Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over FISA Surveillance Documents

itwbennett (1594911) writes "In a victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is suing to make the DOJ release information about surveillance on U.S. citizens, a California judge on Friday ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review. The judge said the agency failed to justify keeping the documents secret and she will decide whether the documents, including one opinion and four orders by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), were improperly withheld from the public."

Comments

winar!111

[Anonymous Coward]

We won

damn homosexual gay babies

[Anonymous Coward]

gaying up the place..

Papers to be "lost" in

[russotto]

....3....2...1....GONE!

Re:Papers to be "lost" in

[cold fjord]

They can't use that, the IRS already took it with the "lost" emails.

So?

[edibobb]

Why would the DOJ obey a court order? The executive branch has been above the constitution since 2000.

Re:So?

[Shakrai]

The executive branch has thought itself above the constitution since 1789

Fixed it for you.

(If you want to cut Washington a break you could say 1801. Jefferson thought the Louisiana purchase unconstitutional but did it anyway, perhaps the first "the ends justify the means" rationalization used by an American President. Then of course we have 1861 and Abe's questionable activities during the American Civil War)

Re:So?

[TWX]

Actually I'd chock one up to Andrew Jackson, who marched tens of thousands of indigenous people from their tribal areas in the southern US to what's now Oklahoma, directly against court-order, in what's now known as the Trail of Tears.

Fact of the matter is, unless two branches gang-up on the third, it's not really, truly going to be illegal. Right now there aren't enough people in the legislative branch and the judicial branch to truly oppose the executive branch, especially in the post-2001 era when the executive branch was given latitude by both others.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why cut Washington a break?

Wasn't he in charge of the Whiskey rebellion?

OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope she understands what she'll compromise if she releases them, but I doubt it. There's a reason there are very few Original Classification Authorities, and why it's at such a high level of approval to designate something as classified. Here are the instructions for intelligence information. However, to understand how some information in a document will disclose classified information, you have to understand what information contained in it or revealed by it (e.g. by omission) is classified, and who has the authority to determine that. If she has not studied the subject in detail, which is likely, she runs a high risk of compromising information she is unaware is sensitive.

Re:OCA

[Jiro]

That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off and die, apologist. After all the corruption we've seen revealed in the US military-industrial-espionage complex, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is nuclear launch codes. Everything else should be leaked, as it would pose no existential threat to the US, we are in no danger of invasion.

Even the death of a few agents in the field, the usual danger that scaremongers bring up, would be worth it if it struck a blow to the steady establishment of a police state.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Posts like this almost make me want to create an account so that perhaps I can upvote.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the court's job to determine if the executive branch is right or wrong, and to reign it in if it's wrong. That's what the checks and balances are all about, as long as they actually follow the rule of law and proper procedure and discretion.

Re:OCA

[spiritplumber]

Let's also keep the nuclear assembly instructions secret... but yeah, classifying stuff should be opt-in (and hard to do), not opt-out.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using government to find new ways to control you, spy on you, rob you and imprison you.

You seem to be overlooking ideology. There are plenty of people that want to reshape society, make choices for you, and control you, all based on ideology. There are poor ideologues just as there are rich ones, don't lose sight of that.

The people very seldom have much to do with "people's committees" on X.

Re:OCA

[Concerned Onlooker]

The only upvote that really matters is the one at the ballot box. Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted--it would still be a marvelous statement if droves of citizens started voting third party.

Also, pardon my somewhat US-centric answer.

Re:OCA

[amiga3D]

In the end it's all about money. The poor ideologues end up living in mansions once they win and take control. The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.

Re:OCA

[Belial6]

The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.

This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling. I get why they want to have more money than they could ever spend, but at a certain point, it becomes self destructive to continue to accumulate wealth beyond even that.

Re:OCA

[ATMAvatar]

Those in power have convinced themselves that they can squash a revolt or prevent one from even happening. With the ubiquitous surveillance and militarized local police forces, they may be right.

