and the final say in whether or not drugs will be banned or regulated. That same agency is responsible for enforcing the very laws it can enact.
  
  None of what you wrote negates what I wrote. The bureaucracy is as dependent on the legislature and president as always.
  Except that over the past 40 years, more and more power has shifted away from the legislature and towards the executive. That is not "as always" -- it is a modern trend, and it is a trend with immediate and real consequences.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
32. Re:Too late by hairyfeet · 2012-07-23 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh don't worry ya dang kangaroo munchers we ain't forgot about what you did to us in the USA, we'll get you yet!
  I mean there we was, think y'all were friendly, we save your butts in WWII, you gave us some Foster's and it seemed like everything was going nice...hell you even gave us one of the best damned movies in history, the incredible piece of cinema known as Mad Max, but now we know it was just to trick us into thinking you were nice! I mean sure, we should have known you dirty down underers were up to something when you sent Olivia Newton John but we figured you was just blinded by the cuteness like we were and then....BAM! You hit us with Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious! That damned Young Einstein was so far beyond anything allowed in the Geneva Convention it would be considered an act of war in any civilized country! What in the hell did we ever do to you to deserve THAT huh? Hell even the commies weren't that damned mean, all they did was send us Yakov and made Russian reversals the lame joke of the century which was NOTHING compared to Reckless Kelley!
  So you'll be getting yours you back stabbers, oh yes, you'll be getting yours. Just as soon as we find a containment unit powerful enough to stick that witch harpie Celine Dion in that'll withstand her shrieking long enough to launch her ass back to the frozen north (after they gave us The Shat, ought to roll the damned tanks on them filthy canucks) we'll be coming for YOU!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
33. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, of course. The "don't let the terrists get us!" excuse. No, innocent people's freedom will not be violated so you can have war plans or stop terrorists. Fuck off.
34. Re:Too late by oztiks · 2012-07-23 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Thats not a knife this is a knife
35. Re:Too late by MachineShedFred · 2012-07-23 23:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, I didn't realize that I live in terror when I'm shampooing my hair, or when I'm playing with my dog, or putting fruit in my shopping cart.
  Thanks for letting me know that I live in terror every moment of every day. Especially those moments.
  Signed,
  A Citizen of the United States of America.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
36. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-24 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  So, you've provided proof that people who were caught and convicted were caught and convicted? That doesn't mean a damn thing outside those people being caught and convicted...
37. Re:Too late by dywolf · 2012-07-24 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  nice assumption. dem's never take any money i suppose?
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
38. Re:Too late by moeinvt · 2012-07-24 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  The FBI warned in a 2003 report that there was an "Epidemic of Fraud" in the home mortgage market. The big banks have submitted tens of thousands of false and/or improperly notarized affidavits to courts in foreclosure cases (a felony or serious misdemeanor in most states). Companies committed securities fraud by marketing "investments" to customers while simultaneously making bets that the securities would lose value. The brokerage MF Global was caught red-handed using wealth from customer accounts on their own speculative investments. There is documented evidence that big banks have facilitated money laundering for the drug cartels. Officials in Jefferson County, AL have been prosecuted in a bribery scandal, but no bank execs have been punished. Now we have the LIBOR scandal, PFG, etc. etc.
  Very few of the banking and financial elites have faced punishment for their pervasive criminal activity, and when they do, it's usually a minuscule fine.
  You're argument based on a few anecdotes is like finding a few alcoholics that lived long healthy lives and then concluding that alcohol doesn't cause liver damage.
39. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-24 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  > I know the media paints a scary picture, but most drug dealers or producers do not turn their homes
  > into fortresses. SWAT deployment should be limited to extreme cases, where there is good reason
  > to believe that the suspects are heavily armed and dangerous. Right now, SWAT assaults are
  > routinely used to execute search and arrest warrants, regardless of there being any suspicion of the
  > suspect being armed.
  I know a few people who have been abused by these thugs. Don't forget that they usually get their information from paid "Confidential Informants" who have every incentive to make up as much BS as they can.
  I knew a guy who exclusively smoked and sold weed. The search warrant for his house mentioned cocaine and weapons. Why? Because thats what gets warrants written and rats paid.
  Its disgusting. Makes me sad I pay these shitheads salaries.
40. Re:Too late by TheCarp · 2012-07-24 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Except the buck stops with them, they are the elected officials.
  If they don't feel the system is providing that oversight, then they should blow the wistle to the people who elected them...the public.
  War plans are fine but politicians don't get the real war plans anyway, tactical plans. Sure...but if by "war plans" you mean "plans to go to war with someone else" then that sort of back room dealing should be wistle blown....early and often.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
41. Re:Too late by Muad'Dave · 2012-07-24 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of pancakes, wouldn't those be the CREPES OF WRATH?
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
42. Re:Too late by T+Murphy · 2012-07-24 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see anything about Wyden being required to get permission. Generally it's considered a good idea to try cooperation before taking unilateral action.
  
