Senate Renews Warrantless Eavesdropping Act

New submitter electron sponge writes "On Friday morning, the Senate renewed the FISA Amendments Act (PDF), which allows for warrantless electronic eavesdropping, for an additional five years. The act, which was originally passed by Congress in 2008, allows law enforcement agencies to access private communications as long as one participant in the communications could reasonably be believed to be outside the United States. This law has been the subject of a federal lawsuit, and was argued before the Supreme Court recently. 'The legislation does not require the government to identify the target or facility to be monitored. It can begin surveillance a week before making the request, and the surveillance can continue during the appeals process if, in a rare case, the secret FISA court rejects the surveillance application. The court’s rulings are not public.'" The EFF points out that the Senate was finally forced to debate the bill, but the proposed amendments that would have improved it were rejected.

Comments

Terms of Usage

[Sigvatr]

Every company needs a "we can do whatever we want" clause in their terms of usage, why not the United States?

Re:Terms of Usage

[CanHasDIY]

Every company needs a "we can do whatever we want" clause in their terms of usage, why not the United States?

Because the contract expressly forbids it

Re:Terms of Usage

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies get their boundaries set by the government. The government gets its boundaries from the voting public. If the public prefers to be treated like this, they get what thy deserve.

Re:Terms of Usage

[Anonymous Coward]

There is FISA app for that

Re:Terms of Usage

[fyngyrz]

That app only runs when the government has hacked the operating system.

Re:Terms of Usage

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the government declared that it was no longer honoring that contract in 1944. It's laughable that Americans still think that it means something.

Re:Terms of Usage

[slick7]

Every company needs a "we can do whatever we want" clause in their terms of usage, why not the United States?

Apparently, you didn't read the EULA.

Perpetual war

[crazyjj]

These "wartime" acts will always be in place from now on, because the U.S. will never not be at war again.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly a declaration of war which provides the ability to override certain areas of the Constitution is never made. People don't think it's a big deal whether Congress formally declares war or not, but it is. It would be one thing if a formal declaration had been made but the truth is we're really not at war in any real sense. Certainly not the point that rights need to be suspended. Even worse is that the Supreme Court is complicit in allowing the rules to be blurred.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that once all the foreigners are controlled by US corporations, the government will start war with the suckers^Wproducts^Wconsumers within its own shores?

Re:Perpetual war

[dkleinsc]

Of course: The US has basically been at war since 1941. It's also officially been in a state of emergency since September 2001, because presidents can do things in a state of emergency that they otherwise can't.

Another good example of a government under continuous emergency: Egypt was officially in a state of emergency from 1967 through May of this year.

Re:Perpetual war

[geek]

Indeed. Harry Reid and gang can pass crap like this but not a single budget in going on 5 years. Our Congress and executive branches are treasonous.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

> Indeed. Harry Reid and gang can pass crap like this but not a single budget in going on 5 years.

That is because both parties support domestic spying, but the Republicans have been actively obstructing any economic legislation that the Democrats have introduced.

Re:Perpetual war

[gmuslera]

Apparently one government is snooping the private communications of all countries, promoting revolutions in several and disabling energy plants of at least one. Motives more than enough to declare to be in a (cyber)war.

Re:Perpetual war

[geek]

> Indeed. Harry Reid and gang can pass crap like this but not a single budget in going on 5 years.

That is because both parties support domestic spying, but the Republicans have been actively obstructing any economic legislation that the Democrats have introduced.

Um no. Harry Reid has never even put a budget up for a vote. He's never even created one for discussion. How can the Republicans obstruct something that doesn't even exist? Quit pointing fingers and start laying the blame on the majority holders that are running the show. You're not doing yourself or this country any favors giving assholes like Reid a free fucking pass.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

I did not say budget, I said economic legislation. The reality is that the blame for the US's current economic mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans. They had a chance to work with the President and with the Senate, and they refused. No amount of swearing or calling people names is going to change that.

Re:Perpetual war

[ahabswhale]

You're right, they should come up with a budget and Reed shouldn't get a free ride. However, it's also true that whatever they came up with would never get past the Republican controlled House and would only be used as political fodder.

Re:Perpetual war

[lightknight]

I'll ready the guillotine. Can we do previously elected officials as well?

Re:Perpetual war

[lightknight]

Oh, and appointed ones as well. Almost forgot.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with what you are saying here is that the Republican controlled House has presented and passed several budgets (as craptastic as they are). The Democrats controlled the House for Two of the last four years and the Senate for the last 4 years has not passed any sort of budget. In truth the Democrats don't seem to have any interest in having a budget at all. You can't defend the Democrats by blaming the Republicans. Both parties don't care about the American people. They only care about their special interests.

Re:Perpetual war

[lightknight]

Of course, because the Democrats are just slightly better Republicans in your world, am I right?

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the constitution does it say the government can override the constitution in case of emergency, barring actual use of article five as per usual?

Methinks they protest too much; and that the citizens are cowards.

If you see government officials violating the constitution, you're looking at criminals.

Re:Perpetual war

[lightknight]

Indeed, but the common people of the internet are the ones who will suffer for the actions of the idiots who wish to engage in such a war, which is why all of the more intelligent internet types have been dancing on egg shells to prevent this. Of course, there are some people out there, driven by nationalism or money, who do not care if a few thousand innocents die if they get what they want. Coming up with a solution to this problem without becoming like them is, of course, very trying.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, don't worry, the US has multiple wars going on, that absolutely 100% do not have an "ending", so you can consider the USA to be in a state of permenant war from 2001 for all time after that.

War on Terror - was lost long ago, but the US can't admit this, because they're using it as a convenient permenant war.
  - there's also a multitude of "operations" directly associated with this, several of which are also unendable, but they'd just tag more operations on if they got close to "finishing" all the current ones.
War on drugs - Not an "officially" declared act of war (since it's a concept, not a specific, identifiable target), but I have no doubt that should for some bizarre reason the USA take over the world and "win" the war on terror, they'd bank on this to continue being in a state of permenant war.

I'm sure there's a half-dozen other pseudo-wars that the USA could use, but the primary one is the offical war on terror.

So no, the only parts of the constitution that matter from 2001 onwards will be anything specifically related to "at times of war". Absolutely any part of it capable of being set aside at times of war currently is, and can be disregarded until the USA somehow collapses.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

ad hom attacks are how you admit you don't have a clue what you're talking about

Re:Perpetual war

[Nadaka]

The Korean war never ended.

Re:Perpetual war

[Rockoon]

That is because both parties support domestic spying, but the Republicans have been actively obstructing any economic legislation that the Democrats have introduced.

Are you really this thick?

It is the Democrats, that had the power to ram through health care reform without any Republican support at all (only 1 vote from a Republican, and it wasnt needed), that are telling you that the Republics are the reason that the senate hasn't once brought a budget up for a vote the entire time Harry Reid has been majority leader.

This isnt rational thought telling you that. Its the Democrats telling you that. But since you believe everything the Democrats say, even when its so obvious that they are lying, well... we know what that makes you. Thick. Sheep. A Thick sheep.

Re:Perpetual war

[geek]

You are one dumb fuck you know that? Congress was democrat controlled for 6 years until 2010. The Senate has been Dem controlled for almost as long. Obama has been in Office for 4 years. Republicans don't have control over anything. YOUR SIDE OWNS THIS MOTHER FUCKER. How about some fucking leadership from the empty chair? Where is he? Oh yeah he's on his 23rd vacation in 4 years.The sack of shit played more gold in 3 years than Bush did in 8.

I don't give a shit if the have a D or an R behind their names. If they are this incompetent they deserve to be tarred and feathered on the white house lawn.

Fuck you blaming everyone but the mother fuckers in control right now. I hate people like you.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you don't understand economic messes.

The current record amounts of deficit spending were all enacted under a Democrat-controlled Congress (both House and Senate), and it has been maintained by not passing a new budget, which is likely done so that people like yourself can still attempt to point the finger at Republicans.

During the Bush era, Republicans were absolutely complicit in spending then-record amounts on deficits while fighting two wars, but they were completely dwarfed following the Congressional takeover by the Democratic super majority held through the first half of Obama's first term. And that doesn't even consider the fact that our deficit hardly took a hit when troops were pulled out of Iraq.

The incredible lunacy of it all is that Democrats are going to blame Republicans for the fiscal cliff. Democrats are holding the lions share of the taxpaying population hostage for the so-called millionaire tax that looks to tax people making above $400,000. Either the rich get tax increases, or we all do. That's a wonderful plan to repair an economy that supposedly just saw the worst Christmas since 2008.

As for the reality of our current mess? The housing crisis was caused by Democrats: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/122012-637924-faults-community-reinvestment-act-cra-mortgage-defaults.htm?p=full

The sickening part of it all is that Bush attempted to fix the housing bubble before it actually trashed our economy: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

But Democrats blocked it.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

If you actually look at the problem, then you may really see the cause of it.

Re:Perpetual war

[fustakrakich]

Can we do previously elected officials as well?

Only if we can do the people that voted for them over and over.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

Again, no amount of name calling is going to change reality. The Senate has sent many economic bills to the House over the past four years, and almost every one has been blocked by the Republicans. There has been, and appears to still be, a deliberate policy to obstruct any legislation that originates from the Democratic side of Congress.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not say budget, I said economic legislation. The reality is that the blame for the US's current economic mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans. They had a chance to work with the President and with the Senate, and they refused. No amount of swearing or calling people names is going to change that.

Let's see, the Democrats have been in power for four years and Reed has been running the senate for six years. and you want to blame the Republicans. Hence the obvious question... Do you also blame the Republicans for your stupidity??? The Republicans have little or no control over events even with "control" of the house. Only a complete idiot can't see the reality of the situation.

I know this will get modded down... No one here wants to bothered with the truth. Most here are just too happy believing in hope and change...

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, someone needs a nap.