Re:OCA

[s.petry]

I believe that you are grossly and intentionally ignoring how and why documents have been classified historically by the US Government and its agencies. This is not something new, unfortunately the abuse goes back at least to the 1960s. COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird are just two examples where systems were abused for political gain and oppression. Those two are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but the easiest to find information about.

That said, this judge could agree with the Government that there is a secret to be kept. Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting. The judge may release portions of the documents they feel safe, or the whole, or none.

The false claim being made by government agencies and FISA courts is that they can't reveal _anything_ for security reasons. Even when discussing terrorist activity this can be easily displayed with redacted information. You are either falling for the gag, or trying to proliferate it. Either way, shame on you.

More and more people are waking up to the level of corruption we currently have in the USA. Quite frankly, not everyone in politics is on the side of the "insiders" trying to pull all the strings. Pressure is mounting for change and to clean up the corruption, citizens must keep this up until it's actually resolved.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

In the end it's all about money.

Don't be ridiculous, it is about power. Power over other people, power to do what you will. Wealth may or not follow power.

The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.

The ruthless ones realize that starving people die, sometimes by the millions.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the problem is the poor are starving, but instead of going after the rich, they go after EACH OTHER. People in poor communities are offing each other left and right, yet they hardly ever kill rich or even middle class citizens. Maybe if the poor came together and fought against "the man" something would be accomplished, but now there's way too much in-fighting (between gangs, races, districts, etc.) that nothing will ever get accomplished and the rich will only keep getting richer.

Re:OCA

[cheater512]

Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.

Re:OCA

[s.petry]

Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed. They are not spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars, and they are not out generating propaganda so that they can send the rich kids off to die in a war for profit.

Sure, there are people in every society that will take advantage of others for gain. We are supposed to have laws protecting us universally from that happening, yet today if you are rich you can take billions and walk but if you are poor and sell a joint you are doing 1-5 years.

So yeah, the ideologies are always going to be around. Those ideologies have been around since our earliest political writings (read Plato's "The Republic"). This is why we (you included) should be fighting to clean up the corruption, end the monopolization of media, and break up the financial cartels.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either a troll or confused. Poor people killing middle class or rich people is only going to create more poor people, not bring riches to them.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

Considering the level of corruption within the US administration, I dare say the damage by disclosing them cannot trump the damage done by keeping them secret.

Re:OCA

[meerling]

Probably the only thing she's compromising is the DOJs sense of invulnerability and entitlement to do whatever they Fing want knowing full well that they can claim state secrets to hide anything.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

Ballot box? You mean that box where you may choose whether you want the one person from the party, the other person from the party or whether you vote for someone else, i.e. you don't care whether it's going to be the one or the other person from the party?

Third party voting is failing for the same reason consumer boycotts fail. It's near impossible to organize enough people to actually get something done unless you have lots and lots of money available. And then, you're more likely to be interested in supporting the status quo than change it.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

There is a limit to this. For reference, see Iran 1979.

The Iran in 1979 was a police state if there ever was one. Ubiquitous secret police, extreme suppression of dissenters, the fourth largest military on the planet (all thanks to us, btw).

And then the students hit the roads by the millions. Interviews with them later revealed that they well expected to die that day. And they were not the religious jihadist kind, that came later, they were simply fed up with the regime to the point where their stance towards the Shah was "you or me. At the end of this day, one of us is gone. Either is fine by me, but that's how it will be".

The military pretty much noticed that. What do you want to do? What are you going to do after the 30 bullets in your rifle are shot? Sure, your kill/death ratio will be 30:1.

The problem is: the 1 is you. And no respawn.

Re:OCA

[tlambert]

Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.

The CNWDI classification covers a great deal more than just "How do I read 'The Curve Of Binding Energy' and apply some fairly basic college level math to calculate neutron numbers for a given fissile material?"..

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

But it would also create fewer rich people.

