Supreme Court Disallows FISA Challenges

New submitter ThatsNotPudding writes "The U.S. Supreme court has rejected pleas to allow any challenges to the FISA wiretapping law unless someone can prove they've been harmed by it. 'The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was originally designed to allow spying on the communications of foreign powers. But after the September 11 attacks, FISA courts were authorized to target a wide array of international communications, including communications between Americans and foreigners. ... In this case, the plaintiffs' groups said their communications were likely being scooped up by the government's expanded spying powers in violation of their constitutional rights. Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case. In an opinion (PDF) by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that these groups don't have the right to sue at all, because they can't prove they were being spied on.'" Further coverage at SCOTUSblog.

Comments

FOIA, anyone?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Taco Cowboy]

Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.

Back in the 1960's and 1970's, that strategy worked.
 
Now?
 
With almost all the seats inside the system being occupied by people who are leaning towards the BIG BROTHER I am afraid the regular old-style "attacks" will become less and less effective

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[interkin3tic]

Possibly, but they're still the most effective tactics I can think of short of, I dunno, voters voting to preserve their rights.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[YrWrstNtmr]

With almost all the seats inside the system being occupied by people who are leaning towards the BIG BROTHER I am afraid the regular old-style "attacks" will become less and less effective

It mostly works for 'them'. Repeated variations of CISPA, etc. Until something sticks.
All we can do is but try.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

Voting is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner in case you ain't figured that out yet. the ONLY ones you will be allowed to vote for, be it in a primary or general election, are the pre-bought. hell you might as well have only one checkbox that says "support the system" because that is ALL voting does. Even though I'm in no way a libertarian (I feel their beliefs would end up with a return to feudalism) watch this video for a better explanation of why voting is just a waste of time.

Oh and you might want to look up "Jon Stweart Ron Paul" to see how badly the primaries are rigged, he got footage that doesn't even try to hide how badly its rigged. It even shows that at places where Paul might have had a snowball's chance in hell the MSM treated him as "he who shall not be named" with talking heads practically tap dancing around their sentences so they would NOT ever speak his name, with it going so far as one naming the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers without even saying the words third place much less the fact that Paul took it. Its so bad that at the end of the video one of the reporters actually calls the anchor out on it, saying "Here we are talking about Palin and Christie, who aren't even running, and not speaking anything about Paul who is looking good in the polls here" and the anchor looks right at the camera, gets a douchebag smirk and says "If you get footage of Palin or Christie send it in, you can keep the Paul stuff". Hell he might as well have said "fuck the peasants, thinking they get a choice" while he was at it, because that douchebag smirk said it all.

So all you can do is grab as much as you possibly can and be ready for the collapse which is inevitable now. Over 430% of our GDP is now in the stock market, including the retirement funds of a good portion of your fellow citizens, when the 29 bubble burst it was less than 125% GDP and that took nearly 40 years to climb out of, what do you think will happen when a bubble 3 times as large blows? there is nothing you can do to change it, nothing you can do to stop it, you can wave your little banner in the free speech zone all you want, the die is cast and the collapse simply can't be stopped. We shall see the system get more and more fascist as the collapse nears as they try to "maintain order" but it won't do any good, when the money is worthless and it takes a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy an egg nobody is gonna listen to big bro anymore, the whole thing will come tumbling down. But things will get a LOT worse before that happens, so be ready for it but don't think that walking into a booth with a piece of paper is gonna do shit, that paper isn't worth wiping your behind with anymore.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one and only one way to overrule SCOTUS without resorting to violence.

Say it with me: Jury Nullification.

There. That wasn't so hard.

If enough juries take cases involving illegal wiretaps and nullify the holy living shit out of FISA, it'll be such a spotty legal landscape (nullification is restricted to the jurisdiction the jury ruled in) that the TLA's won't be able to use it without heavy liability. That will render it effectively useless to them.

Remember, "we the people" isn't just prose. It's a legal framework, and it's constitutionally backed. Inflict this blowback upon the government. They've been just begging for it for a long time. Grow a pair and nullify some shit every time you get a chance. It's either that or bitch about getting jury duty. Might as well stick it to the fuckers that disrupt your life, right? Civic duty meets civil disobedience. Call it "civic disobedience".

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Dishevel]

how about this.
Fuck you SCOTUS.
Fuck you Politicians.
Fuck you Republicans.
Fuck you Democrats.
Fuck you Mr President.
Fuck you Congress Critters.
and
FUCK YOU public employee unions. (Union vs Private companies is fair.)

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Mitreya]

Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.

While this is a good idea, remember the exciting time we live in. The current administration is blocking challenges to FOIA the drone-related legal memos, because officially, they can neither admit nor deny that the drone program exists (secrecy didn't stop Obama from bragging about the program's success though). And the courts side with the government instead of laughing at them!

Soon, all FOIA/court challenges will be answered by "We can neither admit nor deny that we are the Government. Admitting that we are, in fact, the Government you name in your FOIA request would threaten national security."

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Mitreya]

If enough juries take cases involving illegal wiretaps and nullify the holy living shit out of FISA, it'll be such a spotty legal landscape (nullification is restricted to the jurisdiction the jury ruled in) that the TLA's won't be able to use it without heavy liability.

What are you smoking, exactly?? Who the hell modded you up?

Jury nullification carries absolutely no weight in any other case, no matter how closely related. There is no precedent set. There is no way for a defense lawyer to argue it. All it does is help set the current defendant free, nothing more. (Yes, IANAL, but I am still fairly certain about this)

Nor does FISA court have a jury, being a secret court and all. It is more of a judge panel.

Also, I hear that if you mention that you are familiar with the term "jury nullification", you will likely be removed from the jury before you get to put your ideas to a test.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[anagama]

One more point, not directed at you -- everything you said was right -- but at the jury nullification [fantasy] crowd.

This case never got to the trial phase. The case the SC decided was on a pre-trial procedural issue, i.e., do the parties who brought the suit have standing such that they are harmed parties who have the right to sue the government. The SC decided they do not have standing because they don't conclusively know they were spied upon, and that as a result: there will NOT be a trial. If there is no trial, there is no jury, and thus no chance for jury nullification.

At this point, the only way these abuses will ever be addressed, is if we get a whistleblower. Then harmed individuals would have standing at least, but before those conclusively harmed parties get to a jury, there's the State Secrets Doctrine (rooted in Air Force coverup of negligence) to get through, and the Federal Courts fall all over themselves trying to suck the DOJ's dick on that issue. Assuming the extraordinarily unlikely event that one is a conclusively harmed party, finds out about it, AND the State Secrets Doctrine isn't abused to trump your right to trial -- after that, maybe you'd get to present a case to a jury. More probable however, is that the Feds would just retroactively immunize whoever, like they did with AT&T.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yeah, same damn treatment they gave Pigasus, the bastards.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[pyro_peter_911]

Just a couple of weeks ago during my round as a potential juror the judge plainly stated that he would tell the jury what the relevant law is and how it should be applied. The jury was only to determine the facts of the case and if those facts ran afoul of the relevant law as described by the judge. He asked if any of us had any questions about that.

I asked if a not guilty verdict could be reached on the basis that the relevant law was immoral, unconstitutional, or would otherwise result in an unjust verdict.

Short answer: No.

(and this is where this becomes a rant...) So, this is the point where I get punted. The Fucking Crack Whore sitting next to me in the jury box made it deeper into the jury selection process than I. I was one of the few people in the room who appeared even remotely interested in the proceedings. Now I understand why so many fucking cases get plea bargained. I wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands a few semi-literate rednecks and a half dozen WWII vets. The first round of juror culling eliminated just about everyone that I would have wanted on a jury for me.

So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?

Peter

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Darby]

Even though I'm in no way a libertarian (I feel their beliefs would end up with a return to feudalism)

Exactly.

Pure Classical Liberalism is pretty much summed up by, We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are created equal (under the law).

Left and right are best defined by the ways in which they oppose this ideal.
The left says, "I agree, but the power of the state must be used to promote this equality."
*Extreme* leftism has problems such as:

Everyone is equally poor.
Some pigs are more equal than others.

The right in any way shape or form has problems such as:

I was born better than you and therefore you should serve me.

The canonical example of the right and why right and left are defined as they are is the pre-revolutionary French Assembly.
The representatives of the church, crown and aristocracy sat on the right. The representatives of the people sat on the left.

When Liberalism ( the principle upon which modern western society is premised) was proposed it was, literally, revolutionary.

"Conservative" as a political term was coined to mean "Anti-Liberal" in that sense of Liberal.

It has never changed in meaning.

Pure Liberalism is an unstable equilibrium. It's in a sense like trying to balance a pencil on its point. Maybe you can do it for a moment, but it will fall over given the slightest push.

The difference between Liberalism and a pencil on its point is that pure Liberalism will always fall to the right.

This is the fundamental flaw in Libertarianism/Randroidism and other such childish ideas.

Right wing / conservative politics are by definition driven toward the goal of creating a society where the elite are kept in place by the design of the system and the rest of the people exist for their purposes.

We're not serfs laboring on farms, so *neo*-feudalism is a better term in my opinion. Close enough though and it's why what you're saying isn't just a "feeling", it's the way things naturally will always be without active intervention to prevent it from happening.

All you have to do is look at how things have always been and how they've always gone if they ever moved away from that position.

 

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[The Snowman]

Oh and you might want to look up "Jon Stweart Ron Paul" to see how badly the primaries are rigged, he got footage that doesn't even try to hide how badly its rigged. It even shows that at places where Paul might have had a snowball's chance in hell the MSM treated him as "he who shall not be named" with talking heads practically tap dancing around their sentences so they would NOT ever speak his name, with it going so far as one naming the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers without even saying the words third place much less the fact that Paul took it.

The party bosses decide who will get the nomination. Every once in a while they don't, but it is a choice between two douchebags and not one douchebag and someone who actually cares about his constituents.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[MaskedSlacker]

Don't forget that half the sheep hate the other half and will gladly vote for THEM to be eaten. Here's how it goes:

Election #1 Democrats: 2 wolves + 10 sheep / Republicans: 10 sheep

One Republican sheep is served for dinner.

Election #2 Democrats: 10 sheep / Republicans: 9 sheep + 2 wolves who campaign on a platform of "When those guys were in charge, one of you got eaten!"

On Democrat sheep is served for dinner.
.
.
.
Election #20 Democrats: 1 sheep / Republicans: 2 wolves.

The sheep are all dead, and now the wolves get to starve too! Society collapses! Hurray for democracy!

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[MaskedSlacker]

I asked if a not guilty verdict could be reached on the basis that the relevant law was immoral, unconstitutional, or would otherwise result in an unjust verdict.

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: If they said no, they lied to you (which, incidentally IS legal for them to do). There are no requirements placed on the jury that govern the validity of a verdict. The jurors can rule not guilty because the sky is blue, if they are so inclined. The jury can use any basis they want to reach a verdict. They cannot be subject to penalty, and a not guilty verdict pretty much cannot be overturned (depending on how the jursidiction in question defines double jeopardy).

Of course, if you point out the real state of the actual law you get punted yes. There's some logic to it besides pure state fascism (cops, relatives of cops, people associated w/ the legal profession etc. all get booted pretty much right off too), but it is a fucked up system.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[phantomfive]

Your evidence of a conspiracy is that a news anchor was smirking at Ron Paul? You might want to rethink that one.......