  --
  My webcomic
43. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-24 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yes it is. And the time is coming that the American people will remember this and take appropriate action to reclaim our country and government. Certain segments of society and government are already aware of this and are acting to try to remove the threat to their power and existence as has been done in other regions of the world.
  I, personally, hope it never has to come to that as the results, in the short term anyway, are almost always worse than the conditions that precipitated the correction. However, I have little hope for our country in the medium to long term without some type of major correction, pray that it happens within the constraints of civil discourse and political action.
Re:eh, I'm bored by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 09:52 · Score: 0

Friend, if you're sucking them, you're doing it wrong or have an interesting definition of "girlfriend" and "ladies"
Watching the war strategy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

The 9/11 terrorists were very far-sighted, and seem to have been winning ever since they died.
America has been continually digging a grave for itself from that moment....
1. Re:Watching the war strategy... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2012-07-23 10:44 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Their loudest complaint was about US troops in Saudi Arabia.
  I asked an Arab co-worker whether that was for real, and he gave me one of those "How could you even ask?!" looks. Nobody really likes foreign troops, and when those include women carrying guns and driving, it causes certain kinds of mind to explode.
  We capitulated to them on that issue almost immediately.
2. Re:Watching the war strategy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  It pisses me off. By crashing a few planes, they set the stage for us to undermine hundreds of years of sacrifice and conviction and amass billions of dollars of debt.
  USA: 0 (zero)
  Terrorists: 1 (won)
3. Re:Watching the war strategy... by craigminah · 2012-07-23 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, preach on brother AC, preach on.
4. Re:Watching the war strategy... by Nyder · 2012-07-23 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  ... Nobody really likes foreign troops, and when those include women carrying guns and driving, it causes certain kinds of mind to explode.
  ...
  Spoken like a member of the He-mans Woman Hater Club. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBIC8JTQMMQ
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
5. Re:Watching the war strategy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Those of us who are astute enough to observe this are too few in number, and too poor in aggregate, to do anything about it.
What effect will this have on the elections? by fustakrakich · 2012-07-23 10:04 · Score: 2

None.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
1. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by Nadaka · 2012-07-23 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I really really hate to admit it, but you are right.
  We have a choice between a "right wing authoritarian plutocratic douchbag liar",
  and the contender attempting to out "right wing authoritarian plutocratic douchbag" lie the incumbent.
  My America is dead. Liberty and Justice were little more than a fleeting dream before returning to the waking nightmare plutocracy and despotism. There is nothing left to do but wait for this country to burn. And maybe after another dark age, we can try again.
2. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How do I say this delicately?.... Obama is the most left leaning president you've ever had. You're getting exactly what you should have expected based off countless examples all over world history. Pawning this off of "he's doing bad stuff - ergo he's right wing" is not based in any rational thinking with any basis in fact, but rather knee-jerk emotion and plain desire to maintain your current flawed world view (one in which you have your team -"go team! rah rah!", and thus the other must be "bad guys").
  As you've probably gathered, I'm right leaning (yeah yeah - boo hiss, I know). It may surprise you, that I mostly agree with your conclusions. You see the policies we're opposing are not right leaning, or left leaning per-se, but anti-democratic. That which you call "evil right wing policies", I call "evil socialist policies" and dislike them for many of the very same reasons you do. There's a reason congress has a sub 15% approval rating. When "our guy" was in power, he set up idiotic stuff the patriot act and the TSA with broad bipartisan support. When "your guy" gets in and expands those policies it doesn't make him right wing because the policy was never right wing to begin with. Don't believe me? Right wing ideology is centered around a very simple concept - a small limited government (essential services only type thing - as spelled out in the constitution). What part of this boondoggle is limited and/or constitutional?
  The current bastards in Washington are not left wing or right wing - they're power oriented and only interested in themselves. They are drunk on the idea that they can and should change the world to accomplish their goals (either left or right goals) and lost all principles along the way. Does wiretapping the population help them do this? Absolutely! (Don't you think that if an honest good politician ever showed up, it would not be convenient for them to have phone records with some dirt?) The TSA are obnoxious jerks? "Elect me, and I'll make sure we (the government) help you! How would you ever get along without me?".
  So why am I right wing? Well the last 12 years are a good example (and no - I don't consider Bust to be conservative - he often lacked the core principles that allowed him to implement some of these idiotic solutions). A government that is big and powerful enough to take care of all of your needs, is large enough to take everything you have. In left wing (socialist) governments, the government tries to expand to do more things for more people. As government grows, this kind of garbage inevitably happens "for the greater good". Very few seem to realize those good intentions are just paving the road to hell.
3. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by fredprado · 2012-07-23 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  You couldn't be more right. Right and Left wing are terms associated with governmental interference in the economy. Totalitarian and libertarian are terms associated with governmental interference in individual rights.
  