Re:OCA

[mehtars]

Actually there is a lot to the geometry of creating the right explosions around a fissile material in order to compress the enriched core to become super critical.

In addition, the more difficult aspect is purifying the uranium and/or getting enough fissile material.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, the problem is the poor are starving, but instead of going after the rich, they go after EACH OTHER.

I'm going to call BS on this one. If the poor were actually starving, the problem would be self-solving in about 45-61 days, with the top end being if they were in excellent physical condition the day before they started starving.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

Probably not. The rich people would simply change.

Re:OCA

[tlambert]

Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society.

Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants; if we include video games, we'd all be stealing card at gunpoint, and if we included TV in general, we'd have massive comedy in the streets every Thursday night, followed by cartoon moralizing Saturday afternoon. It's anyone's guess what would happen after each Ellen Degeneris show; perhaps we'd also all go down to Orchard Supply Hardware, buy tiki torches, and vote someone out of the city.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

But if everyone is poor, then everyone is also rich, amirite?

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed.

Does the ACLU have a minimum income requirement for membership? What about the NRA? The AARP? The Teamsters? The NEA? The Democrats & Republicans? I seem to recall that all of those groups, and many more, all try to influence the laws and regulations that are passed, how they are executed, and the political process in general. They are all made of up many ordinary people that volunteer time and money.

You aren't trying to claim that you have never heard of a law that was the result of a crusade by one ordinary but determined person, are you?

If you are rich and you steal billions you can be sentenced to jail for 150 years like Bernie Madoff, and if you smoke a joint you can walk like in Colorado and a growing number of places.

When did "the rich" develop a monopoly on TV and radio stations? Are you confusing "the rich" with corporations? Is there some group or segment of the population that you think doesn't have at least some radio stations catering to it? Given some of the marginal crank views I hear flipping through the dial that would seem to be some pretty rarified segment.

Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?

Given the totality of the views that you have expressed, I'm not sure that I'm convinced you are against corruption as a general principle so much as you are against your own government.

Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

Of course the flip side of that is the assumption that many people here make which is that there is nothing that is genuinely sensitive and damaging to release.

Re:OCA

[AHuxley]

As people are slowly understanding its a vast pool of people working on "classified" stuff. Much of it is now "classified" to just stop the press, courts, law reformers, other politically active groups from finding embracing details. From over priced failed projects, crimes and the use of contractors, hidden sites, staff- doctors, lawyers who worked at remote sites. The rapid advancement and political protection of people who faced no real background investigations to the use of dual citizens... to a vast illegal telco surveillance network and the tame brands that helped..
"A hidden world, growing beyond control (July 19, 2010) "
http://projects.washingtonpost...

Re:OCA

[fnj]

Or you can just not opt into pointless farting around with the exacting stuff, and make a gun-type fission weapon on the general principle of the Hiroshima weapon. The principle and the level of engineering required are both so dead simple foolproof that you can skip the proof testing.

A gun-type weapon will even work fine without an initiator if you pay enough attention to the combined bullet and target staying together for the fraction of a second necessary for spontaneous neutron emission to do the job.

It is considered that a gun-type will not work with plutonium because of pre-ignition before the bullet and target are fully assembled. What I have never seen is an analysis of likely explosive yield given pre-ignition. An explosion of only 1-10% of maximum theoretical would still do one hell of a lot of damage. Also, a "dirty bomb" with comparatively slight explosive effect might float the boat of a terrorist. It most certainly would ruin the day of a city.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you aren't right. Self-medicated, maybe, but not right.

Re:OCA

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yep. That's what I meant by "Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted..."

You should look up Lessig's project. Or just continue doing nothing while complaining that people are doing nothing.

Re:OCA

[fnj]

And how many military divisions has the judicial branch? (apologies to Stalin) And the same question can be applied to the legislative branch.

Enforcement is assigned to the executive branch.