Also, you are measuring wrong. The GDP is a measurement of income, the stock market is a measurement of assets. Those are different things. It is common for conspiracy idiots to mess up simple things like that because it makes their point sound impressive.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[0111 1110]

You do realize that the founders of this country were 100% Libertarians themselves and that the All Men are Created Equal thing was one of their Libertarian slogans, right? Based to a great degree on the philosophy of John Locke. If you care about rights, human rights, individual rights, natural rights, whatever you want to call it then you are speaking the language of Libertarians. That's what Libertarians are all about: positing that all humans have certain inalienable rights that a government can neither give nor take away. That just exist as a natural consequence of being human.

The whole point of Libertarianism is that people should not be treated as if one is superior to the other. Creating a level playing field without aristocrats was the whole point. That's what human rights are all about. The reason why humans are considered to have rights, equal rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was because some people realized that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do, to force them to act against their will. That no man has the right to make another man his slave no matter how righteous he may think his goals are. Whether the noble goal is to "kill all the jews, gypsies and undesirables and create a pure race" or "soak the rich" or "Only corporations are full citizens."

That all humans must be treated as equals is the whole point of Libertarianism. Not to make everyone equal, but to not favor one man over another. Not ever. If you are under the illusion that Libertarians are close allies with Republicans, either of the new 'compromise is everything' variety or the old fashioned Tea Party ones you couldn't be more wrong. If anything I would say we are more like the old style Democrats, the ones who founded the ACLU in the first place.

When it comes to class warfare we just don't care. It's irrelevant to our way of thinking. A classless society is every bit as much an ideal for Libertarians as it is for Communists or Socialists and Democrats and Republicans don't really even have goals like that. Talking about philosophy at all isn't really speaking their langauge. Pragmatism is the only language they speak.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[sincewhen]

Which helps explain why they are going all out to crush Bradley Manning. Not just convict him, but totally destroy his life. This will set an example to potential whistleblowers - your life will effectively be over.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

The thing that no libertarian has been able to answer for me convinced me it would be nothing but some sort of neo-feudalism which is thus: If I have money, and no law to stop me, WTF is gonna keep me from just hiring my own goon squad and helping myself to your land, your women, or any other damned thing I want?

This is why libertarians remind me of the religious, they believe that somehow "magic" for want of a better term would keep people from becoming total dickbags. I say just look at history, you have rich evil men hiring goon squads to take what they want all the way back to the first writings. Knights, Pinkertons, Blackwater, its all just variations on a theme, which is 1.- Gather money (gold, land, whatever), 2.- Hire goon squad, 3.- Take as much shit as you want and make everyone bow before you. this is where the kings of old came from, the barons, hell look at ANY of the old money, either side, and its ALL dirty backstabbing shit.

The problem with ANY pure "ism", be it socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism, is that no matter how they word it they simply have no answer for those that abuse their systems for gains, hence why the Soviet state had elites, capitalism unfettered had the robber barons, all libertarians would do is remove even the chance for legal penalty so that those with power could be as evil and sick as they wanted with zero risk....this is supposed to be BETTER than what we have now?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Rakarra]

The thing that no libertarian has been able to answer for me convinced me it would be nothing but some sort of neo-feudalism which is thus: If I have money, and no law to stop me, WTF is gonna keep me from just hiring my own goon squad and helping myself to your land, your women, or any other damned thing I want?

Not a libertarian, but I can answer that easily enough -- your situation is anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians believe in a strong police force and legal system to enforce private property rights and punish violence. It's one of the very few things a libertarian thinks government is necessary for.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Rakarra]

Ron Paul never had much of a chance in the long term, but that's because his positions on issues did not reflect the values of most voters. Nonetheless, he was shamefully treated by his own party, and part of that was because he was a libertarian running as a Republican. The Republican establishment knew he wasn't really a Republican, and treated him as such. Paul admitted as much, saying (paraphrased) that running from the Republican Party was the only way libertarians could really gain much support in the short term. He probably didn't really gamble on the dismissal he'd get from party bosses.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Rakarra]

This case never got to the trial phase. The case the SC decided was on a pre-trial procedural issue, i.e., do the parties who brought the suit have standing such that they are harmed parties who have the right to sue the government. The SC decided they do not have standing because they don't conclusively know they were spied upon, and that as a result: there will NOT be a trial. If there is no trial, there is no jury, and thus no chance for jury nullification.

This is an extremely important point that non-lawyers will just brush past. Non-lawyers often think that anyone can (successfully) sue for anything, but 'standing' is important in the legal world. In a way the SC ducked the issue in this suit, but what it means is that people damaged by FISA wiretaps will have to bring the suit, then the SC might hear it.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[dywolf]

way to completely ignore that whole individual rights thing.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Classless societies, treating everyone equally, etc. is not what Locke wrote about. Created equal, yes. But once you're past creation, and especially once you've created a system of money, all bets are off. Anyone who acquires money is free to acquire as much money as they want, and do damn near whatever they want with it. Classes very much emerge in a system like this -- the people with lots of money, and the people without. It's not the sort of class system that Britain had (and still retains elements of), or the caste system of India, but it's a class system nonetheless -- the sort of class system that we have under capitalism (which only emerged some time after Locke's death).

Oh, yeah, and you can have slaves, as long as you decided to be merciful and not kill them (such as prisoners of war). If you were in a position to 'legitimately' kill someone and decide not to, then by all means they're your slave according to Locke. Roughly "Good night, I'll probably kill you in the morning.".

And modern Libertarians? They're really just anarchists who still believe in money.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Hatta]

Jurors are "obliged" to reach a verdict based upon the law as it stands.

Correct, and the Constitution is the law of the land. Jurors are obliged to acquit when the charges are unconstitutional.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Hatta]

So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?

Correct. These people are not honorable, do not treat them as such. They lied to you in order to send more people to prison, regardless of their actual guilt. They are thugs and criminals.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[bluefoxlucid]

Oh and Re stock market: it doesn't work like you think. Money doesn't vanish in the stock market. There is no money in the stock market. There is money changing hands for goods--securities. You put $50 in, that means you gave me $50. I have $50. You have a pink slip. You hope someone else will give you $75 for that pink slip and you'll be $25 richer. When the market collapses and your pink slip is worth $5, I'll pass you $5 back and be $45 richer, and when the market bounces back I'll do it again.

When the bubble bursts, it just means you can't get your money back anymore. That money doesn't disappear; the stock market isn't rigged either. I've played the market and for fun I bootstrapped at 1% per day--that's turning $3000 into $28 MILLION in 1 year. I quit after a month, ahead of my goals. Do you know why? Because FUCK THAT NOISE, if you play that hard you'll shoot yourself in the face. Traders are the most up-tight, twitchy, jittery assholes. They learn to sip champagne and look haughty and really they need a diaper because they're constantly shitting themselves. I know why.

The market is a place for fools. It's like a poker table: those poker veterans see the fish coming, and they know how to win. They know the odds, they can take the odds. YOU can't. They will win, and you will lose, and you're all playing the same rules, and you just suck.

When you can get up at 4am, read the world markets, read MarketWatch, read all the other news, read the stuff that amateur big-time winners groan at (Seeking Alpha is much maligned, but I liked it), even leverage questionable Chinese advice (Bedford/Paragon) and idiots on Yahoo's forums (CongoBuster was some kind of diviner), and understand that Cramer is a moron and yet understand the significance of whatever he's shouting about, and do the technicals, and the fundamentals, and get ahead on emerging markets, and notice when money starts to flow out of a growing bubble and into something low and stable (that means the BIG WALL STREET TRADERS are slowly migrating out of FINANCIALS and into BASIC MATERIALS, which means get out of FIN because the housing bubble is about to pop and invest heavily in Materials!)... and then at 11 at night go to sleep with your mind racing, and have terrible nightmares...

... then maybe your retirement accounts won't wind up empty.

The concentration of money does make the country poorer. It's less efficient. Wealth is not entirely about money--I'm a very rich man, and I'm not sitting on a cash pile. I'm richer than people making twice as much as me. Why? Because I know how to manipulate debt--I bought a house a few months ago, and I'll have it paid off in 3 years and I make $65k and I'm $3000 in credit card debt. I would have preferred a market with a standard 14% interest rate, it would have been better for me (the buyer), would have bought a bigger house. When I'm done, I'll have $2000+/mo free cash to spend or stuff into savings... a comfortable life, a good house, flexibility. That efficiency is wealth. Barely scraping by flitting all your money away on things that don't make you happy is poverty.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[bluefoxlucid]

The important thing about that kind of philosophy is, like all philosophy, it's airy bullshit. There are NO NATURAL RIGHTS. There is nothing "natural" about the right to free speech: it's the exact opposite, with speech having consequences, with angering powerful people (governments or brutish bikers) leading to severe consequences. You only have a "right" to what you can keep.

Humans are social creatures. Due to the above effects, severe insecurities arise. You are never safe because you can be raped, murdered, and robbed at any time. Thus humans form groups--gangs--for protection. These groups are brutal, and eventually coalesce into tribes with structured rules. Tribes become broader societies with police forces and government. Nations.

Our "natural rights" in theory come from the fact that there are a lot of us and very few of them on high. We fought off the British. There are 300 million Americans and 0.5 million people in the Military, most of whom aren't keen on suppressing the "natural rights" of other Americans, and at least half of whom will immediately defect if put up to the task. With their guns. Possibly with entire bases. We can guillotine all these motherfuckers if they push us the wrong way.

The sad truth is that we look to our Glorious Leaders these days instead, hoping that they'll hand down new "Natural Rights". The UN says the Internet is a "natural right"--this isn't something the people of Europe fought for, it's something that was murmured and the Powers On High made a show of it to give witness to their benevolence. The UN and the US are always acting as defenders of "Human Rights", going into places they have no business and forcing tyrannical governments to convey certain privileges to the people they are abusing. They position themselves as the greater power that gives us our so-called "rights".

"Rights" can't be handed down from on high. They don't actually exist, so they cannot be given. "Rights" are exactly the product of what makes them impossible fantasy: something which must be taken. The natural order is to beat people and take the things you want; we take our rights by forming groups that are stronger than individuals and other groups, and demanding our rights on pain of vicious brutal beatings and death. They cannot be handed down to us because there isn't actually anything to hand down.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[ciggieposeur]

Libertarians believe in a strong police force and legal system to enforce private property rights and punish violence.

So what stops the police from becoming the goon squad?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Penn Jillette made the same point to me when we were going back and forth on Twitter (always a productive medium). But it's a clumsy paradigm -- there are lots of ways to oppress and subjugate people that a police force and a legal system can't protect against. Protecting my body against foreign invaders or a guy with a knife isn't much good if I'm dying from pollution in the water or being thrown out of my house by a bank that doesn't actually own my property. And "private property rights"? Do we redistribute all wealth equally before we begin the libertarian experiment? Or do we turn to the billionaire standing next to the homeless mother and say to them both, "Congratulations, this is now a libertarian country. You're free to do whatever you want with your property, with no government to get in your way. Have fun!"?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Rinikusu]

There's the fringe Anarcho-Libertarian branch, heavily influenced by Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard and others. There's the von Mises/Ayn Rand branch that are much more numerous, as you note, who do want a minimal (police, courts, military) government.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[JosKarith]

I'm sorry but my brain keeps confusing Ron Paul with Ron Jermy... it does make political discussions more amusing though...