And to learn some definitions. Start with "Super Majority" and "Fillibuster". We'll wait.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

I would love to see a list of economic legislation that Democrats have "introduced" in the past 3 years. Good luck finding it.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

Once again, no amount of swearing, name-calling, or temper tantrums is going to change reality. The US is about to take a dive over a cliff because a groups of extremists are refusing stand down from a childish ideological platform and start cooperating to reach a deal.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is about to take a dive over a cliff because a groups of extremists are refusing stand down from a childish ideological platform and start cooperating to reach a deal.

Agreed. They're called "democrats" and are unwilling to compromise on the one thing that will prevent us from reentering the worst recession since the Great Depression. Raising taxes now, ESPECIALLY on those that drive the economy, would be the worst option possible. We need to cut taxes, not raise them. Keeping them at their current level is a reasonable compromise to just get something passed in time to not tank our economy, but a group of extremists are refusing to back down from higher taxes.

Re:Perpetual war

[geek]

Fuck you man. I swear to god, people like you are worthless and a perpetual drain on this country. You're too fucking stupid to even see the problem let alone actually fix it. You're going to get exactly what you deserve.

Re:Perpetual war

[flayzernax]

Who are the extremists? Those creating legislation or the ones that worked and lived just fine under the previously existing legislation this country has had more or less for the last 60 years prior to the 80's. Those that want monopolies? Those that dont?

Things havent been perfect and some good stuff got overturned or fine tuned since 1980, but allot of crap has been implemented since 1930 which is bullshit to.

Problem is people are just relying on their masters and betters to tell them whats good for them. The government, corps, rich people were never intended to fill that roll in this country.

Fundamentally this countries government is borked. Fundamentally people are looking to a broken set of leaders to fix it for them.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

We have been cutting taxes for the past ten years. It has not worked. There is no non-ideological reason to think that cutting them again will help. Remember, the last time that the US had a booming economy was in the late 1990s, and taxes were higher then than they are now. Letting taxes rise to what they were before the Bush tax cuts came into effect will not tip the US economy into a recession. At worst it will slow down economic growth a bit. The real danger is that the automatic cuts in government spending that will start kicking in on Jan 1 will remove money from areas of the economy that are already in trouble.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

I am worthless? and a perpetual drain on the country? Why? Because I disagree with you? So much for rational discourse.

Re:Perpetual war

[SciencePope]

I like your tagline. Maybe I'll add one that says "A Green Party member is just a Democrat who doesn't want to feel guilty for ignoring climate change"

Re:Perpetual war

[Rockoon]

Again, no amount of name calling is going to change reality.

What name calling? You are clearly thick if the plain facts are trumped by the convoluted shit you have to conjure in order to ignore those plain facts.

The Senate has sent many economic bills to the House over the past four years

The Democrats controlled the senate for 2 of those years, with enough power to pass health care reform without any Republican support at all. What happened there, eh? Could it possibly be that Harry Reid is so corrupt that even the House Democrats cant support the over-the-top corporate handouts in his "economic" (*) bills?

(*) translation: special-interest spending appropriations

and almost every one has been blocked by the Republicans.

Sure, just like the Republicans blocked the health care reform that none of them voted for... oh wait..

The Democrats didnt need the Republicans in one case, but did in another? Really?

The plain truth. The Democrats didn't need any help at all passing things, except when it looks bad for them that they didnt pass things.. then of course its all someone elses fault.. and here is this complex convoluted reason why...

There has been, and appears to still be, a deliberate policy to obstruct any legislation that originates from the Democratic side of Congress.

So let me get this straight. Over the past 2 years, the Republicans in the House passed several budgets.. budgets that never got voted on in the Senate because the Democrats who control the Senate refused to even put them on the floor (allowing them to be amended and sent back to the House) and thereby killing the budgets immediately, and its the Republicans that are the obstructionists?

Thick. Very thick sheep,.

Re:Perpetual war

[geek]

Indeed, you're incapable of it. You're such a worthless liberal hack that you're incapable of seeing anything but the DailyKOS talking point. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Perpetual war

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Methinks they protest too much; and that the citizens are cowards.

Look who's talking.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm ready to drop both parties and go full-on Libertarian next cycle. The entrenched power structure only looks out for itself. Even when one party looks like a better choice, it's all just theater and they act against us anyway. I have slowly come to accept that the establishment wants to collapse our society so they can set up an oppressive replacement.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Harry Reid and gang can pass crap like this but not a single budget in going on 5 years. Our Congress and executive branches are treasonous.

Organize a citizen militia and arrest those responsible for this act of treachery. Hold a military-style court and sentence the guilty to death by hanging.

Re:Perpetual war

[hairyfeet]

Wow...you really have NO clue how this stuff actually works, do you? Look up the word "filibuster" and then look up how many times its been used in the past 5 years, you'll find out its been used more in the past 5 years than it was used for the hundred years preceding!

It doesn't matter how many votes one side or the other has as long as they have the filibuster as they can just block anything from coming to a vote.

Re:Perpetual war

[fldsofglry]

I love it when folks say that Democrats "rammed" the health care reform. Fact of the matter is that Health care reform started before Obama was president and had bipartisan input. It took over 3 years from conception to the president signing it into law. Between June of 2009 and September 2009, there were 31 bipartisan meetings on the health care reform law. I could tell you about it, but why not read/watch for yourself. I think watching is only supported on Windows machines: http://www.finance.senate.gov/issue/?id=32be19bd-491e-4192-812f-f65215c1ba65

Re:Perpetual war

[s.petry]

Clearly you fail to see the truth, and simply repeat rhetoric spewed by people in power currently. This is not an issue of Democrat or Republican, and your belief that is it shows you are a fool. Both parties support the same corrupt back end.

Anyone that thinks otherwise is refusing to see, or look at the truth. I get it, it's hard on the mind when you start to learn that the beliefs you have are absolutely unfounded and false. It's called cognitive dissonance, and it's been known for thousands of years that people would rather be sheep than see the truth. Have doubts? Go read "The Allegory of the Cave". Plato and Socrates show you exactly what's going on.. you are watching a puppet show and reacting. Stepping outside of the cave is going to hurt your eyes and cause you to panic at first. But you will get better, fresh air and sunshine are healthier than you think!

Let me show you a few clues that I'm correct and you are ignorant. Bush never attempted to fix shit, and your belief that he did is a failure to see facts. Bush invaded Iraq for financial gain, as did Bush 1. Then he gave us the Patriot act, and you lost in a split second all of your rights to privacy. Obama has continued the trend, and the police state continues to increase. Is it accidental that no WMDs were ever found, and the media failed to follow through until anyone was prosecuted? Was building 7 accidental? Is the failure to prosecute any of the bankers guilty of fraud accidental? Nope, it's all intentional and you probably forget already that just 4 years ago our economy collapsed. It's better because you are told it's better? How do you ignore that unemployment is higher and every other standard of living indicator is down for everyone in the US?

If you want to get into other areas, how about we look at NAFTA. It was drafted by Reagan, passed by Clinton, and never argued about by Bush in 8 years or Obama. The obvious destructive nature of NAFTA was not good enough? How about the tax incentives and government programs paying businesses to move overseas? Get it? Outside of the "we are of this party" slogans they are the same thing!

I'm not saying that all Republicans or Democrats are bad, but they are an extreme minority. You won't hear them on main stream media or read about them in main stream news. Wow, just like the USSR we have a controlled media? Yes, we absolutely do.

The controlled media is making sure you vote for who they want. The Republican Caucus leaders in Iowa stated openly last year "We don't care what the public says, Ron Paul will not be on the ticket". That statement was made live on the radio, and of course you probably never heard it or never paid attention. The critical piece of logic is to take Ron Paul's name out of that statement. Anyone that "they" don't want won't be on the ticket. Do you get it? The Democracy is already dead, you are just too ignorant to realize it.

Get over the "them vs. us" and start looking at what's really going on. Read Democrypts and Rebloodlicans by Jesse Ventura, go watch some of the Alex Jones movies and you will start to get it. Wake the fuck up, and start waking other people up! Stop falling for the rhetoric that is pitting you against your brethren and look behind the curtains!

Re:Perpetual war

[CanHasDIY]

You're too fucking stupid to even see the problem let alone actually fix it.

Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.

Logic and reason aren't your strong points, are they Cap'n?

Re:Perpetual war

[fustakrakich]

Waddya mean 'again'? The US has always been at war, and on the attack, since the very beginning. And the constitution never really amounted to much. It has always been mostly toothless. It is our obligation to vote the crooks out of office. If we don't, then it's quite obvious who is to blame for what the US does.

Re:Perpetual war

[mrsquid0]

Yes, I suppose that you are right. I always thought that rational discourse meant respect for the other point of view, and a civil tongue. How wrong I was.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think they want our guns?

Re:Perpetual war

[Mitreya]

Sadly a declaration of war which provides the ability to override certain areas of the Constitution is never made. People don't think it's a big deal whether Congress formally declares war or not, but it is. It would be one thing if a formal declaration had been made but the truth is we're really not at war in any real sense.

Congress has even managed to pretend that the war budget doesn't exist. Most of Iraq and Afganistan had been funded via "emergency appropriations" instead of an actual budget with everything else in it. Maybe the official budget debates would stem the warmongering a bit, if our laws cannot?

Re:Perpetual war

[s.petry]

Way before 2001, it's been since the 1960s. I served int he US Army, there are always conflicts. Many of which, you never heard of nor ever will. More obscure than Serbia, which they hid from the public for quite a long time. These are of course outside of the most obvious "War on Drugs" which has been a perpetual cesspool of sleaze and scum from both sides of the spectrum. The "war on terror" was just the latest target, and most publicized since the invasion of Iraq in 2001.

Lots of Reichstag history to pay attention to as well, though people will perpetually deny bad people are in government. It can't happen to us right?

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Harry Reid has never even put a budget up for a vote.

The Senate has voted on (and rejected) every budget presented by the House. Plenty to read here, no matter what side you're on. Apparently, voting against a bill you don't like is a "failure" (aka "working as designed"). I'm sure Ron Paul would be really proud of these people.