So yes, judicial can determine who has gone off the rails where, and it can find them in violation, but it can't send the police to arrest them.

Re:OCA

[Belial6]

I don't think that "starving" has to be literal. We are more in a state of Bread and Circus, but people are getting to the point that they can't afford to go to the circus, and they are now living on that half a loaf of bread that was better than none at all.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

Religious extremists were present in Iran the whole time. The Shah helped keep them in check. They were part of the revolution.

Even though I doubt it is really your bag, you should really look into the Soviet Union in the 30s, and maybe a few other times/places I could name. Compared to them the Shah was a piker. I think it likely that your assessment of the Shah and his regime isn't based so much on the actual scope of brutality but on the fact that he was allied with the US.

There is an old saying you should take to heart: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Re:OCA

[fnj]

Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting.

It is not for anyone to be disgusted by the low regard in which the people hold ALL the branches of the government. It is for everyone to be disgusted at the actual problem, which is that the entire apparatus is riddled with corruption and arrgogant, contemptuous scheming and violation of the public interest.

Re:OCA

[dcollins117]

That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.

"You can't handle the truth!" That's the thinking by political insiders and goes a long way to explain why so-called "whistle-blowers" are dealt with so harshly.

Once the public sees the extent classified status is used to cover up government malfeasance rather than issues of national security they become informed voters, and then they might vote in their own self-interest.

Re:OCA

[whoever57]

This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling.

I don't think that intelligence is the necessary attribute for acquiring wealth -- instead it is sociopathy. The ultra wealthy are only out for themselves and they don't care about the consequences, even the consequences for other rich people who are going to suffer from the starving people -- they have their private security.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I read one of these posts I think to myself "Wow. This guy is so out of touch with reality....", finally glancing over the poster's username and letting out a sigh of relief, "oh, it's just cold fjord".

Re:OCA

[sjames]

So the poor people WOULD improve their chances of advancing by killing rich people.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there is a lot to the geometry of creating the right explosions around a fissile material in order to compress the enriched core to become super critical.

70 years later, this stuff is still top secret.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

70 years later, this stuff is still top secret.

As it should be. (And from this layman's reading of public sources, both posters are more-or-less correct, but that's a matter of engineering, not law.) This is about law, not engineering.

Knowing what's in those FISA documents doesn't enable foreign dictators to impose surveillance on their respective populations, nor will it help them to impose surveillance on Americans.

Knowing what's in those documents might result in our IC reforming itself to be in compliance with the law. If it doesn't, it might motivate constituents to vote for representatives who would change the law to better reflect the will of the people. If you still believe in representative democracy, that's a good thing.

And if you reject representative democracy in the nihilistic (but supported by all observable evidence :) that everyone on the Hill ultimately works for the corporations and not the voters, I would remind you that those corporations make campaign donations too. Google beat MPAA when it came to delaying SOPA. The tech industry is at a point where it can outbid the entertainment industry, and it may eventually reach a point where it can outbid the security/surveillance industry too.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling. I get why they want to have more money than they could ever spend, but at a certain point, it becomes self destructive to continue to accumulate wealth beyond even that.

When you beat a game on your computer, do you play it forever, or do you download something else and play that instead?

After you've beaten Monopoly and have all the money you could spend in a lifetime, Diplomacy starts looking like fun.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

No. They would have to do something actually useful to advance their chances of becoming rich.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

Feel free to point out the facts I get wrong, if any, or make an argument. Till then you aren't really proving your views are in touch with "reality," just that you have a supply of snark. That post you made is a waste.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society,

So why does it work so well?

Why most of Americans equate "Marxist" with the devil but have no fucking clue what Marxism even is or is not? I guess it works so well you don't even know you are indoctrinated.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you don't realize the extent of your indoctrination? Marxists killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century. That might have something to do with their reputation.