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[IndustrialComplex]

If enough juries take cases involving illegal wiretaps and nullify the holy living shit out of FISA,

I think I found a problem in your premise. When do these things ever make it to juries in the first place?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Sarius64]

Every time I read rants in this class I think of the Clintons and the Gores. Funny how these economically poor people became wealthy through bribes. Some bribes more open than others, e.g., Armand Hammer.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[interkin3tic]

the ONLY ones you will be allowed to vote for, be it in a primary or general election, are the pre-bought.

How does that work exactly? Ron Paul was allowed on the primary ballot.

Oh and you might want to look up "Jon Stweart Ron Paul" to see how badly the primaries are rigged, he got footage that doesn't even try to hide how badly its rigged. It even shows that at places where Paul might have had a snowball's chance in hell the MSM treated him as "he who shall not be named" with talking heads practically tap dancing around their sentences so they would NOT ever speak his name, with it going so far as one naming the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers without even saying the words third place much less the fact that Paul took it.

I was paying attention when it happened. I'm aware of the theories that he didn't win because the media ignored him. A simpler theory is that he didn't win because he wasn't socially conservative enough to win the primary, and wasn't compelling enough to convince people who weren't already with him to join him.

Either way had voters voted in their interests, for him, he would have won. Instead they voted for Romney, plainly against their interests. Because keeping pot illegal and tax cuts are more important than their rights.

I think you have an overly cynical view of the voting system but a ridiculously optimistic view of the voting base. No conspiracy is needed: the voters really ARE THAT DUMB.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[fustakrakich]

You do realize that the founders of this country were 100% Libertarians themselves and that the All Men are Created Equal thing was one of their Libertarian slogans, right?

Um, no. Many of the founders were privileged aristocrats who wanted to maintain their aristocracy. Read up a little on Hamilton and Adams.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[fustakrakich]

...at least half of whom will immediately defect if put up to the task.

What, and join the Confederacy? America's deadliest war ever was fought on its own territory, and it was entirely a domestic dispute.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[fustakrakich]

So, as the saying goes, a libertarian is merely an anarchist who wants the police/army to protect them from their slaves?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Yaur]

On a macro level, it wouldn't be long before chaos ensues, society collapses, and what actually takes form in the end is more akin to tribalism; one big, roaming group taking everything for itself and screw everyone else, too bad so sad. If you're a part of that group, it's great for you, but if you're not in that group, it's terrible.

No,no, no. What really happens is that Jim and his neighbors band together, creating a police (or military if there are enough bandits) force to protect their stuff and a set of rules what their collective police force can and can't do... lets call them laws. In other words, states emerge very quickly from anarchy and historically the states have pretty much always won out over the roving groups of bandits.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Raenex]

Either way had voters voted in their interests, for him, he would have won. Instead they voted for Romney, plainly against their interests. Because keeping pot illegal and tax cuts are more important than their rights.

You forgot foreign policy. He was actually booed during the primary debates for proposing the Golden Rule. I'd love to know how many of the those same people consider themselves Christians.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[interkin3tic]

Not that it matters, but I'm not in that party. I was going to register as a republican to vote for him in the primary, but wouldn't have voted for him in the general election. A move precluded that action though.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Unfortunately, that's about the level of anti-libertarian screeds. They don't understand the difference between government telling a crook he can't steal your wallet and government telling you who you can't marry.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

At best, that suggests amelioration of the rough edges, while harnessing the undenied power (power the left relies on heavily to generate taxes).

How did "homeless mothers" do in societies that seize all wealth via command-and-control? Those experiments are not over. These are not issues, to borrow a phrase from the ruling, "discussed in the rarified atmosphere" of academia. There are strong correlations between economic freedom and general well-being, which have been used to make successful, counter-intuitive predictions which came true. Repeatedly.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

Then Jim says "Lets tell them dirty thieving niggers to stay the fuck out of our area or they swing!" and welcome to mob rule. Jim Crow didn't last for nearly a century without the mobs supporting it, this is the problem with mob rule. when my great grandfather came over every place had signs that said "No Chinks, No Micks, No Niggers" which is why so many Irish ended up in the hollows in places like AR, because frankly other than a few enclaves in places like Boston they really didn't have a choice.

The current system could always be improved but we have seen what the alternative is, which is great if you are the ones on top, sucks royally for everybody else. You can argue that blacks are disenfranchised or whatever but they ain't swinging from trees anymore, which is better than what we had before.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

This is why I think the USA gov will end up either just bribing or nationalizing the ISPs and telling the media corps to STFU (maybe give them some tax as a bribe) and open the net to all, its a cheap "bread and circuses" that lets them monitor the populace, have LOTS of dirt on them (BTW did you know the leader of your movement is into shemales and goat porn?) while giving them endless entertainment to keep them occupied. There is a reason why bread and circuses as a concept has survived over 2000 years, its because IT WORKS. your populace will put up with a LOT of shit if they have food and entertainment, the net solves half that equation with little expense.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

Do I HONESTLY have to spell it out, the money (printed by the fed and backed by nothing but hot air) equal to 400%+ of our GDP is NOW in the market? Fuck I don't want to sit here and waste time explaining what I shouldn't have to spell out, watch watch this video and look at the graphs starting at around 3.30 and see for yourself. again while I'm not a libertarian (if anything I'm more a social democrat) its hard to refute his arguments that the current system is just unsustainable.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

To me what proved the GOP is now the "rich old white people" party was how many cheered the idea of letting a 22 year old hurt in a car wreck die if he didn't have money to pay for his treatment. if that ain't a rich old white people sentiment I don't know WTF is, its about as far from any christian values as one could get yet it fits right into the greed of rich old white people. I should know as I've had to work for rich old white people and frankly I'd rather work for the pothead or the white trash than a ROWP because honestly they are just better human beings. I've had a ROWP threaten to raise my rent because I dared to charge her the standard rate for a repair job while the pothead brought me a pizza and smokes when I was feeling poorly, not because he owed me anything or wanted anything, just because "I heard you was feeling a little rough and figured this might make you feel a little better" which with the fattie he brought? Actually did make me feel better.

This is why I have pretty much given up on voting, we really only have one party left as the right ran out all the fiscal conservative and libertarians and pretty much anybody that wasn't a ROWP and now only gets any votes by race baiting and classism, which frankly is a shitty way to run a party but that is what you get when you have a party that would cheer a kid dying rather than part with their money.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

And in BOTH cases the end result is feudalism and classism, the only difference is the first branch hires a good squad and the second branch pays a goon squad through their taxes but no matter how you slice it they both end up with a handful living like Gods while the rest are no better off (and in many ways worse off) than the serfs of old.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Even though I'm in no way a libertarian (I feel their beliefs would end up with a return to feudalism) "

"Exactly."

Holy Crap. You sure don't know much about Libertarians. (And that's a big "L", by they way... same as you capitalize Democrat and Republican.)

The Libertarian Party of the United States are strict Constitutionalists. In this way, they are very similar to the so-called Constitution Party, who are also Constitutionalists, but the views of the latter are also staunchly Christian... they believe that this is a Christian country and we should have Christian laws (whatever that means). Whereas the Libertarians take freedom of religion seriously.

I fail to see why you seem to think that a return to actual Constitutional law somehow equates with "feudalism". Or could it be that -- and I think this is the much more likely scenario -- you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

Wow. Talk about airy bullshit!

"There are NO NATURAL RIGHTS."

Then you're living in the wrong country. THIS ONE was founded primarily on the idea that there are, in fact, natural rights.

"Our 'natural rights' in theory come from the fact that there are a lot of us and very few of them on high."

I don't know whose theories you've been listening to, but that's complete bullshit. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both based on the idea that humans have rights, from the time they are born, simply by nature of their humanity. That true rights are something Government has neither the power to bestow, or to deprive.

Granted, sometimes it takes war to secure those rights. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Any more than fighting a way over someone trying to occupy your land. So you think that is an indication that the land doesn't actually exist?

When one argues philosophy, it generally behooves one to formulate arguments in such a way that they avoid proving themselves wrong. Fail.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

s/fighting a way/fighting a war

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works."

The FIRST time someone is wrongly convicted of a felony -- or even maybe just on trial -- and the prosecution presents evidence that came from warrantless surveillance, expect it to go back to the Supreme Court. It will then have standing.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

In my experience, lots of people have libertarianism confused with anarchy.

FOR ALL YOU CONFUSED PEOPLE:

Libertarianism (with a big "L", as in the actual Libertarian Party) is a party of Constitutionalists. They want to get back to Constitutional law, and get rid of all the unconstitutional things the Federal government has been doing. (And man, is that list a long one.)

Most Libertarians are not "Randists". While there are a few similarities in their philosophies, Libertarians also differ hugely from Rand's philosophies on some issues. True followers of Rand call themselves Ojectivists. Libertarians and Objectivists are more different than today's Democrats and Republicans. So stop insulting people. Objectivists have their own political party.

Libertarians are provably nothing like anarchists. They advocate a return to Constitutionality and the rule of law. Anarchists, on the other hand, advocate no government. There is a rather huge difference there. And again: Anarchists have their very own political party.

I happen to know some people who demonstrated themselves to be die-hard Objectivists and Anarchists, and were politely asked to resign their membership in our local Libertarian Party chapter, and to go somewhere more appropriate. I'm not talking about rabble-rousers or troublemakers; just some people whose personal philosophies were clearly not Libertarian.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[pyro_peter_911]

Thanks for the reply. I will consider that in the future.

Peter

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[pyro_peter_911]

So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?

Correct. These people are not honorable, do not treat them as such. They lied to you in order to send more people to prison, regardless of their actual guilt. They are thugs and criminals.

That's largely how I feel. Maybe next time I'll just nod and smile and see what happens.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

This isn't a conspiracy theory, but FOIA will get shot down in this case. It's been pretty well established that FOIA doesn't apply to national security issues, which is what this easily falls under. Again, not a conspiracy theory, because it's already been done.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[phantomfive]

Do I honestly have to spell out the difference between assets and income? Are you that dense that you don't realize the stock market represents assets? Wake up!

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

Which part of MASSIVE BUBBLE do you not comprehend? Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just trying to troll? Because I handed you the graphs which clearly show that even during the biggest boom the USA EVER HAD, the post WWII manufacturing boom, the stock market stayed pretty stable. Reagan comes along and pumps everybody's retirement into wall Street? Suddenly we have this huge bubble, we've had to throw billions more in just to keep it propped up a little longer but it WILL blow, all bubbles do. And when it does you can be as fucking obtuse as you want, you'll be able to wipe your ass with $100 bills because frankly TP will be all they are good for. Ever hear of Zimbabwe, or is that a little over your head?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[bluefoxlucid]

So your idea is that because you imagine something existed, write it down, and found a large socio-political group around it, it's real?

Can I interest you in Islam today? There's this book called the Al-Q'ran, it contains all absolute truth...

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[redlemming]

More probable however, is that the Feds would just retroactively immunize whoever

It can be shown that not within the legal authority of government at any level in the US to provide immunity or a pardon for violations of fundamental rights. This can be demonstrated using a technique of logic known is proof by contradiction, attributed to Euclid, from thousands of years ago.

The proof proceeds as follows: We assume that the government does have this authority. Then, any fundamental right can be violated by government as no penalty for doing so can be imposed. Thus, the government can violate any rights that might otherwise be retained by the people, or reserved to the people. However, the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights specifically provides for the existence of such rights. We have a contradiction, and thus the original assumption is shown to be false: the government can not immunize its members for violations of fundamental rights.