Now the funny thing is, after whining about how the Senate needs to "show some leadership and pass a budget", the Senate finally did, and now the Republicans are whining about how the Senate isn't Constitutionally allowed to originate budgets and it's a glorified senate resolution but not a budget blah blah. At least the Senate was honest enough to originate the bill themselves, unlike the Paul Wellstone Memorial Bank Bailout bill that created the TARP.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the Constitution, each spending bill must originate in the House
So why are we blaming Harry Reid again. Why do you fail to recognize that the failure is the House not the Senate.

Re:Perpetual war

[Mitreya]

Letting taxes rise to what they were before the Bush tax cuts came into effect will not tip the US economy into a recession.

It may also be helpful to stop calling that outcome a tax raise. Letting temporary tax cuts expire may be argued against, but it is hardly a tax raise unless they at least go higher than what used to be the rate in the 90s

Re:Perpetual war

[Holi]

It is not the Senates job to introduce a budget. in fact it would be unconstitutional for the budget to be introduced by the Senate. It is the responsibility of the House to introduce budget, it can;t come from the Senate, it can't come from the President. So can we please drop this bullshit about how it's Harry Reid's fault for not coming up with a budget. The blame falls clearly on the House and thus on Boehner's lap.

Re:Perpetual war

[dkleinsc]

Why are you leaving the judiciary out of this? We have cases that come up before the court trying to stop this stuff, and the Solicitor General just says "state secrets privilege!" and the court says "Too bad citizens, we can't allow this case to continue, even if you might be right on the merits".

Re:Perpetual war

[Mitreya]

Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.

It does appear to be the case that the blame is not (currently) distributed equally. As best as I can tell, Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise without making any concessions whatsoever. Democrats are not blameless, but at the moment they do seem more reasonable.

There are no innocents here -- and most of the problem is due to the fact that too many representatives (on both sides) are too entrenched in their home region due to gerrymandering. Not enough of them worry about re-election, I guess

Re:Perpetual war

[MysteriousPreacher]

Alex Jones? I hear he's running false flag operations. That would explain why so much if his stuff is batshit crazy. It's clearly to throw sceptics like you off the scent, and to make the sheeple think that you're crazy for believing that the Kenyan is ratcheting up the FEMA/UN death camps, staffed by Jewish bankers and Marilyn fucking Monroe.

Yeah, that's a strawman but it's no less insane than Jones and his colloidal silver slurping disciples of paranoia. Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of profiteering and backslapping during the Iraq war. There are people dragging us in to a police state, and the lunatic fringe makes it more difficult to persuade people of this. I'm guessing you're in on this yourself, and I hope you enjoy your government paychecks while they last. Come the day when people rise up, you'll be shot along with your fellow quislings..

Re:Perpetual war

[interkin3tic]

I'd argue half the problem is that the voters don't see any problem with it. Enough of them actually think terrorists are out to get them, and this will keep them safe to keep it going. You can't simply blame the politicians: if you threw every incumbent out, they'd simply be replaced by other charlatans willing to sell the public what they stupidly want, which is someone to take their rights and keep them safe from imaginary super-terrorists.

It would be funny if it didn't affect the rest of us. Anyway, my point is that the voters share the blame. Congress, the president, AND the voters would ideally be changed for the problem to be solved.

Re:Perpetual war

[cellocgw]

The Koreans never signed an armistice, but OTOH the USA never declared war there, either. It was, IIRC, a 'Police Action."

Re:Perpetual war

[ProfBooty]

I always thought the economic boom in the late 90's was due to massive corporate infrastructure spending.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, the Democrats have been in power for four years and Reed has been running the senate for six years. and you want to blame the Republicans. Hence the obvious question... Do you also blame the Republicans for your stupidity??? The Republicans have little or no control over events even with "control" of the house. Only a complete idiot can't see the reality of the situation.

The Republicans haven't been powerless this whole time. They've been able to block and filibuster the Democrats. Your team is every bit as responsible for this mess as the other team is. And you know it.

Also, anyone who says "I know this will get modded down" is trying to get unearned upmods by playing the martyr, and therefore deserves to be downmodded regardless of what else they're saying. There has never, ever been an exception.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the Korean UN sanctioned military engagement? The last war formally declared by the U.S. was WWII

Re:Perpetual war

[Qzukk]

The sickening part of it all is that Bush attempted to fix the housing bubble before it actually trashed our economy: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

But Democrats blocked it.

So what you're saying is that if only Democrats hadn't stopped Bush from creating this new agency, the housing bubble would have magically disappeared? Has there ever been a bubble that just went away without popping? Would this agency have had any oversight at all over all the "Alt-A", NINJA, and other sub-prime loans that Freddie and Fannie didn't insure?

How about this: if the rating agencies hadn't rated all the toxic CDOs triple A doubleplusgood, Fannie and Freddie would not have bought the derivatives as investments to back their insurance of prime mortgages. They'd still have had large losses when (if) the economy crashed and prime mortgages started falling through, but it would have been nowhere near the total collapse they had. Not only that, but if the CDOs were honestly rated, the pool of suckers would be significantly smaller, which would have put the brakes on the banks and unregulated non-bank lenders (that originated over 50% of the subprime mortgage pool) that were making hundreds of millions of dollars by giving away their money to bums and selling the debt to suckers, which probably would have prevented the bubble in the first place.

Re:Perpetual war

[CanHasDIY]

Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.

It does appear to be the case that the blame is not (currently) distributed equally. As best as I can tell, Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise without making any concessions whatsoever. Democrats are not blameless, but at the moment they do seem more reasonable.

Right, and "seem" is the important word here. In reality, if you can ignore the media hype and study voting records, you'll learn that D and R are two sides of the same coin, and actually have many confluent goals, the continued erosion of rights and freedoms being paramount.

It's Daes Dae'mar, pure and simple.

There are no innocents here

With regards to American politics, no truer statement has ever been spoken.

Re:Perpetual war

[Synerg1y]

There was the cold war... then again the government could use a revamp of the meaning of the word war.

Re:Perpetual war

[s.petry]

Simplify the messages from Alex a bit. This is a basic teaching in Logic and Rhetoric which you lack or intentionally ignore. Take away the messages about "evil devil worshipers" and see what the facts given show. It's corruption at such a level that you can't begin to comprehend (Nor can I, and I have been digging for 2 decades. Every day am shocked the things I learn). Then again, perhaps you do know, and are just a shill? Your post history does not indicate that you are, but one never knows.

Whether the purpose of the conspiracy is "greed", or "devil worship", or "illuminati", or what ever you want to inject, the facts showing that a conspiracy exists are not deniable. What we "could" argue, but should not argue, is the underlying motive.

Pay attention to that last sentence for a while. If we focus on the underlying motive we'll never get to a point where we can fix anything. This division is what some want. It's being pushed actively by main stream media currently. Class war and race war is being used to keep people looking at everything except for what's going on.

Because facts are sparse, I think Alex Jones is a good place for people to start to wake up. It's kind of like a shock treatment, and works very well for some people. Production is good and people that are only tuned to TV will catch on quickly. Ventura's books are another good starting point, but who the hell reads today? The facts that they both present can not be disputed.

To answer your accusation, the answer is No! I get no benefit from Alex Jones and you should check people's post history before making false accusations. I get moral personal benefit by trying to wake people up, nothing more (if you understand Religion you will understand that statement). You can check my post history, I don't push someone else's agenda. I tell people to wake up and look at the truth, and try to show them the way to find it.

To counter your last statement: I have never taken a Government check with the exception of 2 weeks where I was forced to take unemployment. Since I was 16 years old, and could drive, I have worked full time. I spent 5 years in the US Army, I put myself through College (I was enlisted during VEAP, go study to see the laughable amount of money I received for College). I spent additional time and money after graduation furthering my education. For over twenty years I have built a pretty solid reputation in IT. I built the first 2 secure labs in the US at a non-military complex, built VR systems, developed applications to make peoples lives easier, mentor people, and teach people. All that while, I have been a single parent since my kid was 9 months old.

If you study Socrates, you will find my personal role model.

So you can guess where I'll tell you to cram your personal defamation.

Either help people to wake up, or shut the fuck up. Distortion and false accusations do neither.

Re:Perpetual war

[s.petry]

However, it's easy to back the "Cold War" and the investments we made into the military industrial complex. While some will argue that we created and financed communism, there was a real threat looming for a long time. The US's advancements and spending in the MIC ended the war peacefully. I'm not saying it was not a massive false flag, there are facts showing it as just that.. just that the solution worked.

The other thing with the Cold war, was that it did not help a police state at all. US Citizens were concerned with defending themselves. If anything, it would hurt a police state. The Japanese invasion of California and Pearl Harbor were fresh in people's minds for decades after WW II.

Re:Perpetual war

[Rockoon]

I love it when folks say that Democrats "rammed" the health care reform.

You love the truth, then.

Between House and Senate, exactly 1 Republican voted for it. Exactly 1. You can call that bipartisan if you want, but everyone knows that you are full of shit when you do it.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought the economic boom in the late 90's was due to massive corporate infrastructure spending.

Read: "Big fish ate the little fish"

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides are bad, but both sides aren't equally bad.

Re:Perpetual war

[Ungrounded Lightning]

We have been cutting taxes for the past ten years. It has not worked.

First: The key is cutting SPENDING. As long as the government spends enormous amounts of money the value behind that money is sucked out of the public sector economy, depressing it, regardless of whether this is done by taxes, inflation, or borrowing. Spending has EXPLODED over the past ten years - especially with the "bailouts".

The different modes of ripping off the people hurt the economy in somewhat different ways, and some have greater "hurt multipliers" than others. But the value bled out of the economy to be squandered on non-producing (or under-producing) government projects sets a minimum level of damage.

Second: Most of the so-called "tax cuts" weren't. They were typically government giveaways administered through the IRS. To be a "tax cut" of the form that stimulates productivity it must be a cut in the RATE of tax on a FUTURE activity, and must be passed into law or regulation in time to influence the taxpayer to make a decision to perform the action that is now taxed less. Things like a lump sum given to each tax filer and passed into law after the taxpayer has already made all his economic decisions and done all his actions fails on both tests, no matter how many politicians call it a "tax cut".