  There is no communist regimen up to this day that managed to be non totalitarian, and it is probably impossible to do so, but a capitalist regimen can go either way. Unfortunately USA is going into the totalitarian path for sometime. There is still a long way to go for it to become North Korea, but if it doesn't stop it will get there, eventually.
4. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by Nadaka · 2012-07-23 12:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Right Wing" aka conservatism is not and has never been about small government, despite the protestations of those who have fallen for that line. It is about restoring the old order. The order that was shaken to its core by the French and American revolutions. It is about returning to an age of absolute authoritarianism where a select few gentry have absolute power over the masses by legal, economic and superstitious means. The free market ideology as it exists today is merely a means to that end. In America, for a time, the government stood against that tyranny, and that is why they now want to neuter it. The abstract free market concept has been corrupted as a means to pursue that goal, you can't put a corporation under the guillotine, and the plutocratic class are shielded from the repercussions of the abuse they meet out to the peasants begging for scraps.
  The free market ideal was an abstract model that can never truly exist because it assumes that:
  A: all parties start from a level playing field.
  B: all parties are rational actors
  C: all parties are fully informed and knowledgeable.
  D: and that monopolies never form.
  A moderately (and properly) regulated market is closer to this ideal than a laissez faire system that doesn't attempt to restrict corruption, deceit and other harmful practices.
5. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by cffrost · 2012-07-23 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  [...] regimen [...]
  
  I'm sure you meant "regime."
  Although regime (government) is used as a synonym in place of regimen (medical/therapy plan), the reverse is not true.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
6. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by hibiki_r · 2012-07-23 13:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd not put him in the top 5 most left leaning presidents the country has ever had. I'm not even sure he's to the left of Nixon.
  If you want a left leaning president, try FDR.
7. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by fredprado · 2012-07-23 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  No, I meant 'regimen' (government). Both 'regime' and 'regimen' can be used with this meaning.
  
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regimen
8. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by PintoPiman · 2012-07-23 14:59 · Score: 2
  
  What's the difference between a corrupt, monopolistic corporation and the corrupt, monopolistic government? If you want to, you can always stop giving your money to the corporation.
9. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by omfgnosis · 2012-07-23 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  There is no communist regimen up to this day that managed to be non totalitarian
  Only most of human history, at least according to those most famous for articulating communist theory. And of course they used the term derisively, as it would be hard to sell a political program to achieve communism through starkly opposite arrangements if those of us to whom communism appealed realized that communism is evidently in our nature, needing to be beaten out of us.
10. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  Can you, really?
  Can you stop paying the power monopoly corporation? What about the education cartel? The private healthcare insurance industry?
11. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by roman_mir · 2012-07-24 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  A: all parties start from a level playing field.
  - irrelevant, doesn't matter where everybody starts from, the only question is this: is the gov't prevented from stealing individual freedom, so that it is prevented from selling it to those first in line?
  
  B: all parties are rational actors
  - completely irrelevant.
  
  C: all parties are fully informed and knowledgeable.
  - completely irrelevant.
  
  D: and that monopolies never form.
  - monopolies are only created by government force, businesses without gov't power do not form monopolies, they can become large economies of scale and hold that position as long as they provide the best product at the best price.
  
  A moderately (and properly) regulated market
  - an oxymoron. There cannot be regulation that stays moderate and proper.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
12. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by dywolf · 2012-07-24 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Right Wing" aka conservatism is not and has never been about small government, despite the protestations of those who have fallen for that line. It is about restoring the old order. The order that was shaken to its core by the French and American revolutions. It is about returning to an age of absolute authoritarianism where a select few gentry have absolute power over the masses by legal, economic and superstitious means" This part is absolute bullcrap.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
13. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by fredprado · 2012-07-24 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly, there was nowhere near the differences of today, because there was too few people and not very many possessions for one to have beyond food and women. And there was always the boss and his favorites. They often had most females, which were propriety, and the best of them, were able to choose what they eat first, so eat better, etc. Furthermore in most tribes if you couldn't do your part for any motive, you were usually abandoned or banned.
  