Any court rulings to the contrary would, of course, constitute a violation of the judge or judge's oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. This applies to judges at any level, including the Supreme Court. By a similar argument (another proof by contradiction argument, the details of which are left to the reader), we can show that such persons have no legal authority to violate their oaths, and can reasonably go further and show that any attempt to violate such an oath immediately and permanently disqualifies the parties involved from holding any position of public trust or responsibility.

Further, under the Nuremberg Precedent, which can reasonably be asserted as arising under the 9th Amendment as a right "retained by the people", all members of government would have an individual and personal obligation to refuse to recognize as valid any court ruling, executive order, or other government action that attempted to immunize members of government for a violation of fundamental rights.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[phantomfive]

Your argument is that 400% of GDP is in the stock market, thus the stock market is overpriced, and a bubble. You are wrong. That ratio won't tell you if the stock market is overpriced or not. The people who are telling you that is does are idiots.

Do you know what percentage of the GDP of Zimbabwe was in the stock market, or is that just a place you heard of once?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

"So your idea is that because you imagine something existed, write it down, and found a large socio-political group around it, it's real? "

Wow. Talk about leaping to conclusions. Try again, Grasshopper. I was simply pointing out where there was a flaw in your logic. None of this was MY idea, at all.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[bluefoxlucid]

There are no flaws in my logic.

The last time I had this argument, it came down to the other guy in the debate finally breaking down under the stress and iterating that, yes, your so-called "Inalienable," "Natural," "God-Given," whatever "Rights" can be--he wouldn't say "taken away"--"Infringed" (like patents I guess) by evil dictators, by people with big guns, big fists, armies, etc. He continued to claim that they were a real, absolute, physical thing that always exists not because it's an ideal of philosophers, but because rights simply exist, as a fact, as an integral part of being. Then: he pointed me at political philosophers like Franklin and Locke.

That's a religious stance. "It exists because it is the beginning and the end." The realist understands that when you live in a dictatorship where secret police come into your house and murder you, you don't have "rights" that are being "infringed upon"; you have "a body of people that hasn't risen up and killed all these assholes, then put in the next set with the understanding that certain privileges will be conveyed or there will be guillotines."

Rights don't simply exist, beaten and trampled until the arms of Liberty pull them from the mud; they are brought into existence by sweat, blood, fists and steel. If you let your government misbehave, your rights aren't being "infringed"; they have been "eliminated". That people are convinced somehow these magical properties are something real has taught them that sheep and cattle will continue to be treated as gods... except one day we will move the cattle out of India and they will mindlessly follow.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Jane Q. Public]

"There are no flaws in my logic. "

Well, since you're convinced of that, there's no point in arguing, is there?

Have a nice day.

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove

[helobugz]

Or, it's what everybody know's and nobody can prove.

Re:It's not what you know, it's what you can prove

[PPH]

The context of that quote and the character that spoke it says quite a bit about the ethics of our courts.

The case was badly constructed

[Karmashock]

Rather then trying to sue the government they should have raised a constitutional objection to the law itself citing that it violated our right to due process as regards searches and seizure.

Had they done that, the courts likely would have sided with them.

It's important to remember that the courts are VERY concerned with protocol. Everything has to be worded and argued in a specific way or it will be dismissed like a syntax error into a compiler. Wrong wording or angle and they'll just say "wrong next case".

Make it a forth amendment challenge however and you've got a different story.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you can make excuses for the Supreme Court all you want, but it won't change the fact that they punted so they wouldn't have to man up and be responsible.

They have about as much integrity as the Taney Court.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[amRadioHed]

You can't just sue over the constitutionality of a law, you still need to have standing which based on the result of this case the majority believes they lack.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[amorsen]

Oh, if only they had read your comment before sending their lawyers to the Supreme Court. It is unfortunate that they picked lawyers who didn't know anything about proper protocol. Victory would have been assured if they had picked a couple of Slashdotters at random instead.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't live with the delusion that the Supreme Court is a WYSIWYG entity. They are just a shill for the Repubmocrat Tyranny, redefining Constitutional black as Constitutional white for the last century or so. Read the Constitution, then read the SCOTUS interpretation of it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-108sdoc17/pdf/CDOC-108sdoc17.pdf
You can see it is entirely for the convenience of the government and bears little likeness to the plain english document written "for the people"
Not asking for a tin foil hat here, just asking you to adjust your horribly misplaced faith.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[guspasho]

Courts won't take on such "advisory" cases. You need to prove that your rights have been violated in order to have standing to bring such a case. You can't just bring a case to a court and get a law struck down without such injury. I think it's a pretty terrible principle, especially since courts almost always defer to the government when it comes to the secrecy of evidence, and therefore its inadmissibility, making it impossible to prove any sort of injury in a court.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Problem is, the FISA courts are supposed to be all about national security. No way they'd come out and tell you that you're under investigation until you get blackbagged off to sunny Camp X-Ray. That'd defeat the purpose of the investigation, and whoever leaked that info would be violating several federal laws.

Big Brother has a long memory. And if you come to its attention, they might not find anything on you now, but that doesn't mean they won't find something to qualify you for a never ending vacation at Gitmo sometime in the future. Recently, the government came out with the revelation that the largest threat to national security is (wait for it!!!)...

Veterans.

Think about it a moment. Who else has the training and experience in toppling a government by force of arms? Who else, especially the older veterans, would tend to view the current government situation with alarm?

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

But to prove your rights were violated by a FISA investigation is impossible under the grounds of national security. Catch 22 writ large enough for anyone to see.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Chuckstar]

The court ruled that they have no standing. No standing means it doesn't matter what your argument is, the court will not listen.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[PortHaven]

They pretty much always do that. Most cases are declined from the Supreme Court unless actual harm is shown.

It's a pain, we've faced even in Pennsylvania where towns have passed illegal laws, but not enforced them. So we are unable to get the courts to strike them down. They just dismiss cases due to lack of harm.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Had they done that, the courts likely would have sided with them.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes it easier for you to sleep at night.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Repubmocrat Tyranny

"Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case."

"In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito ... The majority opinion was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts ... [Breyer] is joined in a dissent by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan."

False equivalence is false.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[WorBlux]

Standing is based on a specific and concrete harm alleged by the plaintiff. Read the actual ruling.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Nimey]

Thanks again Bush-the-Lesser Administration!

Re:The case was badly constructed

[WorBlux]

Dude, the case or controversy clause is black letter law, there is really nothing more fundamental to the legal process. It's not a matter of semantics, it's not a matter a failing to bring up an argument. It's a matter of failing to present sufficient factual basis to establish some loss, harm, or injury suffered by the plantiff. And keep in mind that a judge is required to accept all pleaded facts as true when considering a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. (The standard or proof here is beyond all doubt) And if you don't have standing no amount of assuaging the details and theory of the complaint will do you any good if it's found you don't have standing.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[JasoninKS]

Sounds about right. You can't sue without evidence. But we can't tell you whether or not there is any evidence because it would violate security even if we told you there wasn't any. But here, have this sheet of paper that's 100% covered in black swatches.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[flaming error]

Toppling a nominally civilized government by force of arms is stupid. Who should we shoot? Our local congressman? Our neighborhood cop?

A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.

The last time we threw out a government (our independence from Britain), was a bloody drawn-out affair in which our people were fighting Britain and each other, neither the loyalists nor insurrectionists had an objectively clear moral high ground, and were it not for some fortuitous flukes of happenstance, England's victory was assured.

India's independence was a bloody drawn-out affair in which one side was the clear aggressor, the people didn't kill each other, and England's ouster was inevitable - just a matter of time.

Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[__aaltlg1547]

Rather then trying to sue the government they should have raised a constitutional objection to the law itself citing that it violated our right to due process as regards searches and seizure.

Had they done that, the courts likely would have sided with them.

It's important to remember that the courts are VERY concerned with protocol. Everything has to be worded and argued in a specific way or it will be dismissed like a syntax error into a compiler. Wrong wording or angle and they'll just say "wrong next case".

Make it a forth amendment challenge however and you've got a different story.

No, they would have rejected it on the exact same basis: "Prove to us that your rights, in particular, were violated."

Re:The case was badly constructed

[__aaltlg1547]

The way you do it is you elect a Congress that is willing to enforce the law, and you get them to impeach the judges who won't enforce the law.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[nickmalthus]

The Constitution is pretty clear that "unreasonable searches" cannot be performed "without probable cause". We can deduce the government is intercepting every electronic communication through various leaks and investigations. I think any average American would agree that these searches are unreasonable and lack probable cause. Certainly there would have been no American independence if King George had this technology.

As for personal harm, the mere knowledge that the government is monitoring everyone's communications creates a chilling effect on the free flow of knowledge and ideas. Does anyone really want to associate themselves with political movements like Occupy Wall Street, even if they identify with their values, when they know the government is actively infiltrating and monitoring them? Has know one suffered mental anguish over expresing an opinion that may put them on a political watch list?

These so-called conservative judges, who are protecting the use of these tools of tyranny that Stalin and Hitler would have salivated over, will be remembered in history for their inaction to combat totalitarianism is America.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[bill_mcgonigle]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes it easier for you to sleep at night.

But the Supreme Court will protect us from the Federal Government because it's ... oh, wait.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[hairyfeet]

As much as I think Ayn Rand was a total hypocrite and a whackjob this is the ONE thing she got right, there are so many laws on the books now that frankly we are ALL criminals and at any time, for any slight, they can throw you in prison for as many years as they like simply because the laws are such a minefield now that just by breathing you are probably violating a dozen statutes.

I mean for the love of God we have no less than 2 people in prison even as we speak for thoughtcrimes folks, how much more proof do you need that Orwell got the time a little off but otherwise was right on the money? You have the guy who wrote the "pro pedo" book, he wasn't charged with actually DOING anything, just putting his thoughts on the subject in book form, and the second was a guy that was told by his therapist to write his fantasies about sleeping with underage girls down so they could discuss them in therapy. Again he didn't actually DO anything, he just put his thoughts on paper.

This is why I have always tried to support the ACLU and speak up, just as my grandfather taught me when he spoke up in support of the right of the Illinois Nazis to march even though Nazis dropped a wall on him and his squad at the end of WWII and he spent 2 years in a full body cast, its because you HAVE to support those with the unpopular cases because THOSE are how they get these bad laws rammed down our throats. Pedos, terrorists, racists, they use these as bogeymen precisely because they know how few will speak up for fear of looking like they support their views. Here is a perfect example, a law they ran through after the tragedy of 9/11 under the guise of "We must make sure it never happens again!" but government NEVER gets smaller or weaker, only bigger and more powerful, so now we are seeing these laws used as a blank check to spy on anybody that looks at them funny.

But its NOT the weapons training that makes the fascists fear the vet, its the fact that those who have suffered for their freedoms are the ones who covet it most dearly. As I said if anybody had a reason to hate Nazis it was my grandfather, the stories of what he went through, of having the PAK 88 used upon them, of seeing bodies blown to bits, yet he was the first to step up and tell all those around him "They deserve the right to speak, no matter what we feel about their speech they have the right to be heard" and THAT is what scares the fascist, the fact that the vets won't kowtow and will stand up and point out their lies.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Rob the Bold]

The way you do it is you elect a Congress that is willing to enforce the law, and you get them to impeach the judges who won't enforce the law.

OK. So it's the civil disobedience thing, then.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[colinrichardday]

And what if the government doesn't care about being seen as civilized?

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm merely a random AC making claims that people will ignore, but in this case I can't really blame SCOTUS for this decision.

In my non-AC work, I'm a court clerk, and we see cases thrown out all the time for lack of showing cause or standing.(That is, you can't sue unless either you're the one harmed and can prove it, or you have the right to represent someone who has been.)