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you run an actual risk of enemy troops moving into your nation then it is more likely an occupation than a war.

Re:Perpetual war

[Bartles]

Why stop at the 90's? Is this somehow the natural tax rate of the United States? Do all taxes need to be framed in reference to the tax rates of the 1990's? If they were so great, why don't we institute those tax rates across the board? Taxes were cut in 2001 and 2003. We have had the same income tax rates since then. If congress willingly lets those tax rate expire, that is a tax increase.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this pinhead asto-turfeer tea bagger get modded "insightful"? This idiot obviously can't see beyond his nose which is buried deep in the Koch Bros asses.

Re:Perpetual war

[cheekyjohnson]

Certainly not the point that rights need to be suspended.

War or not, I don't believe the government should ever be able to 'suspend' rights.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

The other thing with the Cold war, was that it did not help a police state at all.

A full-blown police state? No. Wider acceptance of warrantless wiretapping because "the bogeyman is gonna get us!"? Absolutely.

Re:Perpetual war

[cold fjord]

. . . it can;t come from the Senate, it can't come from the President . . .So can we please drop this bullshit about how it's Harry Reid's fault for not coming up with a budget. The blame falls clearly on the House and thus on Boehner's lap

If we were to dispense with the bullshit, your post would be blank. How is it that you either don't know this, or expect everyone to be so ignorant as to not call you on it? Well, to your credit, you did suck in 3 moderators.

The Federal Budget Process

Once the president lays out his proposal, the House and Senate budget committees can begin writing their budget resolutions. The budget resolution sets targets for spending and tax revenue and identifies any policies that will need to move through reconciliation. The resolutions are sent to the floor for a vote, and differences are resolved in conference.

More: The Congressional Budget Process: A Brief Overview

The House has produced and passed budgets, the Senate hasn't. The Senate has voted plenty down though.

President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)
-- 1,000 Days Without a Budget: Facts on the Senate’s Failure

'1,200 Days and $5 Trillion in New Debt Since Senate Dems Passed a Budget'

Congress has spent $11.2 trillion since passing its last budget on April 29, 2009, according to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee. The new debt since that date is $4.8 trillion.

"Since the last budget resolution was passed 1,200 days ago, the government has borrowed 42 cents of every dollar spent," the chart notes. The chart is based on Treasury Department figures.

The Senate obviously has no problem passing bills to spend money - why can't they pass a budget?

If this continues, it can't end well.

'U.S. Per Person Debt Now 35 Percent Higher than that of Greece'

If something cannot go on forever, it will stop. --Stein's Law

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that the blame for the US's current economic mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans.

Sucker.

The two brands of the Ruling Party are absolutely interchangeable, and as long as you buy the bullshit that they're different, you will remain part of the problem.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky which introduced the 'emergents'. Initially the name implied that they were 'emerging technologically' but it is later revealed that it is named after 'the emergency' where the regime took emergency powers after a disease outbreak. I particularly liked one discussion of the emergent regime's behaviour: Hoarding resources during the emergency (still on-going) was illegal. So illegal in fact that punishment was death. So many people were executed for hoarding resources during the emergency, more than were killed by the disease in fact.

Re:Perpetual war

[MysteriousPreacher]

Simplify the messages from Alex a bit. This is a basic teaching in Logic and Rhetoric which you lack or intentionally ignore. Take away the messages about "evil devil worshipers" and see what the facts given show. It's corruption at such a level that you can't begin to comprehend (Nor can I, and I have been digging for 2 decades. Every day am shocked the things I learn). Then again, perhaps you do know, and are just a shill? Your post history does not indicate that you are, but one never knows.

We don't need Jones to know that governments lie to their citizens, and that moneyed interests have may too much sway over our lives. Look at HSBC and UBS. How about corporations in the UK that are caught evading tax, and instead of being taken to task, engage in private agreements to pay back a bit of what they owe? HSBC was complicit in money laundering for killers! Either the law applies equally to all, or it applies to none. That is serious shit we need to fix - not the fantasies of Alex Jones.

As an example, I can pick-up a copy of Private Eye to discover new corruption, malice and sheer incompetence. There are other sources we can examine, without the need to descend in to lunacy that'd seem unrealistic in a James Bond film. Exactly how far should one simplify Jones' work in order to find the facts, and how is it helpful to refer people to the videos of a man who was up to his eyeballs in the birther movement, thinks that Kennedy was assassinated by The Powers That Be, and sold a video a bunch of worshipers of a Babylonian god (invented by Jones) are running the country? Jones has been "exposing" so many fabulous conspiracies that I wonder how the people who organised 9/11 (including the famous tower 7 spectacular), killed Kennedy, and have been laying plans for the UN/FEMA mass murder of Americans let him continue dishing the dirt.

What Jones does is to take facts, add in some blatant untruths, and wrap them in a blanket of fantasy. He's just like the paranormal nuts. Someone tells me that aliens abducted Flight 19. Okay, let's simplify that by looking at facts. Flight 19 vanished, and we've no conclusive understanding of why it happened. The Navy report provides some reasons why the flight leader could have taken his flight so off course, but nothing conclusive. Why was the aliens idea even necessary? That's exactly what Jones is doing, and not always in an honest way. Either he's a nutjob, or he's earning a decent living providing red herrings to throw people off the scent.

Because facts are sparse, I think Alex Jones is a good place for people to start to wake up. It's kind of like a shock treatment, and works very well for some people. Production is good and people that are only tuned to TV will catch on quickly. Ventura's books are another good starting point, but who the hell reads today? The facts that they both present can not be disputed.

Scarcity of facts is no excuse for outright confabulation. Sending people to Alex Jones for an introduction to questioning the way our world works is like sending people to Fred Phelps for an understanding of liberal Christianity. Sure, you'll get the basics, such as the belief in Christ's resurrection. What else then, when Phelps goes hardcore Calvinist on their arse? Most people are going to walk away, thinking him and the whole idea of Christianity to be mad. Others will buy in to Christianity, but a far from liberal version. This is the risk of referring to Jones as a way to wake up people.

You're right. Distortions and false accusations do not help wake up people. That's like fighting irrational religious belief by encouraging people to get in to astrology. So why does Jones get to defame and fling thinly evidenced accusations? Why can he accuse Obama of setting-up death camps throughout the US, yet I can't accuse you of being a plant?

Re:Perpetual war

[cold fjord]

So, what you are suggesting is that paying more taxes in a week that what you are today is not an increase as long as you aren't paying as much as you might be. Quite right, Comrade. I'll help you spread the word - Good news citizens! Your tax rates have been reduced from the old rate of 25% to a new rate of 35%! Likewise the chocolate ration has been increased from 50g to 40g!

It's always good to hear from the Comrades from the Ministry of Truth.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the problem with using a "feeling" to determine a state of war. Allowing the US government to do whatever they want, in the name of preventing this "feeling".
Note: I explicitly excluded the American people. The American people did not get a vote on this. For those of you who think we get to choose our leaders who make these laws, and thus by extension we choose the laws, why don't you come here for a little while --bring your friends too-- and try voting for someone who doesn't help advance this "war". If you find a way to do it, please let me know. We are often given only two choices, both of them have similar agendas, and we are left with a choice of politician A who will screw things up in one way or politician B who will screw things up in another. Both A and B have nearly identical ideals, and only vary in meaningless things like what religion they belong to, skin color, what their stance on abortion is, and how they plan on distributing the tax moneys we are forced to give them to subsets of corporations, etc... In the end they don't even have to make due on any of what they say at election time, and can actually do what ever they want, thus there is no real choice, it's just a game of who puts on a better face. (Which explains why over 2 billion dollars were spent on the election, anyone else sickened by that, just think of where that money could have gone. And your telling me we actually wanted these guys who already wasted 2 billion dollars, to plan our future? Get real. We didn't have a choice.)

Re:Perpetual war

[strikethree]

The reason taxes have been cut against individuals is that individuals have no fucking money to pay taxes with. Taxes should rise but the taxes need to come from a different pot of money than that allocated to individuals. Government, especially the security portion of it, should probably be scaled WAY the fuck back.

Re:Perpetual war

[s.petry]

We don't need Jones to know that governments lie to their citizens, and that moneyed interests have may too much sway over our lives.

Lets not generalize you as "normal" or average. Look at the "Average" citizen. They only see what Fox, NBC, and ABC show them, and only know what they are told. They have never studied rhetoric, never studied critical thinking, and therefor have no ability to defend themselves against fallacy. So "you" don't need to be woken up, however: In order to effect change, the "Average" needs to be woken up and taught. See where I'm going? Without numbers, there can be no change.

Scarcity of facts is no excuse for outright confabulation.

Sometimes it's critical that you use the enemies weapons against them. Look again at the "Average" person. What will get their attention more? The truth, or treats like demons and devils? The masses have been hypnotized by media, and are being continually brain washed. It takes loud noises to wake some people up. I'm okay with yelling if that's what it takes. After people are awake, they tend to learn and find ways of defending themselves from both sets of fantasy. Asleep, they only get what is being injected into them by controlled media. It takes a shock to the foundation of their beliefs to make them see that they are being duped. They have to be force to question the reality that is being presented to them.

I'll say this also. There are many things on Infowars which are dead on and correct. Not all, sure, but a whole lot of the videos are spot on and 100% accurate. The fabrications and fantasy parts are there, sure.. it's a way for him to sell goods and make a living. Hence, I don't believe that the Fred Phelps analogy is correct. Also, even Alex has been duped by the shams our Government is putting on. He was a believer at first that Osama took down the Twin towers, hell they had us all fooled. After we had conclusive proof of wrong doing in building 7, he started to question the whole thing more.

Why can he accuse Obama of setting-up death camps throughout the US, yet I can't accuse you of being a plant?