  I would hardly call this communism, at least, as the term is used today to refer to a government system applicable to a sizable amount of people where inequality is undesirable. And that is the root of the problem with modern communism: give accordingly with your abilities and take accordingly to your needs. Ayn Rand shows very well why it doesn't work in Atlas Shrugged.
14. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by omfgnosis · 2012-07-24 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your portrayal of primitive societies demands some evidence. While there have certainly been (and continue to be) primitive societies that feature one or more of the conditions you describe—perhaps even all of them—it's hardly safe to assume that this is representative of those societies in aggregate, much less of human society prior to the advent of civilization.
  As far as the use of the term "communism" to refer to a government system, this use is radically at odds with the meaning as conceived, and your use here to defend the claim that communism has always been totalitarian rises to the level of tautology. Of course all communist regimes are totalitarian if you consider totalitarianism a requisite feature of such regimes. But it requires dismissing a tremendous body of work describing what is meant by communism. For sure, the regimes you reference have adopted the term without adhering to this conception, but that isn't damning to the conception, only to the implementation. You can only draw a conclusion that it's damning to the conception by using this tautological framing.
  Your use of this to attack the philosophical framing of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is not a sound one, even if we accept all of the prior argument. You haven't shown how the one leads to the other, only claimed it. And don't take this to mean that there are no valid criticisms to be found, there certainly are; you just haven't offered any.
  Proceeding to reference a work by Ayn Rand is suspect in its own right, particularly because you don't reference anything but its title, which amounts to little more than a wink and a nudge. How does Rand's work in Atlas Shrugged show that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is totalitarian or leads to totalitarianism? Speaking for myself, and putting aside the nasty taste it leaves in my mouth even discussing Rand, this isn't how I read her work. Her dystopia doesn't much resemble that of, say, Orwell*; she portrays a world run incompetently, bureaucratically perhaps, but ultimately not from a centralized power but rather a broad, caricatured groupthink. I'll concede that I never finished reading Atlas Shrugged, despite several attempts, because I have little patience for ham-fisted tomes; it may be that that novel progresses to a more canonical dystopia than other works that I've spent more time with (particularly The Fountainhead).
  * Incidentally, while Orwell was an outspoken critic of the Socialist regimes emerging in the 20th century, he was a proponent of another approach to communism, particularly that of the anarchists like those in Spain, and he threw in with them in their fight not just against fascism but against the Stalinist communists who eventually allied with Spain's fascists. Ultimately, his critique of Leninism/Stalinism/etc carries much more power than Rand's by being substantially more clear in its understanding of totalitarianism, and his ability to distinguish that feature from its corrupted philosophical underpinnings.
  Speaking for myself, I would argue that it might be right to say that Leninism or even Stalinism is an inevitable consequence of classical Marxism—that ultimately the Marxist formulation of communism is corrupt or at least flawed—but this brings us straight back to the point that even Marx and Engels identified other implementations of communism which conflicted with their own.
15. Re:What effect will this have on the elections? by fredprado · 2012-07-24 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I can't really prove beyond doubt that most, or any, primitive societies fit in my description, but neither can you, and I want to remind you that the one who started with claims of knowing how humanity behaved for most of its History was you. The best we both can do is to refer do documentation uncovered by historians, which many times are inconsistent with each other.
  
  Furthermore I never mentioned that a communist regimen must be totalitarian, just that nobody ever managed to implement a real one that wasn't, which points to the possibility that it may not be possible for one to exist. There is no tautology here. To clarify my line of thought, by communist regimen I indeed refer to the Marxist formulation, as you inferred, which is the one defended by most, if not all, contemporary communist parties of any significance in this World.
  
  Maybe there is out there a workable communist approach that isn't exactly what Marx and Engels proposed, but then again, maybe there is not, and discussing about if something may exist or not, without any evidence, borders on the realm of religion. If and when someone proposes something that may work rest assured a lot of people will follow him and we will know about it. People follow even the ideas that can't possibly work preached today, after all.
  
  You should really make an effort and finish Atlas Shrugged. It is worth it, even if it is just to criticize it better.
Write you Senators and Congress people by DarkOx · 2012-07-23 10:08 · Score: 1

Tell them that even if it was only once, unlikely as that may be, even once is one time to many!

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  it would be more useful to write to tony the tiger and ask that he change his stripes.
  is there one scrap of evidence that, in the last 20 or so years, 'writing to a politician' ever did anything to sway them?
  can we PLEASE stop with this myth that the gov cares about its serfs?? it does not. thinking that you still have some say is part of 'their plan'. seems that some of us still fall for that BS, too ;(
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
2. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 10:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Dear Citizen,
  we like our new powers. we're not giving them back. dream on.
  have a nice day. (and vote quimby!)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
3. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by Dyinobal · 2012-07-23 10:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  SOPA/PIPA was stopped because of people writing and calling their congressmen but that seems to be the exception to the rule. Any time I write my congressman be it mail or Email, he doesn't change the way he votes, and then he sends me all sorts of campaign propaganda and asks me to donate to him. Ya right..
4. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by undeadbill · 2012-07-23 10:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What you do is you write to them, and you tell them that you voted for them. Once.
  Then you tell them that what they did was immoral, abhorrent, and you consider what they did a violation of their oath of office, and of the trust you put into them as your representative.
  Telling them isn't enough. They have to be convinced that it could be fatal to their career.
  You enumerate for them just how much you are going to work to see someone else that you do believe in is put into office. Tell the legislator the money that you gave their campaign will now be donated five fold to your new champion. Tell this person that you will be providing X hours a month of volunteer time working for another candidate. Then tell them that you will find no less than 5 friends who listen to you and trust your opinion, and they will do the same, and bring their friends along as well.
  Then, email the letter to their Congressional office, with a cc to their campaign manager.
  Then, go make good on your promise. Because, ultimately, if you want something to change, you will need to unfuck it yourself. Chances are, if it is a contested district, you might get a phone call back. If not, at least you know you are doing something to fix the problem created by voting for someone who would sell you out. This isn't about fighting and beating the current candidate- it is about the journey it will take *you* to become involved enough to become a good gatekeeper for the governmental process in your district.
5. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  SOPA/PIPA was stopped because Google put their weight against it.
6. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  for every vote they lose from you or I, they will gain a vote from some dumb-ass who believes in 'we are making you more safe!'.
  holding back on votes does not work. obvious issue is that they ALL (essentially) want this new set of powers. there's no one siding with We, The People, anymore. no one in power, anyway.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
7. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by ubrgeek · 2012-07-23 10:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Then you're not holding them accountable. Clicking on an email petition adding your name to a list of countless other people does little. Call their offices, ask to speak to their press secretaries or general council. Ask them with which groups they meet when they say they've met with "subject matter experts" to understand the issues. Then check on those experts. Call them. Then call the senator/congresswoman/city councilman/whatever back and give them feedback on the group. Offer your services (if you really are qualified) as an expert.
  