In this case, the ongoing issue is the law itself, and the responsibility for it should rest on the shoulders of:
* President Carter, for signing the 1978 FISA bill into law.
* Congress as a whole, from 1978 to current, for either a) passing the bill or b) allowing it to continue.
* The public, for not putting forward candidates who understand that every law needs a method of challenging its constitutionality.

Specifically, you can't really blame any presidents after Carter, as they haven't had an opportunity to remove FISA, though you could make an argument that Bush approved the Protect America Act of 2007 which enhanced FISA. Likewise, issues of standing and cause must be settled before SCOTUS can responsibly hear the case. Additionally, jurisprudence being what it is, SCOTUS (since they're required to be impartial) can't offer any suggestions as to how to establish the attacks upon a law itself, so the burden of the failure to hear this case relies on the plaintiff in entirety.

As is, you can't get proof about FISA wiretaps due to it being classified, and you can't challenge FISA without that proof. There have been prior challenges[1], but as of yet none have been successful.

IANAL, of course, and this is not legal advice, etc...

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Post-FISA

Re:The case was badly constructed

[hairyfeet]

The funny part is one of the presidents that is looked upon as a "hero" is actually the one who destroyed the court. I am of course speaking of FDR and the "stitch in time that saved nine" because by holding a gun to their head to force the commerce clause (now so badly abused its a joke) into "fitting" a situation where a man grew feed on his own land for his own chickens he laid the groundwork for shredding the constitution and making a mockery of the amendments.

This is why to this day I think FDR should be held even lower than Nixon, Nixon at his worst didn't do as much to damage our country as FDR did.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Zontar The Mindless]

+1, spot on.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[dryeo]

Worst case, where the army sides with the government, see Syria. Best case, where the army doesn't side with the government, see Egypt. Even in the best case you'll probably end up worst then you are now. Imagine a rewritten Constitution with the Fundamentalists or any other special interest group having the most input.
The breakup of the country might be a good outcome but with the American military, including nukes, I have a feeling it would just devolve into war, nasty war too.
Another consideration is that no other country can really get involved, once again due to your immense military.
Really if your country wants to be more free, you're going to have to shrink your military first as a large standing army is always a threat to freedom, and it's really hard to see that happening.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[MaskedSlacker]

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/ Includes case law to 2010, instead of just 2002.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[0111 1110]

A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.

Yes, because getting run over by tanks and getting shot in the face by automatic weapon wielding 'peace keeping' cops or soldiers is what makes progress. I think shooting cops and congressmen is a hell of a lot better than that. At least it's a start.

But what you'd really want to do is secretly form a rebel army. A guerrilla military force of hundreds of thousands or even millions is what you would need to properly overthrow a first world government.

In the near future it would be a lot more about organizing people who believe things have already gone too far or soon will and then building secret manufacturing facilities and arms caches (wars are all about manufacturing of arms) than it would be about actually spilling blood. Shooting a few cops might be nice. Most are no better than blood thirsty, sadistic animals. But it wouldn't accomplish anything politically. Neither would killing congressman unless you managed to get all of them and even then new ones would just be voted in under the current system. No. You can't fight the system from within the system.

You have to step outside of it and look at the big picture and that is about gathering large groups of people who are willing to fight and die to derail the trajectory of this country toward its destiny: a true, 100% pure fascist democracy where human rights are completely ignored except on paper and the will either of the majority or of whatever rich corporations are most generous with campaign 'contributions' is enforced. With prejudice. That's the dystopia we are fast approaching and I don't think anything will stop it.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[TheRaven64]

This was a known problem with the enforcement of the US constitution when I was studying politics in school in 1998, and had been known then long enough to be in the textbooks that my school was replacing because they were falling apart. In a lot of other countries with a similar setup, you can challenge a law as soon as (or, in some cases, before) it goes into effect, and if you can show a hypothetical case of harm, then the law is declared unconstitutional and must be amended. In the USA, you must show harm to a specific individual. This means that laws that are known to violate the constitution can be enacted, and can be enforced. The only recompense is after the law has been shown to harm someone with standing. This is very difficult if you have a law that only violates the rights of poor people (or, in one notable historical example, native Americans) who find legal representation at that level difficult. It means that unconstitutional laws are far more likely to cause real harm, because they can't be challenged until someone is harmed, is able to prove it, and is able to get their case heard in the Supreme Court.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[hairyfeet]

It was dropped upon them by a Werwulf squad which was made up of nothing BUT Nazi fanatics, which is why they kept fighting after everybody else gave up. There wasn't nearly as many fanatics as there was just soldiers but they DID exist and they DID kill and plant what we would now call IEDs, just not enough to do anything about the outcome of the war.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[strikethree]

Recently, the government came out with the revelation that the largest threat to national security is (wait for it!!!)...

Veterans.

Seriously, you need to provide a citation or reference for this. It sounds like it should be true but that is not enough.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Marful]

Before they can do that, they have to show standing. I.E. they have to show that they were harmed/inconvenienced by FISA in some way.

It is the ultimate legal "chicken and the egg" situation. You can't "prove" you have standing to challenge the law until you can challenge the law so you can prove you have standing...

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Ash Vince]

A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.

A nice idea, but most of the american public will quite happily ignore you being repeatedly CS gassed until you pack it in and go back to work.

Has the new york cop who was filmed openly spraying women with CS gas simply because they were peacefully resisting what he wanted them to do ever been punished? Nope, because he was doing his job and doing his best to disburse the hippies as quickly as possible.

This sort of shit has been going on for years since the protests about Vietnam and will never change while very rich media owners (who also often own shares in industries benefiting from the thing being protested against) shape the public conciousness to the extent they currently do.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Rakarra]

Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.

Gandhi succeeded for one reason -- there were violent people on his side, not committing acts of violence in his name. Those rational among the British felt it better to deal with the non-violent Gandhi rather than the violent Indian independence movement. Without the latter, there were so many other ways to deal with Gandhi's movement.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Recently, the government came out with the revelation that the largest threat to national security is (wait for it!!!)...

Veterans.

Seriously, you need to provide a citation or reference for this. It sounds like it should be true but that is not enough.

Right wing spin
Centrist spin Left wing spin

The original report was in 2009, penned by Arizona's own Janet Napolitano, a Democrat elected as governor in a state where the only way a Democrat can get in office is to look even more right-wing than Sarah 'Yukon Barbie' Palin.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Ack! Leftward spin. I hate it when I post with a severe caffiene deficiency going on...

Re:The case was badly constructed

[flaming error]

"getting run over by tanks and getting shot in the face"

Taking up arms against Uncle Sam won't reduce your risk of getting killed, my friend. If you aren't willing to die, don't challenge the government. If you are willing to die, die smart..

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Bob the Super Hamste]

While it doesn't seem that it was stated that they are the greatest threat it was stated that the DHS views them as a threat. After it came out there was massive backpedaling from that statement though. For sources see:
The Washing Times
CNN
The actual DHS report courtesy of Fox News
The actual DHS report courtesy of FAS if you don't like fox
CBS news

Re:The case was badly constructed

[fustakrakich]

Oh go to hell! The democrats are every bit as guilty.. And don't even get me started on the idiots that reelect these people.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[flaming error]

"How'd that occupy wall street thing turn out?"
How could it turn out? They had a vague complaint that things weren't fair and whatever was wrong was Wall Street's fault. Their complaint was noted.

By disobedience I don't mean sitting in the street or camping out in the park. I mean getting large groups/flash mobs to flout whatever law they find inappropriate.

For example, don't stand when the judge enters the courtroom. Film/photograph cops where illegal. Take an extra ounce of water on a plane. Have one motorist after another after another drive (safely) past DUI checkpoints without stopping, Get an entire farmers market to refuse to accept federal reserve notes as payment. Whatever law seems to serve government and repress the people.

"A few new jails will be built to house all of you"
Yes. We may also get shot. That's what happens when the people buck the rulers.

"You won't get more than 5 minutes of media coverage"
You may have a point about the corporate media. But today we also have telephones and email and youtube and blogs. In this environment MSM can't ignore the events and retain credibility.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[JesseMcDonald]

The Constitution is pretty clear that "unreasonable searches" cannot be performed "without probable cause".

Actually, what the Constitution is rather clear on is that unreasonable searches cannot be performed, period:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ...

Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, is required to show that the proposed use of special police powers is reasonable before a warrant can be issued, i.e. before any search can be legally authorized. The warrant must also be specific, so a broad warrant like "all searches within 100 miles of the border are presumed reasonable" is in violation of the amendment.

... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[__aaltlg1547]

The way you do it is you elect a Congress that is willing to enforce the law, and you get them to impeach the judges who won't enforce the law.

OK. So it's the civil disobedience thing, then.

No. It's the working-your-ass-off-to-get-people-who-believe-in-the-rule-of-law-elected thing again. Stop whining and get to work.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I think I agree with SCOTUS on this one. They're basically saying "we think we've been wronged, so we're going to take our monies now, even though we can't even prove that we've actually been wronged."

You may as well just say you heard a pop in your last phone conversation, so you think your neighbor is tapping your line. Doesn't matter whether or not he actually did so; just because you heard the pop is sufficient proof that he owes you money.

Yeah I don't like the idea that they can spy willy nilly either, but you still can't just have the justice system assume guilt just because the other party is somebody you don't like.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[WorBlux]

Scalia in Busch v. Gore "One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

With Roe V Wade if you ever read the decision it admits there is none, but proceeds because the issue is widespread but unlikely to be addressed in any other way, though really a poor decisio, increasing it's controversy and setting it up as a decision likely to be overturned.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[strikethree]

Hm. I read the actual report (PDF) and it seems that veterans in general are not being classified as a threat. It seems to be saying that a small percentage of veterans may be targeted by extremist groups for recruitment. They then give an example of Timothy McVeigh. This seems reasonable and does not seem to cast suspicion on veterans as a whole which is what

...the DHS views them as a threat.

seems to imply.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Bob the Super Hamste]

True, but unfortunately that isn't how it got played up in the media. So I guess I am just as bad as the media in that regard, but then I am just an anonymous person on the internet who's opinion doesn't influence millions of people.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

You can't sue without evidence. You can't ask for evidence. But you can set a trap.

If you suspect that they spy on your communications, the trap is false information of a kind that they WILL act on. When they act, they give proof of spying because there is no other way they could have the false information. And there will possibly be damages to sue for too. Later, you claim that the odd information was just ideas for a novel or some such.

Setting the trap could be tricky, but something about time and place for a cocaine drop, a terrorist plot, or information about a underage brothel - whatever they like to crack down on.

Problem with setting the trap is, they won't bite unless it's 'big enough' according to some unknown classified metrics. And if it is big enough, you get that small homey 'guest room' with the Koran toilet paper, even if you had been glanced at once before and ignored because you weren't 'big enough'.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Compaqt]

This. If you ask me, the pedantic insistence on standing is something on the order of asking someone to phrase an answer in the form of question. Or IT denying a request for an app because the request doesn't use the correct Agile terminology.

It leads people to think that the legal system is merely a game, and not a means for justice.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Dunno what country you live in, comrade, but I live in the US. And the government here is far from civilised.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Um, Congress makes the laws, not enforces them. That's up to the Executive branch. And Congress can make any damned fool idea the law of the land until the 9 Stumbling Clones strike it down. Case in point? The Voting Rights Act. Congress said it was a Good Idea. (And on this issue, I wholeheartedly agree!) 5 of the 9 Clones decided to strike the most important section of the Act, basically saying that the right to vote is a very good thing as long as you are a white male type person. It's an 'entitlement' that has to end for nonwhite and female voters. Those 5 of the Clones were handpicked outta the NeoCon legal pool to stuff the bench.