You can accuse me, and you did accuse me. I think I did well enough defending myself. I did not say "don't accuse me", I said "either wake people up or shut the fuck up." Not a nice statement I agree, but it was a response to a not so nice accusation. Further, it is a message which I believe to be vital vital. Waking people up is critical. If it means sending them to Alex Jones to wake them up, why not? As I mentioned above, we can not gain any momentum for change without numbers.

Every day, I try to wake at least 1 person up. It's not an easy task, trust me I have been doing this for a long time. Thankfully I'm not alone, but honestly we need more people waking others up. You seem to be awake, so why not join the fight? Society looks pretty bleak rather quickly if we don't get people motivated.

Peace

Re:Perpetual war

[s.petry]

I have to add another section since you mentioned several things.

and how is it helpful to refer people to the videos of a man who was up to his eyeballs in the birther movement,

There are still questions, if everything was legit there would be no questions. Do you think that someone behind the scenes does not want the questions lingering? Hell, it keeps people from seeing what he's really doing. Jones is looking for answers, as are thousands of others. Nothing wrong with that really, but in my opinion they are being baited. Jones has a good sized staff though, and does not dwell much on this.

thinks that Kennedy was assassinated by The Powers That Be,

Again, this is an obvious inside job if you look at evidence. That was way the movie a couple years ago was so important and a big hit. More simply, the case was botched and people were lied too. Same with Bobby, but he never got the same media attention as John. Was it CIA, Mafia, KGB? Does it matter as much as the fact that you (and everyone else) was lied too?

and sold a video a bunch of worshipers of a Babylonian god (invented by Jones) are running the country?

Huh? Jones invented a Babylonian god? Nope, the worship of the owl goes back to Samaria I believe. He caught the leaders of your country on tape worshiping the owl, sacrificing a symbolic baby, all while wearing what appears to be demonic garb. So I'm not sure what you think Jones invented here. Just like we see Fred Phelps on video doing things we hate to see, I have no problem with people seeing what these people were doing. They should be questioning who was there and what the meaning of those rituals were. Hell, tax payers paid for the salaries of nearly every attendee (there were foreign Government leaders and a few business people there also) . I have never heard of one Government Official in attendance returning their daily salary.

Jones has been "exposing" so many fabulous conspiracies that I wonder how the people who organised 9/11 (including the famous tower 7 spectacular), killed Kennedy, and have been laying plans for the UN/FEMA mass murder of Americans let him continue dishing the dirt.

There are a few theories on why that is, some interesting reading in my opinion. It is obvious that they censor him, just look at Youtube. Some of his videos show 300 hits on some days, on a different account the video shows millions. They don't like the guy, that's for sure. You would have to prove that for yourself though, since anything I could offer would be speculation and conjecture.

Re:Perpetual war

[Anonymous Coward]

We have been cutting taxes for the past ten years. It has not worked. There is no non-ideological reason to think that cutting them again will help.

Sure there is. It's called "making sense". If we were to put a sane tax structure (instead of the ones both parties keep proposing and passing), taxes would increase in some areas and decrease in others. Maybe that is not quite what you were referring to because most people tend to focus on the either / or scenarios our glorious leaders keep proposing, but what they propose sucks.

Cutting taxes across the board won't help. Raising taxes across the board won't. Raising taxes just on the rich won't help. Only passing something that is fair and sane will bring us what we need.

Re:Perpetual war

[fldsofglry]

Just because Republicans voted based on party ideology, doesn't mean it was just "rammed" through. I would suspect that the Republicans didn't vote for it because it would be seen as a "black mark" on their voting record to their constituents. The proper procedures were followed to create the law just like any other law. Republicans had input on it. I didn't say it was bipartisan supported (as we all know that isn't the case). I said they had input. Because they had input rmeans it wasn't "rammed" through. The supreme court, which has Republican majority, who upheld the law. That is our democratic process; majority rules for better or for worse. I am sorry it didn't meet your expectations.

Re:Perpetual war

[Holi]

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires that “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

Your long post with all that research and yet I need only one line to prove you wrong. If you actually watch how a budget bill goes through you see that when the President "introduces' his budget he has it sponsored by a representative. Same as when a senator introduces a budget (It must be sponsored by a representative to pass the constitution test)

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit

Re:Well

[flayzernax]

Amen.

Shows you where their priorities are

[mbstone]

They have time to debate and pass secret warrantless wiretapping, but not to keep the price of milk from going up to $7.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

They have time to debate and pass secret warrantless wiretapping, but not to keep the price of milk from going up to $7.

who gives a poo about Milk, it's unhealthy anyway. :) I'm all for warrantless eavesdropping. Having the Govt able to see if i cal my mom or if i send a text to my wife saying i'm at the store buying dog food is a small price to pay for increased security and making sure some d-bag doesn't bomb a plane that i'm on.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[zer0vette]

They have time to debate and pass secret warrantless wiretapping, but not to keep the price of milk from going up to $7.

who gives a poo about Milk, it's unhealthy anyway. :) I'm all for warrantless eavesdropping. Having the Govt able to see if i cal my mom or if i send a text to my wife saying i'm at the store buying dog food is a small price to pay for increased security and making sure some d-bag doesn't bomb a plane that i'm on.

agreed.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[flayzernax]

Yet if you own your own secure communications network you are completely immune to this (gov, millionair+, corporations). And those are the guys they need to be monitoring, not joe blow smoe txt pothead shit across the webs.

We have attributed far to much risk to individuals. Therefore individuals privacy - poof.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives a poo about Milk, it's unhealthy anyway. :)

Do you realize that this is going to negatively affect the price of pizza, cheetos, cheese whiz, and anything else made of, or with cheese? OK, well maybe not cheetos or cheese whiz, but the other stuff for sure.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[flayzernax]

Soy milk with aluminum shipped in from china is still good to go!

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

or see your wifes vagina when she sends you a dirty pic because you are working out of town.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

They have time to debate and pass secret warrantless wiretapping, but not to keep the price of milk from going up to $7.

Milk is disgusting, why should I care?

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[mcgrew]

who gives a poo about Milk, it's unhealthy anyway. :) I'm all for warrantless eavesdropping.

Having the Govt able to see if i cal my mom or if i send a text to my wife saying i'm at the store buying dog food is a small price to pay for increased security and making sure some d-bag doesn't bomb a plane that i'm on.

agreed.

You're both noncomposmentos. Milk is what comes from a mother's tit and is the healthiest thing you can have; it's only unhealthy if you're lactose-intolerant.

Your chances of dying because some dirt bag bombs your plane is orders of magnatude less than your chances of dying because of a mechanical malfunction or pilot error takes it down.

How many people do you know pwesonally who've died because of terrorism? How many have died on the highway? Died from cancer? Died from heart disease?

You are both fools and idiots. Congrats on the stupidest comment I've seen all week.

Now please go back to Yahoo or fark or wherever you came from, slashdot was designed for folks with at least average intelligence, not mentally deficient folks like you two who can't tell the difference between three thousand and three million.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives a poo about Milk, it's unhealthy anyway. :) I'm all for warrantless eavesdropping. Having the Govt able to see if i cal my mom or if i send a text to my wife saying i'm at the store buying dog food is a small price to pay for increased security and making sure some d-bag doesn't bomb a plane that i'm on.

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. (paraphrased)

-Benjamin Franklin

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the moment you realize he was talking about his opponents (those who would choose to side with Britain), the quote takes on an entirely different meaning, but who cares? It makes a GREAT soundbyte!!

Frak ya'll.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one want the govt to change my diapers as well, you have no idea what terrorists can do while we take a milk induced dump.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[__aaltlg1547]

Regulating the price of milk is not their job. Making rules about how federal laws are enforced IS their job. Disagreeing with the rules is one thing. Whining about milk is just whining.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be argued that the price of milk is a many factored problem that ties into federal banks, international banks, the military industrial complex, monsanto, and big oil. Monopolies, and other such things that I think the OP is alluding too. Were too busy fucking eachother locally and globally to simply run the country, ensure that people have water, and can produce their own power, and food.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for further degrading the quality of conversation here by encouraging obvious trolls. Not only are you dumber than the person you replied to, you're dumber than the strawman he erected for you, too.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[BoberFett]

Of course you realize, that the reason milk prices could go up is because someone long ago decided that the price of milk WAS in fact the job government?

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=8804bd07-7cfd-4fb7-9d0e-9c0a90fc7501

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[volmtech]

The TSA is not supposed to catch terrorist, they are a deterrent. All the stories about over the top inspections sends the message, the TSA will catch you, no need to even try. While some objects have gotten by them, no actual terrorist act has been attempted since the TSA was implemented. Personally, they could all go home . I don't fly and those that do can take their chances.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[flayzernax]

Hahah nice one BoberFett =)

Honestly this is a good thing the government was doing for dairy farmers. To bad to see it may go away.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not just airports. Have you tried getting a job as an Ordinary Seaman, or going to your local courthouse with some toenail clippers?

The TSA are designed to desensitize us and push a few people on the edge over into being useful idiots for the power elite to go "see that guy is a crazy nut we saved you". Mostly that guy was just pissed he got fucked over by the TSA in a private room in the back of an airport.

The people working for the TSA don't have a clue or don't give a shit. Are not necessarily to blame. And are just as much sacrificial lambs in this as you or I. The people who like terrorism love it when TSA and us conflict with each other.

If the TSA just was polite and efficient and didn't fuck over ordinary citizens and refused to follow ridiculous orders. We'd be half way there.

If we all voted and peacefully protested this bullshit and we couldn't process one days worth of governmental bureaucracy, it would fix the other half, but the police and TSA would have to be on our side for this to work.

Otherwise you just create more conflict and us vs them.

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[gagol]

So the plan is to spend whatever scrap change remains in your nation's treasury. When the process completed you will find it was not jealousy or greed that motivated anti-american movements... good plan, cannot go wrong at all!