  Look folks - I know there are some memes on /. that show up everyday, not the least of which is the "impending death of America" (or, more often, "America is already dead"). The reality is that no, it's not. Do politicians listen to corporations that line their pockets? Yup. But they do listen to you, if you actually present an argument. And if they don't, vote them out of office. (And I don't want to hear the whole "there's only two parties" etc. etc. At the local level third-parties CAN get elected.) Democracy isn't easy. I don't think it's supposed to be. It takes more than just clicking on a link from MoveOn, PublicCitizen, etc. to get a point across.
  
  --
  Bark less. Wag more.
8. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  sopa was NOT stopped!
  it comes back again and again.
  what we saw was a delay tactic, nothing more.
  sorry. I wish you were right in this, but you are not. we did not win SOPA war. at best, we got a temporary delay of execution.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
9. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Dear Citizen,
  Although it may seem like I've copped out taking all that PAC money and helping to speed up climate change, have no fear. It's been my secret plan to submerge the Cayman Islands.
10. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by undeadbill · 2012-07-23 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  If apathy is your solution, then please, by all means, continue waiting for Godot. I will continue working.
11. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  local level?
  those people have FISA approval and veto powers?
  I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
12. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by Mitreya · 2012-07-23 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  SOPA/PIPA was stopped because of people writing and calling their congressmen
  Actually, SOPA/PIPA was stopped by various large organizations (Wikipedia had a full blackout day! Google promoted the issue).
  People writing and calling had nothing to do with it - my letters opposing to any issue always return with "Thank you for supporting us on this issue" canned response. No one reads them as they don't come with a large campaign donation.
13. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by Mitreya · 2012-07-23 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Call their offices, ask to speak to their press secretaries or general council. Ask them with which groups they meet when they say they've met with "subject matter experts" to understand the issues. Then check on those experts. Call them. Then call the senator/congresswoman/city councilman/whatever ...
  Don't get me wrong, but I already have a full-time job (that usually takes up business hours when such calls would be made). You are thinking of a lobbyist that gets paid for doing things like that.
  Yet another case of uneven playing field in our political system.
14. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by Mitreya · 2012-07-23 11:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Chances are, if it is a contested district, you might get a phone call back.
  
  And there is the first problem!
  According to this ~82% of are not even close to being contested ("In the 2000 Congressional Elections, out of the 435 Congressional districts in which there were elections, 359 were listed as "safe" by Congressional Quarterly. [4] In all of these 359, there was no uncertainty as to who would win.")
15. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by ubrgeek · 2012-07-23 11:57 · Score: 2
  
  Mitreya - As do I. I'm not saying I do it for every cause, but there are some that I set aside some time to do it. I can't do it at work either but the representative's offices seem to be open late enough (EST) for me to reach someone and leave a message. I just make a point of following up when they call back (and I think I've only ever had two not call back over the years.)
  
  --
  Bark less. Wag more.
16. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by ubrgeek · 2012-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  No TheGratefulNet, obviously not (although you'd be surprised at just what the local law enforcement can get away with if there's a "friendly" judge). But a lot of times locally elected politicians move up to higher-level positions, either in state politics or even at the national level. Remember the whole "Think global, act local" concept. You've got to start somewhere.
  