Makes perfect sense, if you want to make sure only a Teabagger can get elected from here on out...

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Never read Thomas Jefferson, eh? The man had it clocked from jump street.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[__aaltlg1547]

Congress's role in enforcing the laws, with respect to SCOTUS is the power to impeach judges who are not willing to see things their way. That's something the President can't do. The Constitution vests more power in Congress than any other branch of government. Much more.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[PortHaven]

Please understand, I am not disagreeing. But that this is a common tactice used by the courts to protect bad laws.

constitution != suicide pact

[Anonymous Coward]

until obummer replaces one of the five adults with a flaming lib

— AC mod point sink

Recap

[MetalliQaZ]

Gov: We spy on Americans in secret.
Me: Stop spying on me
Gov: You can't prove that we did
Me: *middle finger*

Does that about cover it?

Re:Recap

[amorsen]

I am afraid you got the last line wrong.

Gov: We spy on Americans in secret.
Me: Stop spying on me
Gov: You can't prove that we did
Gov: *middle finger*

Re:Recap

[pitchpipe]

Almost.
Gov: #$@%$#
Whistle Blower: Gov's spying on you
Press: Stop spying on us!
Gov: $#%@*
SCOTUS: Fuck you, prove a negative
Gov to Whistle Blower: Off to be loved in Guantanamo
SCOTUS: Fuck you

Re:Recap

[nbauman]

Gov: *middle finger*

You're referring to Justice Scalia, I assume?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-280_162-1444503.html

Can prove it? Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you found yourself in Gitmo you could prove you were harmed.

If you could ever get in front of a judge.

Oh well.

Re:Can prove it? Too bad

[Mitreya]

I guess if you found yourself in Gitmo you could prove you were harmed.

Even if you find yourself in Gitmo (which proves harm), would you also have to prove that you were illegally spied on by a secret court?

Are FISA proceedings are made public after you are arrested? Or is all evidence you could possible have would by definition be illegal (and perhaps completely inadmissible, even if you have it).

Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

If you must be harmed by it to complain, then the only test cases would come from terrorists, thus the "people" would either have to root for draconian government or terrorists. That will let the judges officially allow it against those with standing to sue, not enough will be annoyed to end the tyranny of the government. Note, it allows for people to sue, they just must have proof they were harmed, and only someone arrested after government spying will have a case. Any other attempts (FOIA and such) will be met with "national security" defense, which is still iron clad.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[Anonymous Coward]

If you must be harmed by it to complain, then the only test cases would come from terrorists

You lost me.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

The only cases where the government would admit the secret tapping worked is if they found a terrorist with it. Otherwise, there will never be "proven harm". So the only people who can prove harm will be terrorists.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[Kell Bengal]

And terrorists, as we all know, are not people and have no rights.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

Ever wonder why every speech case is from pornographers and such? The government picks edge cases to get a general ruling against a right. Like pornographers, terrorists make convenient targets. When they came for the pornographers, I didn't speak up, for I didn't want my wife to know. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak up for I wasn't a murdering nutcase. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up.

The names are changing, but the plan hasn't. and it isn't party related. The Dems are Reps both follow the plan together. Nothing can stop it now, the people seem happy with the plan and the results.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please, take off the tin-foil hat. The problem with government isn't that there is some coordinated plan to take away our rights. The problem is that the accumulated incompetence, greediness, and general disregard for ethics among politicians creates a situation where rights are stripped away. The problem is systemic, not the doing of some conscious entity known as 'government.'

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[NatasRevol]

It's more of an un-coordinated play to take away our rights.

And it's working very well. Pretty sure both sides of the aisle would agree with that.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

When both sides who pretend publicly to hate each other agree on 99% of everything, what am I suppose do think? Just focus on abortion and gay marriage like they want me to? Oh yes, there are a handful of "moral" issues they have all sorts of press about to focus on the differences, rather than the similarities, but they are more similar than dissimilar. In most other countries, they'd be so close together that they'd be the coalition government. From an outside perspective, where you don't hear political talk radio or which Republican anti-gay activist slept with his male page today, you end up seeing them as essentially the same.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[cheekyjohnson]

The problem is that the accumulated incompetence, greediness, and general disregard for ethics among politicians creates a situation where rights are stripped away.

I would say that and an illogical, fearful populace is creating this mess.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[hairyfeet]

Which is why they target these laws towards those that nobody will support, its the classic "first they came" play and it works damned near every time.

I would suggest everyone watch this video by a woman that is now on the watchlist. Yes folks that little white Jewish girl is now on the list and treated...well like an Arab whenever she tries to get on a plane, her crime? talking about what rights we have under the constitution. In this video she shows what she calls "the playbook" that every country that has turned into a dictatorship has used because as she points out Germany in the early 30s? A democracy. In fact most of the countries that ended up turning nasty were free countries to begin with, its the use of these plays that let those in power turn the country into a locked down state.

But this is what we've come to folks, where even talking about your rights can put you on a list. hell i wouldn't be surprised if my support for free speech and the ACLU has me on a list too, just one more good thing about not going near airplanes is I don't deal with the goon squads. Watch the video, she is VERY conservative about the signs but lays them all out, you'd be surprised how far down that road we have already traveled.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[PartyBoy!911]

What you need is a fallguy. Someone who will appear to be a terrorist and did nothing wrong.

Build hidden listening and video in his house, shove a gps tracker up the ass and have this person be as suspect as can get.

When they grab him, you have a case....

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

Grabbing him is not sufficient. They must try to prosecute him, which is the *only* way this info will ever see the light of day, and just hope the trial isn't sealed. And they won't try someone who is actually innocent. They'd get more than just some spying on him, he'd have to actually do something or be caught talking to known terrorists. Enough so that even if he is actually innocent, they can make it look like he isn't.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

I tried to watch but she takes forever to say anything, and is boring. It took almost an hour to list a few things. Just give them in a list up front, and then explain the rational later, or not, but list them in the comments.

Should have sued under EU-US Data Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

International Treaties have a force of law higher than FISA, and are subject to US Senate confirmation as a result.

Use that, all you need are EU citizens who reside in the US who have had their data slurped up, contrary to EU law, which is forbidden by the EU-US Data Treaty.

Re:Should have sued under EU-US Data Treaty

[Miamicanes]

> International Treaties have a force of law higher than FISA

No they don't. They have *zero* legal weight without enabling legislation (passed by the House & Senate, then signed by the President or veto-overridden).

Re:Should have sued under EU-US Data Treaty

[Miamicanes]

The constitution might say that, but I can say with 100% confidence that the Supreme Court would NEVER overrule an American law based upon a treaty unless the Senate itself were the plaintiff.

In other words, if the Senate ratifies a treaty, Congress passes enabling legislation that doesn't quite go far enough, or flat-out contradicts part of that treaty, and a similarly-deficient/contradictory bill ultimately gets ratified by the Senate, reconciled, and signed by the President (or veto-overridden), the Supreme Court would never, ever, in a million years, allow a treaty to be used as a weapon against the Senate (or a law passed by the Senate afterwards). To do otherwise would put the Supreme Court in a role of determining foreign policy... a role it neither has nor wants.

If the Senate ratified a treaty requiring the President to conduct foreign policy in some particular way, and the President ignored the treaty, the SENATE might petition the Supreme Court to hear the case, but that's the farthest I can imagine it going.

In all likelihood, the Supreme Court would just ignore the whole issue and look the other way. Remember, the Supreme Court determines its own agenda, and hears only cases it wants to hear. If the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could ultimately compel the Senate to do something because of a treaty it ratified, it would be shocking, uncharacteristic, and basically without precedent in US history.

The expected response of the Supreme Court to such a petition (assuming it even acknowledged it) would be, "If the Senate intentionally violated a treaty it signed, or knowingly approved a law that allows a treaty to be violated, that's its own problem to deal with, and within the scope of its authority. If the Senate signed a treaty, and couldn't get Congress to go along with it by passing appropriate enabling legislation, that's a clear sign that it shouldn't have been signed in the first place."

Fortunately...

[Type44Q]

Fortunately we weren't expecting much from those clowns, anyway...

Re:encryption FTW

[davydagger]

there is also twofish and serpent, both two AES finalists not chosen.

both great canidates on their own. both open source. (Do you trust closed source encryption?)

What a dilemma

[mentil]

On one hand, everyone being spied on means everyone has standing (but since it's a secret program noone can prove it).
On the other hand, allowing discovery to prove standing allows for fishing expeditions of the type that IP holders would love to use to catch every act of copyright infringement (which judges are now getting wise to).

Re:What a dilemma

[Chuckstar]

It's worse than that. If everyone were being spied on, then everyone would have standing. Only lots of people are being spied on. But no one can prove which people are actually being spied on. So lots of people being spied on, but no one has legal standing to try to stop it.

Dissenters were all progressives

[hugg]

Hopefully the President will still get the chance to appoint more progressives to the Supreme Court to protect us from his policies.

Re:Dissenters were all progressives

[the eric conspiracy]

The two most likely to retire are generally considered liberal.

Re:Dissenters were all progressives

[Dereck1701]

You forgot your sarcasm tag. Just in case you were actually serious.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/tapp-j10.html
http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Obama+Administration+to+Spy+on+Citizens+Online+to+Fight+Terror/article19734.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/warrantless-electronic-surveillance-obama_n_1924508.html
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/warrantless-spying-skyrockets-under-obam

Warrant-less spying has surged under the Obama administration. From what I understand he has maintained every domestic spying program created under the Bush administration, and even expanded some of them and created new ones. Not that I think a republican would do any better mind you. Both parties have little interest in protecting any of our rights, they are far too interested in pandering to corporate lobbyists and expanding their own powers beyond all reason.

Re:Dissenters were all progressives

[CncRobot]

The same president that says he has the right to kill US citizens without trial?
The same one that won't answer if he can kill US citizens within US borders without trial?

Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Dissenters were all progressives

[CrimsonAvenger]

Hopefully the President will still get the chance to appoint more progressives to the Supreme Court to protect us from his policies.

Wasn't it this President's Justice Department arguing that the plaintiffs had no standing?

Doesn't sound like he's really on your side here.

Re:Dissenters were all progressives

[Phroggy]

Read that comment again:

Hopefully the President will still get the chance to appoint more progressives to the Supreme Court to protect us from his policies.

Emphasis added.

Re:Dissenters were all progressives

[Dereck1701]

One of these days I'll learn to read through the sentience/article to the very end before I start spouting off.

Great coverage & background here

[MonsterMasher]

Great coverage & background in the included link.
Glenn Greenwald should be required reading in High School these days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/supreme-court-eavesdropping-law-doj-argument

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ignore that this is one case, with a ruling far more specific than, "opposes civil liberties." Also ignore that those "conservatives" ruled in favor of a Democrat and his administration.

Or maybe you're just fine with confirmation bias, and will accept any version of events that's consistent with your world perspective.

When the chips are down...

[jcr]

The court is part of the government. Do not expect them to uphold our rights.

-jcr

Re:When the chips are down...

[Anonymous Coward]

In america is it. And perhaps sweden now.

Not so for the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD. Note america is slipping from civilized to simply a bunch of backwaters with hi tech.

Stop. Think.

Wait a little longer.

OK. Explain in small words for me what's so special about where you live vs. the US that makes it impossible to happen there.