Re:Shows you where their priorities are

[volmtech]

That doesn't mean it's a good idea. After any crises Congress flails about trying to "do something", even if it's wrong, and if that is not effective, spend twice as much. It will be interesting in a macabre sort of way to see what happens when the money supply runs out. I'm afraid we wont have long to wait.

Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 2008..

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewed by a Democrat controlled Senate in 2012.. They have time to take away freedoms from the populous but no time to pass a budget, in 4+ years....

Fire them all I say

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire them all I say, useless idiots all they want tot do is make sure that the population does not get out of control and rebels.

A country that has a "secret court" of any kind

[PeeAitchPee]

should not be referred to as a democracy (or a democratic republic, for that matter).

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[crazyjj]

Passed by a Democratic Senate and House, signed by a Republican President, renewed by a Democrat controlled Senate and Republican controlled House, signed by a Democrat President. It's one of the few bi-partisan issues left.

Both sides can't agree on much of anything else, but they can both still agree to be evil. How touching.

Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Wasn't it Senate majority leader Reid whining about the "Fiscal Cliff" yesterday? Is this what he's been working on instead?

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[mrsquid0]

The Senate has done everything that it can to resolve the upcoming sequestration. The problem is that some Republicans in the House of Representatives are deliberately trying to prevent a deal from happening. The Speaker of the House cannot even marshall enough votes from his own party to pass a piece of legislation that he introduced.

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[geek]

The Senate has done everything that it can to resolve the upcoming sequestration. The problem is that some Republicans in the House of Representatives are deliberately trying to prevent a deal from happening. The Speaker of the House cannot even marshall enough votes from his own party to pass a piece of legislation that he introduced.

That's because Boehner didn't introduce it. He took Nancy Pelosi's plan and said "fine we'll go with this one" to which Nancy Pelosi and Obama then called "Not a serious offer". Your buddy Obama hasn't held talks with Republicans on the fiscal cliff in 7 weeks and only met with them today for a little grand standing.

It takes two to tango asshole. If you'd quit pointing fingers and blaming the fucking minority party long enough to take your head out of your ass you'd realize that.

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[mrsquid0]

Both sides have been talking for weeks, the problem has been that one side, the Republicans, have refused to go beyond token compromises. The House could have passed Boehner's Plan B, but they refused because it contained a small tax increase. The nut-jobs won. This is not a case of it taking two to tango. This is a case of one group of people threatening to crash the car if the driver doesn't go where they want to go. No amount of cursing is going to change that.

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[geek]

Fuck you they have. You're just making shit up now. THEY HAVE NOT HAD A MEETING INT HE WHITE HOUSE FOR 7 WEEKS. Period. End of discussion. Your precious democrats have done absolutely nothing since the elections thinking they had a mandate and could get whatever they wanted without discussing with the R's. Now the ship is about to sink and all you wanna do is blame the R's for not bending over and taking it up the ass for Obama. THEY ARE THE OPPOSITION PARTY. It is their JOB to oppose shit. Both need to bend and make concessions which Boehner did by adopting the Pelosi plan and then having Pelosi, Reid and Obama spit in his face. He's now about to lose his speakership because he bent so far over it pissed his own side off.

So fuck you very much. Take your lies and bullshit and shove them up your ass. I'm tired of you friggin leftwing jackwds lying every time you open your fucking mouths. Just because you say something doesn't make it true asshole.

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, give me a fucking break. Your "minority party" has enough of a stranglehold on the process to have prevented ANY of the dem proposed legislation attempts from getting through, even proposals they themselves put forth earlier. So now, once in 4 years, the dems are pulling the same thing and you are whining?

FUCK YOU AND ALL THOSE THAT WOULD DESTROY THIS COUNTRY JUST TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT LOOK BAD OR PROVE A POINT.

Your hate will destroy not only your enemies but you as well.

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is, now taxes will go up on the top 1% (and everybody else) anyway. Congrats, Grover Norquist.

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you they have. You're just making shit up now. THEY HAVE NOT HAD A MEETING INT HE WHITE HOUSE FOR 7 WEEKS. Period. End of discussion.

WTF are you talking about? 7 weeks ago was Nov. 9. Get a grip and take some anger management therapy.

http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-fiscal-cliff-meetings-offers-counteroffers-123117665--politics.html

Re:Got that "Fiscal Cliff" resolved then, did you?

[Anonymous Coward]

blah blah blah

See which bastards voted for it

[petsounds]

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

It only takes one Democrat president to veto it. Funny how you drop party label for that.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Nyder]

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

Washington State voted no because they know the gov is going to use them warrant less eavesdropping against it. Colorado apparently had 1 senator too stoned to vote no.

Well, I guess all the senators that voted yes are cool with them being wiretapped. After all, it's for their safety.

guess it's time for encryption to go mainstream, of course, it will be illegal to use any encryption soon...

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to build that artificial trackable portfolio so I can still get great jobs in government. Use encryptian full time and engage in class warefare with the people to poor or stupid to do the same.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[PPH]

Actually, I'd like to see the photos that the FBI/CIA/NSA sent to each Senator with the understanding that they'd better vote the right way. Or else.

Uh, ..... actually no, I wouldn't.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

What president would veto receiving more power?
It's sad, but be realistic. Power grabs are a bipartisan theme.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[afidel]

Thank you! I'm glad to see that my Senator (and former Representative) Sherrod Brown voted nay, in fact that only thing that he's done in his entire time in office that's seriously surprised and upset me was cosponsoring PIPA which he did not because he was beholden to the industry but rather because he believed in the goals of the legislation (I strongly disagree with him on that of course, but at least he wasn't just voting for his corporate masters like so many in Washington).

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[besalope]

Here's the vote of each Senator on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

It only takes one Democrat president to veto it. Funny how you drop party label for that.

In that case, don't forget that it was Republican Representative Lamar Smith [R-TX21] that introduced the renewal in the House that started the renewal. Honestly, both parties are the problem and the labels mean little at this point.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You mean "Democratic" president.
2. I'm pretty sure everyone who cares knows what political party the president belongs to.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[fyngyrz]

Montana: 2 senators, both dems: NAY, NAY

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[fustakrakich]

This country is broken.

Yes, we broke it ourselves. Every day we break it a little bit more.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[dkleinsc]

The "bipartisan consensus" viewpoint in Washington DC has these basic views:
1. The NSA, CIA, FBI, and DoD are completely trustworthy organizations that can be given complete control over the lives of US citizens.
2. Large corporations, especially big business, are the cornerstone of the American economy. To keep the economy going, do exactly what the CEOs of these corporations say to do.
3. Political protesters are either a totally pointless annoyance, or a Threat to America.
4. Taxes are penalties.
5. People in charge are in charge because they're better in every way than the people who aren't in charge.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Wrath0fb0b]

Here's the vote of each Senator [govtrack.us] on this bill. Only 23 voted Nay, only 3 of those Nays were Republicans, and 4 Senators didn't even show up to vote. And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

This country is broken.

Broken relative to what? Those bills tend to be pretty popular, I doubt 23/100 Americans would vote against it if it were put to a referendum. Heck, a small plurality support warrantless wiretapping even in the US, which makes me severely doubt that you could find much opposition to wiretapping international calls where one end is not a US citizen.

Now, I don't like it (I'm definitely in the 23/100) but willful blindess to uncomfortable facts does not seem to me like a valid (or effective) political strategy. Nor does complaining about "broken" or "treasonous" politicians that are implementing the will of the voters.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[petsounds]

Broken relative to what? Those bills tend to be pretty popular, I doubt 23/100 Americans would vote against it if it were put to a referendum.

The U.S. Senate exists -- in addition to giving small states equal power to larger states -- to provide more measured and wise deliberation of issues facing the country, in contrast to the House more aligned with the will of the people. That the Senate would again approve legislation so counter to the ideals of liberty which the United States was founded upon, speaks to a failure of the system. That the House, Senate, and Supreme Court would choose spying on the people they serve instead of upholding a central tenet of the United States signals a brokenness in the system.

For the record, that Gallup poll is flawed. The language they use is charged -- "terrorist", "George Bush passed after 9/11". Instead of just asking, "Do you think your government should be able to wiretap your communications with no judicial approval or oversight?" I think the results would've been quite different. Or maybe I'm wrong, and people are even more complacent than I imagined.

Re:See which bastards voted for it

[Anonymous Coward]

And President Obama is quite ready to sign it into law.

Indeed. He voted for FISA in 2008, and it cost him my vote in the presidential election. Not that it matters.

Fuck a lawless country that says it isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the laws are in conflict and the 9-deep robe party isn't doing the job, who the fuck will?

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Capt James McCarthy]

And yet for all the rhetoric that the press keeps pumping out about righties and lefties, the general public keeps eating it up. All the while it doesn't matter who gets voted in. Both 'sides' will screw the public. The real rouge, it's the govt against the public, not the righties vs lefties.

U.S. Senate Says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck it fags!

Next week, we're hiking your taxes and cutting your services. What are you gonna do about it!

Santa renews what?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. Makes sense, actually.

It's funny...

[Charliemopps]

It's funny how our government can easily pass laws like this that the public is almost universally apposed to with very little effort what-so-ever. But when it comes to balancing the budget, something we're almost universally in favor of, they can't do a damned thing.

time for ubiquitous PGP

[Anonymous Coward]

And we don't have widespread use of PGP for private online communications (emails, chats, texts, etc) .... umm... why again?

Because it's fucking trivial to set up, and it stops this kind of government snooping dead in its tracks. It's built into many mailers, is a trivial "add-on": to others, and it's available in Pidgin and other texting clients. It's out there, all we have to do is use it. It's time to take back our privacy.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[lightknight]

Anyone else for a drug in the water supply which has people forget their party affiliations? Everytime you wake up, you have to re-examine the issues to know who you are supporting, and why...