  --
  Bark less. Wag more.
17. Re:Write you Senators and Congress people by undeadbill · 2012-07-24 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even in "non-contested" districts, people have lost their seats. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. In most of these districts that are non-contested, this happens because many of the local businesses put their money into that candidate's coffers, hoping some pork will come back. I didn't say that there is this magic way of making this happen. I implied that making that happen would take a lot of hours and dedicated work.
  Nobody "needs" to go fire their Congresscritter. Even if they suck. Plenty of people spend every day wishing some messiah will spring fully formed out of the aether to kick ass and benevolently take over. In reality, incumbents won't leave office until they die, or lose to another candidate. Surprisingly, from my own experience so far, it takes effort to build and maintain a political base for even non-controversial issues. However, once one gets past the initial learning curve that political movements look more like the early days of Linux and BSD, rather than modern Mac OSX, it gets easier to step in and build the necessary frameworks to give new candidates the head starts that they need to run with a shot at winning.
At least once by camperslo · 2012-07-23 10:21 · Score: 1

That's at least once per household, right?
Re:eh, I'm bored by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:27 · Score: 0

How else do you get the juices out?
Mmm...
Re:eh, I'm bored by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:38 · Score: 0

Dude, if you ain't suckin' on the clit, then YOU are doing it wrong all this time. You gotz to find that, lick it, suck it, everything it. This conversation makes the name "slashdot" sound kinda naughty. OOhh
Does America still have rule of law? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:49 · Score: 0

Will anything actually change as a result of this? Or are such concerns now quaintly archaic?
1. Re:Does America still have rule of law? by c0lo · 2012-07-23 12:05 · Score: 2
  
  Will anything actually change as a result of this? Or are such concerns now quaintly archaic?
  Only the rule, brother, only the rule remained
  But... don't despair... the next administration will be conservative, thus "deregulation" will be the main marching order (otherwise how would the coprorations get their profit during recession times?)
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Does America still have rule of law? by cold+fjord · 2012-07-23 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Does America still have rule of law?. . . . Will anything actually change as a result of this? Or are such concerns now quaintly archaic?
  Yes, America does still have the rule of law. The problem is that most people don't know, don't understand, or don't like what the law is so they ignore it. One of the basic points that people keep getting confused over is both the existence the law of war and its differences from criminal law. Conduct that is completely legal and well understood under the law of war causes many people on Slashdot to wet themselves as violations of criminal law and rights under criminal law - none of which applies. Another point that confuses people, but which has a long court record, is the inability of Congress to pass laws that limit the Constitutional authority of the President. Just those two points in themselves account for much of the wailing and hysteria about shredded constitutions and so on. This show will be going on for some time to come.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
3. Re:Does America still have rule of law? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  I too have always wanted the government to be able to violate any rights it pleases when it claims to be at war. It's well understood, so it's completely okay. It's all to stop the big, evil bogeyman!
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
4. Re:Does America still have rule of law? by moeinvt · 2012-07-24 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  The last time I checked, The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. No war has been declared, thus your argument about the "law of war" as justification for the government's rampant abuses of civil liberties is entirely inapplicable.
  Where's the Constitutional authority authority for the President to engage in warrantless surveillance? Under what Constitutional authority is the President empowered to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen? Which part of the Constitution grants the President power to assassinate U.S. citizens without charge or trial?
  It's the federal government that doesn't like the law and therefore ignores it.
The war on grammar by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:00 · Score: 0

The on grammar has been won. It is been eradicated.
Ah yes, those were the days by Un+pobre+guey · 2012-07-23 11:06 · Score: 1