Is it your Constitution or other founding document or your principles of rule of law?

Is it because your people have a history of defending liberty and justice?

Is it because your country is the exception to the rule? It can't happen here?

Because we had that stuff in the US. And it happened here.

Do you want to know the secret to letting it happen to you? I'll tell you. Just go on spouting off about how special you are and how dumb someone else is and how it'll never happen to you because you wouldn't let that happen there like that other stupid country with those stupid, arrogant people did.

Because, ya. We had all that, too.

But don't worry. Maybe everything will be fine. I didn't mean to alarm you.

Re:When the chips are down...

[tqk]

Note america is slipping from civilized to simply a bunch of backwaters with hi tech.

Methinks you overestimate them.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[Trepidity]

Well if you go through the wiretapping, Guantanamo, and surveillance-without-warrant cases of the past 10 years, I think you will find a pattern that spans more than one case.

Only one piece of Evidence Exists?

[Pitawg]

None may get standing unless the case with standing only has a single piece of possible evidence.

If there is more evidence, regardless of case details, other evidence will be obtained by using the purloined information from illegal spying. Something will be found through legal means, and be presented in court with no need to mention the illegally obtained information.

There will be no standing.
There will always be illegal snooping.
The genie is out......

Damned if you do...

[moonwatcher2001]

The Supreme Court that says you can't sue if you can't prove you've been spied on and and FISA says you can't find out.

Re:Damned if you do...

[tqk]

The Supreme Court that says you can't sue if you can't prove you've been spied on and and FISA says you can't find out.

Welcome to America. :-P

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[Trepidity]

Also bad! But as far as I can tell, the GOP judges are actually more willing to give him that carte blanche than the Democratic judges are. Therefore, when it comes to judges, the existence of GOP appointees is to be discouraged.

I would be happy to have my mind changed by some conservative judges actually voting to enforce constraints on the executive branch's police powers.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[rudy_wayne]

Every conservative on the court supports unreviewable police power and opposes civil liberties: is anyone surprised?

No one is surprised, and that's the worst part. Despite 40+ years of conservatives claiming to be great lovers and defenders of the constitution, their track record has been exactly the opposite.

It's not big brother

[rsilvergun]

it's corporate oligarchy and the interests of the 1%. The Koch brothers have been implicated in tons of shady dealings, but you don't see anyone tapping their lines, do you?

Re:It's not big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Absurd.

The insignificant fleas that ride on the back of the state are just that: tiny. To understand reality, one must understand its rules, the relevant one to this discussion being the axiom of identity. Blaming those with no armies, no courts, no bombs, no police, no jails, and no permission from the ruled is a sort of blindness that can only be the result of a lifetime of propaganda and cultural pressure. This is big brother in its full glory. Not in plain view and direct, but so infused with society that there are actually people who would condemn benefactors of this violent intrusion rather than the violent actor.

To even mention things like the 'Koch brothers' in the face of such an enormous monstrosity like the state is an admission of psychological defense. It would be like blaming the shop keeper who pays off the local mafia to keep himself safe, or blaming the more sinister man who bribes them to kill a competitor. These actions are an effect of the violence that infests such a community, not the cause. To understand the world, one must call things by their proper name; the actor responsible for waving guns around, terrorizing innocent people is the one responsible for the evil. The state, like the mafia, is the institution that contains this group of actors.

Re:It's not big brother

[Zontar The Mindless]

Most college freshmen spend their first winter break catching up with friends and family, and trying to get laid at various Christmas/New Year's parties.

Instead, you spent yours reading Atlas Shrugged. What a waste.

Re:It's not big brother

[ultranova]

It would be like blaming the shop keeper who pays off the local mafia to keep himself safe, or blaming the more sinister man who bribes them to kill a competitor. These actions are an effect of the violence that infests such a community, not the cause. To understand the world, one must call things by their proper name; the actor responsible for waving guns around, terrorizing innocent people is the one responsible for the evil.

Or you could go one step further and ask yourself: just why are mafiosos allowed to walk free and threaten innocent people? Why are they not dragged into court to receive their just reward? Could it perhaps be that the people who call for weakening the state also bear some responsibility for the entirely foreseeable results of such weakening, such as the rule of law being replaced by rule of the mightiest?

Nature abhors a vacuum. A power vacuum will always be filled. And most candidates for filling it have nothing stopping them from becoming tyrants; in fact modern democratic states are pretty much the only thing that do. This is something various types of libertarians and randroids seem to have a hard time understanding.

Danger, Danger, Will Robinson!

[pla]

Dear USSC:

Anything that abridges our fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms automatically injures us all. Aside from the danger of disproving the various fictional rights we generally assume we have - It polarizes the whackjobs, it makes the sheep less complacent, it makes us hate the government instead of merely having a healthy distrust of it. Hell, you've all thoroughly proven yourself completely incompetent over the past few years, why not make yourselves outright enemies of the people?

You all should fear real injury because of this decision. Not from me (more of a sheep than a lion, sadly - I live too comfortably to care), but currently an awfully lot of people don't have much more to lose. Take away even their "hope" in a shared delusions, and you've created an entire class of very real monsters.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[cusco]

Are you of the opinion that the Democratic party is not conservative? Obama is far to the right of even Richard Nixon, there aren't more than a handful of congresscritters who would qualify as 'liberal'.

Apparently SCOTUS have become realists

[Mister Liberty]

instead of idealists.
Totally nuts.

Tresspassing is legal

[hottoh]

What our fine Judge Alito said is it is ok to trespass, just don't get caught. Ok, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Example. A neighbor sneaks in to Judge Alito's unlocked home. Judge cannot prosecute the neighbor's trespass, because Judge Alito cannot prove the neighbor had trespassed because it is legal to trespass secretly. Even though the neighbor has records to each and every trespassing, the records seem to be off limits as well.

That is effed up.

Re:Tresspassing is legal

[Mitreya]

What our fine Judge Alito said is it is ok to trespass, just don't get caught. Ok, it is a bit more complicated than that.

I swear -- the only time those SCOTUS judges understand anything is when IT APPLIES TO THEM. During the "is it illegal to attach a GPS to your car without a warrant", they basically killed it after they were told that a supreme court judge could also be subject to a GPS device being attached to their car (without a warrant)

I guess they don't think FISA would ever approve a warrant against them in secret...

Re:Tresspassing is legal

[hottoh]

What? Trespassing is illegal. It is apparent you do not comprehend the what the judge said.

Your question is not relevant to the topic. Go away AC.

Re:Tresspassing is legal

[dywolf]

You cannot dismiss the AC so easily. What he said is 100% accurate.
While trespass IS illegal, if you have no proof that I trespassed you cannot convict me for it.

The issue here is that -I- (in this hypothetical) do have proof that I trespassed.
But I passed a special law that makes it Secret, a National Security issue, so you aren't even allowed to subpoena me for it.
However, AC was not commenting on that side of it.

Just be thankful the government cannot use the 5th amendment to protect itself from self-incrimination. Not that that will stop them trying that too if need be.

Re:Tresspassing is legal

[mdielmann]

The point you're missing in this analogy, and which wasn't explicitly stated, is that the trespasser, the U.S. government, doesn't have a right to privacy. So yes, someone should be able to rifle through the trespassers records and see who they've trespassed against. It's generally referred to as 'checks and balances'. Those were the days...

This leaky govt, no problem at all

[Freddybear]

Look on the bright side, with all the leakers and whistleblowers in the government and the lousy internet security of most govt offices, anybody who is actually being spied on probably won't have to wait too long before the evidence lands in his lap.
Three cheers for incompetent bureaucrats!

Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Who 'IS' the united states? is it us the people? or is it infrastructure? What worries me is the trend of rule that I feel is treason to all of us. Then the hiding behind the 'persona' of a government to hold no one accountable. Who asked us to vote when obama decided to give away our tax money to incompetent companies and corrupt banks? Who is accountable for protecting us from the will of the federal (private) reserve if they decide it's beneficial to screw us? When you hear freedom, you don't think I can run around everywhere but expect all my activities to be monitored without just cause. I think enacted laws betray the constitution much more than people these days. I watched a video where a chief of police was telling this to his own cops because he felt it was unconstitutional to give people such extraordinary fines. I never asked myself or really thought about what any of this stuff meant until I got older, and the abuse just became belligerently obvious, but normal people just don't give a shit because they're watching tv or going on the net. It's something that troubles me greatly.

another step towards tyrany

[evanism]

the USA is utterly doomed.

It is in its death spiral.

Re:another step towards tyrany

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yeah, I know....the Left has started the intellectual foundations for tyranny with a positive review in an elite magazine. They're putting John Stuart Mill on the chopping block. It's for our own good, of course.

Re:another step towards tyrany

[Zontar The Mindless]

Dude.

America has no "Left".

Re:another step towards tyrany

[dywolf]

"america has no left"

stop. that is pointless pedantic malarky.

you are creating a fallacious comparison by reframing a relative term to a your own, new, relative reference outside of the original poster's intended frame of reference.

Re:another step towards tyrany

[Zontar The Mindless]

The original poster's frame of reference is one based on ignorance of what "Left" means to everyone else on the planet except for the US libtard lunatic fringe. Now kindly fuck off.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[NatasRevol]

And more than just one administration, or even side of the aisle.

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[evanism]

Overnight everything becomes in the interest of Essential National Security.

Even what you had for breakfast - Food Security.

Can't let the terrorists know in case they try to poison the worlds supply of sugar.

Re:Who were the five votes?

[PopeRatzo]

It has occurred to me that you are nearly always happy on RPS and nearly always angry on /.

"Happy" and "angry" are not antonyms.

We are capable of multiple states of mind and we look best in royal blue.

Re:I'm cool with it

[NatasRevol]

It's not the call monitoring that's the problem.

It's that there's no limits and no consequences to monitoring because of 'national security'.

Re:Who were the five votes?

[NatasRevol]

He scared them because he had information on them doing illegal things, and threatened to release it. Not because of the pea shooters.

Re:encryption FTW

[tqk]

there is also twofish and serpent, both two AES finalists not chosen.

It wouldn't matter what we use with ubiquitous crypto (used by everyone by default, I mean). Not even the NSA has enough oomph to crack *everything*, if everyone used it for *everything.*

both great [candidates] on their own. both open source. (Do you trust closed source encryption?)

No, but that wouldn't matter for the same reason. NSA backdoors into MS or Apple crypto? I don't much fsckin' care. Don't use that !@#$.

Add in Man In The Middle stuff (AT&T wiretapping, FISA, ...) and all that, and you'll still have a lot to do before you can really get off their radar and go dark. They're not stupid (well, not always), and we're not doing it smart.

FISA? What's all the fuss?!

[Zhe Mappel]

Those who aren't being wiretapped, tortured or disappeared by the US imperium have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Re:Who were the five votes?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Funny, it's the Left that is justifying tyranny under the name of "coercive paternalism". You see, when we have a choice, we make the wrong choice. Go and have a read and find out how much you agree with tyranny. Erk...awkward. Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservative is as conservative does, and same for liberal. They don't actually mean anything other than what an entity in a given context adopts as their platform.

Democrats have adopted a number of positions that meet the dictionary criteria for "liberal", with respect to the proposed alternatives. Gay marriage, marijuana, etc. But then they've also adopted a number of positions that meet the dictionary criteria for "conservative", like gun control and economic regulation. Think on that. Democrats are far more conservative than Republicans on a number of big issues.