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[anagama]

Glenn Greenwald has some great analysis on this vote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/28/fisa-feinstein-obama-democrats-eavesdropping

Wyden yesterday had two amendments: one that would simply require the NSA to give a general estimate of how many Americans are having their communications intercepted under this law (information the NSA has steadfastly refused to provide), and another which would state that the NSA is barred from eavesdropping on Americans on US soil without a warrant. Merkley's amendment would compel the public release of secret judicial rulings from the FISA court which purport to interpret the scope of the eavesdropping law on the ground that "secret law is inconsistent with democratic governance"; the Obama administration has refused to release a single such opinion even though the court, "on at least one occasion", found that the government was violating the Fourth Amendment in how it was using the law to eavesdrop on Americans.

But the Obama White House opposed all amendments, demanding a "clean" renewal of the law without any oversight or transparency reforms. Earlier this month, the GOP-led House complied by passing a reform-free version of the law's renewal, and sent the bill Obama wanted to the Senate, where it was debated yesterday afternoon.

This is of course in contrast to his pre-election 2008 promise to oppose the original bill (which he didn't do, voting for it instead). Now he loves it so much, he won't countenance any modifications.

Democrats: The New GOP.

Putin: Bring Back The Wall!

[l0ungeb0y]

Seriously -- things were so much better when we had the Red Scare to keep our Government busy.
Ever since the Berlin Wall fell, it's been a constant War On The People.

Can the US and Russia please just go back to hating each other?
I've had it with my government truing to come up with new and improved ways to infringe my rights.

Re:Putin: Bring Back The Wall!

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful what you wish for.

A secret court is better than none

[jjo]

Most people don't understand that, under current judicial precedent, warrantless wiretapping of international communications is constitutional, needing only the approval of the Executive Branch. The secret FISA court is a legislative attempt to regulate this executive power. Without FISA you would have a secret bureaucracy making the decisions instead of a secret court.

Re:A secret court is better than none

[PeeAitchPee]

Transparent, real public court is the only just, acceptable alternative in a truly democratic society. Just because the Executive Branch abuses this judicially-sanctioned power (like it does with so many other powers these days) with or without the oversight of a sham "secret court" does not make it just or acceptable.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Smallpond]

I'm trying to find a roll call on the amendment but I don't think it's up yet. Here's what I found:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:5:./temp/~bdPthc::#locshare/share

Thomas makes it hard to link, so if this doesn't work its Senate amendment 3438

Just an extention of US Export Controls

[redelm]

Rail all you like but the US you think you knew _never_ existed. The US has always exerted strong jurisdiction and controls of both imports (Morrill Tariff caused the US Civil War) _and_ exports. Most people know about imports but few know about US Export controls which date back to 1790 with a prohibition against exporting straight pine logs useable as ship masts and spars by the enemy of the day, Great Britain. The current lists are rather long and complex -- search on CCL and EAR.

It should come as no surprise to information-workers that some of these controls cover intangibles like information (xDxxx and xExxx series codes), especially when these can be viewed as "products" and not "free-speech". To avoid running afoul of the US Const 1st Amend (and potential invalidation by courts), the export regs have exemptions for certain types of public materials like conferences.

So these intercepts, however distasteful ("Gentlemen do not read each others letters") have an established basis in law a power-grabbing government is happy to seize. Their oath "protect and defend the Consititution" seems to mean "push up as hard as we dare against it, joyfully crossing the line when we can find a good enough justification".

Re:Just an extention of US Export Controls

[flayzernax]

Your right, but there has always been limitations to how they could use this against us. The key point here is technology makes what you describe to be a much worse and deep problem.

You usto be able to live in the west and smuggle if you disagree'd with what was going on in the east during the civil war. The power elite literally had to march an army across 20 indian filled states to stop you.

Re:Just an extention of US Export Controls

[dkleinsc]

(Morrill Tariff caused the US Civil War)

No it didn't. Slavery and the fear that Abraham Lincoln would put an end to it caused the US Civil War. Don't believe me, believe the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union which was passed by the South Carolina convention days after they voted to secede:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Re:Just an extention of US Export Controls

[flayzernax]

This was reserved for extreme cases (the Alamo). Not trivial disputes in Utah or Arizona, or California. This is why hollywood is in California. Because they had the freedom to set up over there. It was a bad business venture in the east.

Re:Just an extention of US Export Controls

[redelm]

Why is the Convention date 26 Apr 1852, but the doc "adopted" 1860? I suspect political shenanigans (of which that States are fully capable). Slavery was safe (for a while) in the South after Dred-Scott.

Re:Just an extention of US Export Controls

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard compelling arguments that the civil war was more about banks and economics then slavery. Slavery was just the crutch that was used to push people apart and start the war.

Re:Just an extention of US Export Controls

[dkleinsc]

Because you're misreading the first line: That's not the convention date, that's a reference to a similar convention 8 years earlier.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to know a secret? When you refer to the "Democratic Party" as the "Democrat Party", it makes you that much easier to identify as a partisan nutjob. Is it that hard to acknowledge the legitimate failings of a political party you disagree with without resorting to hostile epithets?

who votes for these morons???

[chris.alex.thomas]

oh right.....yeah....that'd be a whole bunch of you guys......

oh well, I hope that bed you made is lovely and warm!!

Re:who votes for these morons???

[Anonymous Coward]

The elections this year, and the last were definately a sham, more so this year. Its rigged.

The people should get warrantless wiretapping

[Anonymous Coward]

of any Senator who voted for this. Of course they wouldn't have anything to hide, since they're so honest. Crapo, the teetotaler who got a DWI couldn't possibly be hiding something.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats: The New GOP.

I sure can't wait until the old GOP collapses and we get an actual liberal party to oppose the new GOP.

Ron Paul

[cod3r_]

Does not approve.

I know, let's GIVE 'EM MORE MONEY!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's for RAISING TAXES so these guys get EVEN MORE MONEY AND POWER?!!?!?

Yay!!!

Next God-damned time you vote for someone who's on the side of raising taxes, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS THE MONSTER YOU'RE FEEDING!

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Anonymous Coward]

*rereads GP*
Scratch that, the term is used correctly in that post and title. Consider my rant a non sequitur.

This is how liberty dies....

[Anonymous Coward]

With thunderous applause.

Re:This is how liberty dies....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/riker.gif

terrorists watch out!

[faustoc4]

Those terrorists will learn, oh wait

2008 USA = 1981 Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 2008 the USA has started to look a lot like the 1981 Egyptian "State of Emergency" that has lasted 30+ years.

Guess it's better than a full blown revolution, that would give the politicos free reign in rewriting the bill of rights.

Re:2008 USA = 1981 Egypt

[dkleinsc]

Actually, Egypt's state of emergency ended in May, several months after Mubarak had been kicked out.

Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[jjo]

Unfortunately, even the most democratic society has enemies that seek to damage or destroy it. Intercepting their communications is one of the most effective ways to counter such people, and such interception would be futile if it had to be publicly announced beforehand.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

Those secret communications are to and from people in positions of power. Not people working at walmart or playing on their xbox's. Hence why there needs to be limitations on such things as eavesdropping.

An ultimate goal of any democracy aught to be robust and generaly good to all under it, without constantly increasing levels of secrecy, deception, and general 3 letter agency tom-foolery.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, even the most democratic society has enemies that seek to damage or destroy it. Intercepting their communications is one of the most effective ways to counter such people, and such interception would be futile if it had to be publicly announced beforehand.

Which is why we had legal ways to gain temporary exceptions to our normal rights.

The problem is when we expand those exceptions to the point where they are no longer exceptional and our original set of checks and balances become null and void.

At some point, you have to either say "enough is enough" or admit that democracy (democratic republics for you nitpickers) was a failure and no more valid than the Soviet Union. Which is what we are increasingly becoming like as we continue on this safety-over-liberty toboggan ride.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[PeeAitchPee]

Ah, you mean the "terrorists," like the ones Feinstein claims have been caught on US soil? Before that it was the Communists. I'd gladly take on the risk that one of those evil folks might actually, you know, exist, and then actually might be able to do something bad, than allow closed-door, rigged kangaroo courts and further destruction of civil liberties in this country. If you want to wiretap a US Citizen, then get a warrant. Period. Otherwise, go pound sand. I'd rather be truly free and allow for the possible existence of some "enemies" (with a tiny few of those real but the vast majority imagined) than cede my rights in exchange for promised security, but in reality be no more safe.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[jjo]

If you grant that a society must sometimes intercept the communications of its adversaries, you must also grant that such interception must be done in secret, since it is otherwise useless.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

How secret is secret? I agree with you. That it doesnt work without secrecy as mentioned:

Most people don't understand that, under current judicial precedent, warrantless wiretapping of international communications is constitutional, needing only the approval of the Executive Branch. The secret FISA court is a legislative attempt to regulate this executive power. Without FISA you would have a secret bureaucracy making the decisions instead of a secret court.

But, they do need strict limitations and checks to remain "For the general welfare and defense of the united states". Hence my argument that the current legislation is in a mode of failure. Its allowing the 3 letters to randomly crap shoot. Not target specific individuals, with specific motives, and a specific ability to damage our country. Were doing that just fine by ourselves.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[jjo]

If you want to wiretap a US Citizen, then get a warrant. Period.

How do you get such a warrant except behind closed doors? Are you proposing that all wiretap warrant applications should be public? Are you proposing that every target of a wiretap application should be informed of it and allowed to oppose it in court? This would make the wiretap a joke. Maybe that's what you propose: abolish wiretapping, with or without warrant. If so, then law enforcement will be severely hampered and people will indeed be less safe.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

Wiretapping one person through secret judicial proceedings is different then tapping an entire ISP were communications may have passed to Iran. Its like using a nuke to take out a meth lab.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[jjo]

But if you admit that secret judicial proceedings are necessary in handling wiretap applications, then the entire argument against the FISA court falls apart. If the FISA court is an illicit 'kangaroo court', then any court considering a wiretap application is illicit as well.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

But now that everyone knows they are being wiretapped all the time for basically trivial reasons makes the whole thing pointless. The real bad guys (TM) are untraceable at this point.