"Anyone but Bush." Remember? Way back when large masses of suckers (myself included, lamentably), thought that we were able to vote for "anyone but Bush." Someone different. Someone who was not a corrupt ass-kissing stooge of war criminals, financial scammers, drug traffickers (legal or illegal), deranged religious fanatics, or the usual parade of fascist sociopaths. Supposedly, there was some guy who would not be that way. I didn't fully buy it, but what the hell. Who else would I vote for? Now that odious palinism "hopey changey" comes annoyingly to mind. Not this time, though. It's Green Party or Peace and Freedom, and quite frankly I don't give a rat's ass who their candidate is.
1. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  "It's Green Party or Peace and Freedom"
  Wasted vote. Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama and you know it.
  Romney doesn't thrill most of us, but the fact is he is not a power hungry Marxist and at least we have a chance to force him into the conservative mold.
  Almost more important is to vote conservative in all other offices, House and Senate are critical.
  I'm curious, you reject Obama but then want to support the Greens or Peace and Freedom? Obama is your man, he is a Marxist, so are they. Have you thought this through? You think you are going to get better leadership with the second tier?
  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. /Dr. Evil
2. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Un+pobre+guey · 2012-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  I gather you are conservative? Obama is not even close to "marxist." He is center right. Center right. Much more important than left or right, and more important than how much to the right you seem to be to consider him "marxist," he is staunchly pro-establishment. Romney is also staunchly pro-establishment, and I would wager that if elected he will be very much to the left of your politics, and you will almost certainly feel the same way about him as I do about Obama. In practice, in everyday, banal, sausage-making, hot-air spewing, political base-manipulating politics as usual, the differences between Romney and Obama are inconsequential.
  Don't believe it? Well, we'll all find out one way or another, won't we.
3. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  Obama's Marxist ties are well documented. Ties to unions, ACORN, redistribution of wealth, the ACA is textbook Marxism. He stands for big government and does anything he can to torment free enterprise. Look man the Democrats have gone so far towards Marxism in recent decades you can't tell the difference.
  http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/
  Of course you know Obama's ties to Ayers right? I hope you will reconsider your belief
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q
  "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own**. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
  That's the mans own words. The state is what makes society thrive, not you. Right?
  That being said he is a savvy politician and his handlers are well studied and determined. Yes he supports everything that gains him - his office really - more power. Just like any productive tyrant.
  I have little faith in Romney, but he is the best of the set. More important is the Senate, which we will get.
  Yes I am conservative I stand for for individual rights and liberties. Libertarian principles factor strongly but I cannot abide the platform and stand for Constitutional originalism.
  We are free to disagree but I thank you for a reasoned response. Invective and name calling is the norm here for a conservative post.
4. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Un+pobre+guey · 2012-07-23 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  No probs, Dude, although we certainly disagree. Twenty bucks and a beer (or a goblet of wine) say that you and I both will be very disappointed regardless of how it all comes out. C'est la vie.
5. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  Right back at ya dude.
  I will say this, I have faith in the people of this republic and the foundations laid out by the founders. It's not going to be easy or fast but that is the nature of things.
  And I suspect we agree on more things than you think.
  As you say 'we'll all find out one way or another'.
6. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  "It's Green Party or Peace and Freedom"
  Wasted vote. Any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama and you know it.
  A vote for Romney or Obama is a vote for corporate overlords. There's no practical difference between the two. Yeah, sure, one of them thinks that innovation only happens in Wall Street boardrooms, and one of them thinks that education and government funded research drive innovation, but differences in their policies devolve to which industries and by what mechanisms they want to give taxpayer money away. When a president gets elected with less than 40% of the popular vote, media may wake up to the broad dissatisfaction with the current party mechanics. Maybe then we'll see at least a little recognition that there are other choices
7. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-23 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  Romney doesn't thrill most of us, but the fact is he is not a power hungry Marxist
  
  He's a power hungry neo-con. The only people who stand a chance of "forcing him into conservative mold" are those who understand "conservative" as "more Jeezus everywhere".
8. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  Voting for Romney or Obama are the real wasted votes.
9. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  "power hungry neo-con"
  Maybe. Anyway, that's the point of putting more emphasis on Congress and electing real conservatives.
  "more Jeezus everywhere"
  Um, you misspelled Jesus. Thanks for playing.
10. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-23 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't misspell it. One of the problems with these people is that they want Jeezus (the "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition", "kill them all and let God sort them out" kind), not Jesus.
11. Re:Ah yes, those were the days by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 23:11 · Score: 0
  
  Excuse me, you do not get to assert something and win an argument.
  You need to back your assertion up with facts and logic.
  Obama, nationalizing auto manufacturing, nationalizing healthcare, nationalizing student loan businesses. These are the acts of a socialist. FACT.
  Romney is not my top choice, however he has not done these things and has experience in the private sector and does not have a track record of ignoring the Constitution. FACT.
  And you provide... nothing.
  Please try again.
The central question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 11:20 · Score: 1

"government's spying efforts exceeded the legal limits at least once (PDF), meaning it is also officially 'unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment"
So the central question then is this; if the limits imposed on the federal government are not defined by the Constitution, what ARE the limits?
Isn't this exactly what the Constitution is designed to do?
Any of you drones wonder what happens when the state is run by the Evil Right Wing Conspiracy (that's me BTW)? What will their limits be? Hmnnnnnnnnn?
Gee, maybe you want to think twice about giving the state all this power. Isn't that the mantra of all you hippies and leftists, "question authority"?
No double standard here.
1. Re:The central question by c0lo · 2012-07-23 12:14 · Score: 2
  
  "government's spying efforts exceeded the legal limits at least once (PDF), meaning it is also officially 'unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment"
  So the central question then is this; if the limits imposed on the federal government are not defined by the Constitution, what ARE the limits?
  Doh... do you have to ask?? Whatever the "free market" allows.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:The central question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  You do understand that the Ferengi are fiction right?
  I am actually asking a serious question, one that one that *directly* relates to you and your liberties.
  Try and keep up.
3. Re:The central question by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-07-23 13:27 · Score: 2
  
  I don't recall "hippies and leftists" rallying to give the state all this power - the power to form secret committees to conduct warrantless surveillance on citizens. Many conservatives, on the other hand, were quite happily defending them under the guise of "fighting the enemies of our way of life" and whatnot.
  Anyway, the legal limits imposed on the federal government (and the states - don't forget the 14th!) are defined by the Constitution. The practical limits, on the other hand, are defined only by what you let them get away with. Constitution is just a piece of paper unless people start actually treating it otherwise.
4. Re:The central question by c0lo · 2012-07-23 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  You do understand that the Ferengi are fiction right?
  Are you sure? I'm seeing quite a high resemblance between their code and whatever remained after years of deregulation in the financial market... (you know, the very thing that made possible the world economic crisis)... probable the best applicable would be rule 261
  
  I am actually asking a serious question, one that one that *directly* relates to you and your liberties.
  My opinion: we are past the time liberties worth discussing - see rule 109.
  You/we should have asked this question about 10-12 years earlier... as closer as one could after 9/11.
  