The reverse is true for Republicans. And you'll notice that European parties don't make sense as "liberal" or "conservative" either.

What people mean when they say American Democrats are "right", is that they're closer to what some centrist European "conservatives" would look like. But remember, there's nothing consistent and ideologically liberal or conservative about any of your typical political party, in any country.

Nor does it matter, because what people want in one country is not what people in other countries have to want. The goal of US politics is not to "achieve" a system of laws that's identical to European nations. It's to develop a system of laws that we want to live with.

Re:I'm cool with it

[cheekyjohnson]

Yes, they're invading people's privacy, but they do target Foreign calls.

It doesn't stop there.

There are risks and I'm fine with the US saying "Hey, we'll be watching your international calls."

Because, after all, if you have nothing to hide, what do you have to fear?

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[tqk]

Every conservative on the court supports unreviewable police power and opposes civil liberties ...

That is odd, isn't it? What are the "Liberals" doing to oppose that? Apparently nothing. Huh.

Demopublican, Republicrat; what's the difference?

Re:I'm cool with it

[Zontar The Mindless]

I am not. And I am even less cool with your presuming to decide this issue for the rest of us. Go fuck yourself.

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[Zontar The Mindless]

Did you even read what you were responding to?

Make up your minds

[whodunit]

Tune in next week, when we re-roast the US Intel apparatus and ask: why don't they catch more terrorists?

If voting didn't matter they wouldn't suppress it

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The immense efforts that go into manipulating eligibility and registration, understaffing polling places in poor areas, and historically even outright violence prove that the powers that be are afraid of voters.

Re:Being Swedish

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yeah, I get my jollies in Stockholm from reading all those signs that say INFISA and UTFISA... (INFART/UTFART... See? Not funny.)

Different from some other countries

[Pecisk]

Interesting info bit - I just got yesterday that other countries (including mine) have special dedicated constitutional court, where you can just go and say - this *potentially* violates my rights (High court usually is just very last instance of legal cases. It can, however, turn to constitutional court for clarification). You don't have to prove that you have suffered from bad law already. In US, however, SCOTUS is embedded in rest of juridical system. In result you can have law which is absurdly wrong and anti-constitutional - but you can get struck down only if you have suffered consequences of injustice caused by the law.

So..

[the_arrow]

So this makes it lawful for the US to spy on its citizens as long as the citizens don't know they are being spied upon? It's not unlawful unless someone actually can prove he or she has been spied on?

I can hear it now:

Citizen: I've been speid upon
Court: Can you prove it?
Citizen: There must be logs!
NSA: Nope, no logs here, he he he
Court: Case dismissed!

Corporations Win

[Mike Frett]

I saw this Documentary, there was a Judge running for Office, but he had little funds and the other guy had big corporations and the Chamber of Commerce backing him. Corporations funded ads (through the Chamber of Commerce) for the other guy and bought up all the air-time. Somewhere before the end of the election, the Judge managed to find a friend to fund one ad for TV, he won amazingly.

That wasn't the end, the Corporations and the other guy were unhappy and worked the system, bringing cases against the Judge; like Tax evasion and receiving money Illegally. We'll the Judge won those cases, but was kept out of office for so many years until the next election was upon him. The other guy won that go around. Bottom line, the Corporations are in charge of who sits on the bench and who runs this Country (United States) now. The American public has sit back and let these guys just take over everything, and more than half of them are blind to this. It's truly saddening and at this point, a collapse and reboot of the system is needed in order to fix it.

It doesn't matter whom you elect into office anymore, they are owned by Companies. Heck, even some of the Genetic Companies own most of you by having Patents on Certain Genes and such. We are coming up on a strange new era where particular aspects of Slavery are coming back and many Freedoms are going away and absolutely nothing can be done about it without removing the catalyst for this Corporate takeover of Humanity; Money.

Re:Who were the five votes?

[PopeRatzo]

Ask someone who grew up in a real tyranny what they think of our "soft tyranny".

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

I'm not deciding for anyone but myself. You're the one taking it too far.

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

Been that way since the Founding of the nation.

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

Paranoia

Re:I'm cool with it

[NatasRevol]

Not quite.

It's been that way since the federal government decided that it's powers superceded the states, in spite of the obvious contradiction in the Constitution.

So disappointed

[mcmonkey]

How anyone can discuss this case and not bring up Catch-22 boggles my mind.

Folks need to do some reading, especially the folks that think a FOIA request is the answer to FISA.

Re:LOL ...

[moeinvt]

"You guys are teh sux0rs. You stil believe you're free and not living in tyranny."

More and more people are seeing through that BS. I would not say that we are living in tyranny however. In practice we still have basic freedom of expression, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of movement, etc.
We are however living with an established set of laws and precedents under which tyranny could be immediately implemented.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[fustakrakich]

...conservatives claiming to be great lovers...

Is that like the brits claiming to be great chefs?

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

I thought the people superceded the Government?

Re:I'm cool with it

[cheekyjohnson]

Naivete. Unless you think that the government is composed of perfect beings who can do no wrong, I suggest you drop the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" attitude.

double double facepalm

[Thud457]

In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that these groups don't have the right to sue at all, because they can't prove they were being spied on.'"

Supreme court rules " if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about ".

Re:I'm cool with it

[neiras]

I'm not deciding for anyone but myself. You're the one taking it too far.

The problem with people like you is that your only concern is for how something like pervasive surveillance of communications might affect you personally. You don't bother to really think through the potential effects of your selfishness on society. Most people are equally uninformed, passive, and selfish, so you no doubt feel that your opinions are validated by your peers. You have the luxury of ignorance and you're taking full advantage of it.

Congratulations on being a very small part of a very large threat to our future as a civilized species. You may have picked the winning team - only time will tell - but you're a loser in my books.

Re:If voting didn't matter they wouldn't suppress

[hairyfeet]

And that all happened before the de-regs allowed the few to own all the media corps. Now except for a few that cling to the old ways frankly its not needed, if i get the MSM to say "Is Beryllium Sphere a kiddie fiddler?" then you ARE a kiddie fiddler, no further proof needed. Look at how quickly focus was taken away from the dirt Wikileaks had and switched to whether Assange is a dick?

Orwell nailed this point well, if you control what a man sees and hears you can control what they think.

Re:I'm cool with it

[NatasRevol]

Yeah, in 1776. And it was 'people', not people. 'people' = white landowners.

Re:If voting didn't matter they wouldn't suppress

[TubeSteak]

The immense efforts that go into manipulating eligibility and registration, understaffing polling places in poor areas, and historically even outright violence prove that the powers that be are afraid of voters.

Are we not mentioning which of the two "pre-bought," "support the system," "wolves" that do this?

I have a hard time with "both parties are bad," when anyone can make a cursory investigation and see that actually,
one party is actively trying to redress economic and social injustices while the other party is actively trying to further them.

I'm not trying to excuse the overlap where the two wolves are killing sheep, but only one of the wolves seems to care about the long term health of its food supply.
/Sorry I couldn't come up with a car analogy

Re:Constitutional Amendment

[evanism]

".....complete disclosure to the general public of any information regarded as essential to national security"

Extending the idea. Not a big reach.

Re:Not entirely true that.

[MaskedSlacker]

Jurors are obliged to reach a verdict based upon the relevant actions of the person charged. This is why irrelevant evidence (for or against) is not to be considered.

Several centuries of common law precedent disagree with this statement. You're spouting the statist party line, but it's not the legal reality.

Evidence can be ruled inadmissible for a long list of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with whether or not it is relevant.

Re:encryption FTW

[davydagger]

" NSA backdoors into MS or Apple crypto?"

something far more plausable. A disgruntled employee working at RSA labs, or any other corp, and management that doesn't give a shit.

If it was open source, you'd have more people looking at the code.

If it was closed source, the only people who would have the code, who are trying to break it, are the ones who stole it, or bought it illegally, or reversed engineered it.

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

I don't see in black and white, I see in gray. Tell me, how's it feel thinking in the extremes 24/7?

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

So, if there was absolutely no surveillance on the American people and one day every major city was bombed, who will you blame then?

Re:I'm cool with it

[cheekyjohnson]

Tell me, how's it feel thinking in the extremes 24/7?

How would I know? I don't believe anything I've said thus far is extreme; rather, I believe it all to be obvious. Humans are not perfect beings, and that includes the people we choose to govern us. I do not believe it is unreasonable to suggest that we should not give the government unchecked powers given history's long line of abusive, corrupt governments.

Re:I'm cool with it

[cheekyjohnson]

How about... the people responsible for the bombing? Have you ever considered that not everyone believes that safety is more important than privacy and freedom in a majority of cases?

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

And I believe that too, but I have yet to see anyone rising up and saying that they can't do it.

Americans did this to themselves, I've been trying to smack them awake. Nope, internet crushes willpower.

Re:I'm cool with it

[Jetra]

Yes I have considered that, but the majority of Americans would say that safety is more important than privacy. Wasn't there a slashdot article covering this very specific topic?

Re:encryption FTW

[tqk]

If it was open source, you'd have more people looking at the code.

That's the theory. I like to think it actually works, but it's been a long time since I looked at kernel code.

If it was closed source ...

I can't even begin to care about people who use closed stuff. Perhaps it's a good thing that it even exists, so my ("moran") sister and Mom can use crypto (once they finally learn that crypto even exists and is needed), but it's hardly an optimal solution considering the black hats out there actively trying to pants us all (DoJ, DHS, TSA, ICE, AT&T, SCOTUS, I'm talking about you).

Now, I guess I'll be off to Gitmo.

X-PGP-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x48EE77B1AC94E4B7

Re:Who were the five votes?

[DNS-and-BIND]

They'd tell us to STOP NOW, before it gets any worse, and to hold on dearly to our liberties. Ah, fuck it...as long as you get to destroy the Tutsis, you're OK with it. Tyranny shmirrany!

Re:Who were the five votes?

[PopeRatzo]

They'd tell us to STOP NOW, before it gets any worse, and to hold on dearly to our liberties.

Well, maybe. It depends on what you mean by "liberties".

If you are an uneducated Hutu and live in a company town in a "right-to-work" state and the boss tells you that starting tomorrow your work is going to be compensated at a lower wage, I suppose you have the "liberty" to seek work as a sharecropper. And maybe if you're a hard-working Hutu with a young family and the bank that hold the mortgage on your house tells you that because of the economy your loan is underwater and health care costs more and food costs more and fuel costs more and school for your kids costs more but your house is worth less and your wages have been flat for about 12 years now, you have the "liberty" to take a second job and have your wife get work cleaning the homes of the people in the next town over and your kids don't really have to go to college and the youngest one that needs an operation has the "liberty" to die.

I guess under those circumstances you could be convinced by cynical political leaders beholden to some rich guys that don't belong to either tribe that "liberty" really means "You get to own a firearm" and that liberty means, "If your kid is sick you get to pray for him instead of take him to a doctor" and that liberty means "Hating the Tutsis" and you'd believe it.

Re:Who were the five votes?

[DNS-and-BIND]

And yet we totally ignore the fact that the Tutsis absolutely *hate* the Hutus and want to see the Hutus destroyed. Sorry, but it's true, ask any Tutsi. The Tutsis see the "constitution" as some sort of archaic bizarrity of an earlier age that keeps them from implementing the "needed changes" that will help them eradicate the Hutus. I mean, heck with that whole "liberty" thing if it means that people mean to make their own decisions, even if they're wrong. After all, the Tutsis are more smarter than everyone and anyone who disagrees with their decisions must be racist (against Tutsis).