If there was a jury in a room with a judge and someone from an agency defending the united states saying "we need to watch this guy". The jury it self could be sworn to secrecy. Voilation of that secrecy would serve as a basic check against evil privacy invasion. Because if the investigator/prosecutor could justify to the peers of the individual being spied on that it was a valid argument. It would all happen in secret. If not it would be found out.

Its a simplistic approach and maybe not the right solution, but a judge may or may not be all you need, but that judge needs oversight, and that person overseeing that judge needs oversight. At some point the trail of secrecy has to end and has to reach the public. Hopefully that point is AFTER the information gathered turns out useful and the bad guy (tm) is caught.

Right now its just wide open for abuse and not much oversight by anyone at all. Except maybe 100 people. And god knows what the NSA, CIA and other agencies are doing with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds is a good example of how this shit is not working. She's a great person for pointing out the flaws in the system and trying to do something about it.

I believe the whole point of this kind of secrecy was to stop direct threats to the government itself from foriegn interests. The foreign interests that are a direct threat to us are so far out of the scope that no secrecy is going to oust them. They are the ones using the secrecy to cover their tracks at this point.

Not to harras the shit ouf of a poor crazy man named Earnest Hemmingway for visiting cuba on occasion.

Not to keep tabs on how the population feels and what a few random crazies are blogging about from time to time. Not to hunt down people on facebook.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[jjo]

Tell the victims of 9/11 or the Madrid bombings or the Tokyo subway gas attack that 'terrorists' don't exist. If any court hearing a secret wiretap application is, ipso facto, an illicit 'Kangaroo Court', then we are giving carte blanche to anyone inclined to mass murder.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

The point I was trying to make by linking Edwards Sibel is that 9/11 could have been stopped if it wasnt for the mess that secrecy had created. Its not secracy or else.

The FBI knew about the first time the towers were going to be bombed.

I'm not even going to try and come to any conclusions on the Tokyo sarin gas attacks, thats an entirely new mess shrouded in conspiracy.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

Hell, I'll bite, the government of Tokyo let the cult leader who is responsable for the subway attacks loose prior to the attacks. They had this guy, they could have charged him and put him away but he got let loose. He never faced punishment for what his cult is alledgedly accused of.

These are not random ordinary citizens in general we need to worry about. These are special cases. Not something that can be fixed by a blanket legislation like the original article is talking about.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

Ok some corrections, the cult leader is in Japanese custody and has been convicted. He's currently being evaluated for insanity, his execution keeps getting postponed. I may be incorrect on the details of his incarceration prior to the attacks.

Needless to say the japanese had ample evidence to keep an eye on him and his compatriates for a long time, yet didnt act until after the bombings. His cult was nothing knew and had already had clashes with the government before.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[flayzernax]

Ok, binspam me all you want but I feel the need to be accurate and clear here so I am posting what I can.

In the summer of 1994, Aum established its own "government" in opposition to the Japanese government (Reader: 81). Similar in organization to that of the Japanese nation, Aum’s governmental structure promoted Asahara’s personal "imperial aspirations" (Reader: 82). On July 9, 1994, a serious gas leak lead to reports of Aum members running in gas masks from a facility building. Trees and grass in the area suffered evident, unnatural damage (Reader 78). Finally, in January 1995, the link between the Matsumoto incident and the gas leak was made public (Reader: 83).On March 19, 1995, police entered Aum headquarters in Osaka and arrested three members for an alleged abduction of a disruptive, disobedient member (Reader: 85).

On March 20, 1995, in the midst of morning rush hour, ten highly placed members boarded five trains at different stations. At a predetermined point in time, the ten members punctured bags of sarin wrapped in newspaper with umbrellas as they left their trains (Reader: 86). The Kasumigaseki Station suffered the worst of the attack. The time and place appear to have been deliberately selected, as Kasumigaseki Station is located under many government offices and the National Police Agency’s headquarters (Reader: 87). Twelve people died and thousands were incapacitated in this March gassing (Reader: 87).

You will see that the police raided Aums headquarters on the 19th of march, one day prior to the attacks. There is some confusion around all of this. This is what I'm refering to.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_aum01.htm

You cant stop terrorism with secrecy. You need a sane and rational government doing sane and rational things to stop terrorism.

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bad argument. There is no reason for these courts to be secret. The only reason they need to be secret is to hide from us the fact that they are arresting people who did not commit any crime except wanting to to receive due process..

Re:Secrecy is sometimes necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you see someone breaking into a store do you yell STOP THIEF? maybe call for help? Or do you secretly and quietly report it to the local magistrate. What if that magistrate is in the thief's pocket? Do you put the store under 24/7 surveillance then use that as an excuse to put everyone's store under 24/7 surveillance. Some organization has essentially promoted legislation that lets them watch every storefront because the new rage in town.

It could be argued that all the terrorism that has been happening is a direct result of the government watching and waiting for excuses for more control. The end result of it is they'll be in charge of all the bad shit that happens therefore they will be in control and it is all for your own good.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly (paraphrasing Ron White here) you can't fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take, nor a drug you can introduce into the water supply.

Stupid is forever.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[Atzanteol]

Can't this get modded up more! Nothing underscores the need for a third party to supplant one of the existing parties more than this.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[keytoe]

Democrats: The New GOP.

For the record, both of the amendments mentioned in your quote were proposed by Democrats. Both from Oregon. This rampant anti constitutional behavior is orthogonal to party division. There are douche bags and sane people on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[painandgreed]

Democrats: The New GOP.

Well considering that the Republicans are just Southern Democrats from 40 years ago that switched sides after the Democrats backed civil rights, it's only appropriate. Look at the Tea Party: Southern Conservatives in favor of states rights and leaving the union because a black man in in charge. 40 years ago, they were blue dog Dixiecrats.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[dkleinsc]

This rampant anti constitutional behavior is orthogonal to party division. There are douche bags and sane people on both sides of the aisle.

Although, as this vote demonstrates, it's not evenly divided: The sane ones were 3 of the 47 Republicans, 19 of the 51 Democrats, and 1 of the 2 independents. 4 ducked their job responsibilities entirely. According to this vote, your best bet for sanity is electing an socialist-leaning independent, followed by a liberal Democrat, followed by a libertarian-leaning Republican. Centrist Democrats and conservative Republicans will happily vote to screw you over.

Those bastard republicans!

[csumpi]

And that no good Mitt Romney! Oh, wait a second...

Anybody notice

[synapse7]

So far, this news is only being covered by tech blogs, huffington and the guardian.

Re:Anybody notice

[gagol]

Real medias are too busy downsizing its news staff et send whatever remains to cover some Hollywood sandals.

Where are your guns?

[Xarvh]

A step closer to dictatorship...
Where are all the 2nd Amendment stalwart protectors now, those bastions of freedom?
Where are those who need their guns to rise in arms against a tyrannical government?
Where are those explaining that the first thing that a dictatorship does is to take away your guns?

How much do I have to wait, how far will this go, before I see them putting their money where their mouth is?

Re:Where are your guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're too busy writing angry Facebook posts about the Instagram ToS update.

Re:Where are your guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of them are not as psychotic and power mad for war and revolution as your sarcasm seems to allude to. Many people would rather we resolve this mess peacefully.

We repeal about 100 laws and fix a few bits of the constitution.
Break up a few monopolies
Get over our 2 party electoral system (designed to keep us occupied from working together)
Create social equality
Provide people a means to contribute to society (without this artificial economy)

Afterwards we move on with our lives socially, happily, together into a new age of prosperity where technology makes resources plentiful and people are respected and loved for their creativity and point of view rather then ridiculed and segregated into internet clans and fear mongered into meaningless 9-5 routines that serve only 1% of the population or less.

It can work, people in communities do get together and work things out if they are permitted to without interference from the rich power elite.

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[anagama]

There are one or two outliers in either major party. Those outliers should be tossed from the data set because they are completely unrepresentative of the mass of those in the DNC or GOP.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

i bet that is your life mantra..

A [insert anything here] is better than none..

Californians Vote Dianne Feinstein OUT !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Internet freedom is precious and want government to stop then vote Dianne Feinstein OUT!!!!

Re:Passed by a Democrat controlled congress in 200

[keytoe]

There are one or two outliers in either major party. Those outliers should be tossed from the data set because they are completely unrepresentative of the mass of those in the DNC or GOP.

While that may be true, they account for 100% of my elected senators. I'm not keen on them being 'tossed from the data set'!

Revolution is impossible

[fyngyrz]

Bread and circuses. That's all it takes. Look no further than your television and sports spectacles, your McDonalds and your grocery store if you're looking to explain public apathy.

If asked, most US citizens couldn't tell you what the constitution says; they couldn't tell you what the authorized powers of the government are; they couldn't even recite the bill of rights to you (much less explain what they mean in 1790's terms.) Ignorance is rampant.

There will be no revolution -- it's impossible in the USA at this point in time. Guns or no guns.

Re:Revolution is impossible

[Xarvh]

I do agree with everything you say.
The fact that my sarcasm is not taken as such is even more troubling.

Re:Revolution is impossible

[gagol]

There will be a revolution, things will not get better over time and jobless people have all the time of the world to think about inequalities. The process may take some time, you may not see it, but it will fall, epically, eventually. My opinion of the thing: either the US government will be broke soon, your social fabric will be shattered by the strong economic policies or USA will become a full fledge openly at war with much of the rest of the world in the hope to kill all its creditors.

Re:Revolution is impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

So...if they are hungry, just let them eat bigmacs. Just like the House of Bourbon of France believed there would be no revolution. All I've got to say is: "do not stand in the way of the mob once it starts".

Re:JEWS Renew Warrantless Eavesdropping Act

[gagol]

I strongly disagree. It is a Mossad problem... I get you think of Mossad sponsored telecom companies like Amdocs. Just dont transpose your hate for a secret service to the people it is supposed to represent. If we are to open this door, well just imagine being personally responsible for the actions of the CIA, DHS, NSA, you get the picture...

Slippery Slope FAR behind us now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember ten years ago when some people warned,
"This is a slippery slope!"?

And how so many here on Slashdot pooh poohed the idea?

Just sayin'