  Try and keep up.
  Try to understand a metaphor when you see one...
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
5. Re:The central question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  "years of deregulation in the financial market"
  Hardy har har.
  I work in the financial industry and can tell you it is one of the most highly regulated of all industries. On what do you base this assertion on? Whatever it is is false. It is the state that interferes with the free market that causes instability and collapse.
  http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/levin-where-the-blame-truly-lies-in-the-financial-meltdown-this-past-week/
  CRA. SOX. SUBPRIME. These things are facts which you blithely ignore, as no doubt you ignore the role of the party in this meddling.
  The financial markets were forced at the rule of law to make bad loans and surprise, we have too big to fail where the state gets to step in to 'fix' the MESS THEY DESIGNED, empowering themselves.
  Then we get QE or the prining of (fake) money. You understand this right? The state prints money. They create no value - they cannot. But they can print and they can print fast. Devaluing your money - you understand this is stealing real value from you and placing it in state hands.
  Sure genius, deregulation, it's everywhere. See ACA (Obamatax) and report back.
6. Re:The central question by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  You are confusing conservatives with Republicans. It's understandable, this is what you are told by the media every day isn't it?
  The left has been in de-facto power for many many years, and with Obama and two years of super majorities in the Congress we get the ACA which is just another bald faced power grab giving the state more power over you and your family and taxing you straight to the grave.
  You want Constitution and liberty, support conservatives, and news flash, the only ones with a chance here are Republicans and there are precious few at that.
Exactly how many 3-letter spook agencies are there by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-23 11:38 · Score: 2

Almost every new day I learn of yet-another-3-letter-spook-government-agency in existence
And in the bad-old-days we were told that there were only 2 of them, FBI and CIA, and only one of them were allowed to spook against the citizens of America (that was, FBI)
Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Re:Exactly how many 3-letter spook agencies are th by slick7 · 2012-07-23 12:01 · Score: 1

Almost every new day I learn of yet-another-3-letter-spook-government-agency in existence
And in the bad-old-days we were told that there were only 2 of them, FBI and CIA, and only one of them were allowed to spook against the citizens of America (that was, FBI)
Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?
NO! The Government

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Exactly how many 3-letter spook agencies are th by russotto · 2012-07-23 12:41 · Score: 2

And in the bad-old-days we were told that there were only 2 of them, FBI and CIA, and only one of them were allowed to spook against the citizens of America (that was, FBI)
Yeah, and that was crap; there were several other agencies (such as the National Security Agency) and all of them spied on US citizens whether they were allowed or not.

Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?
That's classified.
Re:Exactly how many 3-letter spook agencies are th by cffrost · 2012-07-23 13:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Nowadays, can someone please tell me now many are out there?

Many: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Category:United_States_intelligence_agencies
Note that not all of those entries are for agencies; some are for programs, etc.

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Gary Johnson by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 13:43 · Score: 0

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/
here we go again, pot calling the kettle black by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 16:17 · Score: 0

As a patriotic American, I suggest you critics STFU about human rights abuses here in the USA.
It's not like your foreign governments are squeaky clean with respect to human rights either.
1. Re:here we go again, pot calling the kettle black by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  Tu quoque. The fact that you deem them hypocrites does not make them wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean they can't criticize you.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
2. Re:here we go again, pot calling the kettle black by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-24 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  sarcasm don't always translate well in print *neutral face*
accidentally the whole 4th by nazsco · 2012-07-23 16:55 · Score: 1

Where are the studies comparing the rise of votes for 3rd parties vs the amount of laws restricting citizens political liberties?
Because really, anyone believes those things has anything to do with terrorism?
How is spying for international when we're nationa by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 19:15 · Score: 0

I don't get why spy on OUR emails when they are seeking for international terrorism. Shouldn't their goal be national terrorism? If so, they should scan their own federal archives and find out exactly who the real terrorists are.
Re:Exactly how many 3-letter spook agencies are th by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 23:52 · Score: 1

Posting as AC, but I'll let you decide how much trust to place in my comment.
There are more intelligence agencies not listed in that article than there are ones listed. I work for one that you probably haven't ever heard of, though (annoyingly) we've been mentioned in a couple court cases.
Don't you mean it won? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-24 02:07 · Score: 0

Whether the US won or lost, that depends largely on who is perpetrating terrorism...
Re:Exactly how many 3-letter spook agencies are th by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-24 02:29 · Score: 1

I, for one, hope you get mentioned in a lot more of them. Preferably outed entirely, then defunded...and I don't even need to know which one it is to think that. Shut these ridiculous jobs programs down.