Re:OCA

[Sique]

The most successful ideology so far is that you shouldn't take money from the rich, because if everyone works hard, he will be rich once, and then his own money is taken, right? This mantra has allowed the wealthy 1% to have an electorate that mostly votes for the one-percent-interest, because everyone hopes to be in the 1% sometimes, and thus doesn't want to vote against his prospective future interests. Somehow lost in this is the fact that you will only belong to the 1%, if you get more than 99% of all others, which by definition is not possible for 99% of the population.

Re:OCA

[sjames]

So then, where would those other people that become the rich come from?

Re:OCA

[sjames]

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

John Steinbeck.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope she understands what she'll compromise if she releases them, but I doubt it.

Save an apple, lose a tree. The problem is rather what is compromised by installing a secret court for oversight over secret happenings without oversight and then hiding away its reports that what is, in itself, supposed to be under its oversight does not actually bother listening.

What is compromised by releasing this kind of information to the public may not be non-zero but its peanuts against what those secret agents are doing in order to destroy the American Constitution, freedom, Bill of Rights and judicial system.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The military pretty much noticed that. What do you want to do? What are you going to do after the 30 bullets in your rifle are shot?

Stock up. Combat vehicles are given to police all over the country. Secret internment camps are being erected. We are talking about the leading military-industrial complex here. There will be enough bullets for everyone.

Re: OCA

[chill]

Think of it like nuclear fusion. Once you get critical mass it is a self-sustaining reaction. Einstein is credited with once calling compound interest the most powerful force. Once you get past the hump of earning more than you spend, short of a catastrophe you're just going to get richer. It is the nature of capitalism. Marx and Engals knew this.

The trick is getting to that point. Most people don't make it because when they make more they immediately spend more.

It isn't baffling one you realise it is the nature of the system and doesn't require the rich to do anything.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the flip side of that is the assumption that many people here make which is that there is nothing that is genuinely sensitive and damaging to release.

No, the assumption is that the damage is preferable compared to dismantling the democratic structure the nation is founded on.
Also, I don't trust you to make the judgment on what is sensitive or not. That you have made the call that I can't see the information clearly indicates that I can't trust you.

Re:OCA

[Sique]

That's why John Steinbeck got the Nobel Prize for Literature, and I didn't.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

They will have to feed the families of the soldiers also. That means feeding the food producers supplying the soldiers, and their families. And the people who distribute the food, and their families. They will fail. Soldiers can't work without support isnside a hostile territory filled with guns. No matter how much tanks or helicopters you have all cities will be denied from you. You could maybe starve a city to death. But at that point you pretty much have to slaughter the people trying to escape it. I'm almost certain american soldiers won't be willing to mindlessly kill hordes of people on american soil.

Re:OCA

[Megol]

Not really. You mention uranium and uranium can be used to make an uncomplicated bomb: essentially take a very strong pipe, place 1/2 of the uranium in one end of the pipe and the rest in the other end. Then place explosives behind the uranium blocks and seal the pipe.

This kind of weapon is primitive and not as efficient as the implosion type device but it works, is very simple to construct. Yes it is a bit more complicated than written above to reach a reliable state.

But even doing a implosion type device shouldn't be a problem for a skilled group of people.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if people vote against themselves they should be allowed to do so. Yes, I completely agree with the view that's it's bloody stupid to do so, but hey, people smoke, do drugs, drink alcohol, stay in abusive relationships and jump out of planes with nothing but some piece of silk tied to their backs. Maybe they think it's better to have dreams of becoming rich instead of having better healthcare, roads, public services and better chances to actually become rich or at least well off. Yuou can't cure stupid.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Now for a redacted version of that post:

XXX
Our XXX is being erected. It has become XXX than the last guys. It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using XXX new ways to XXX you, XXX.

If ever there was a time to XXX to be torn down, that time is now. XXX is being kept secret XXX, but to make it harder to expose XXX.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants

TV/radio are not so good at imposing specific extremist opinions. They are good at imposing issues.

Notice the attention paid in the US to drone strikes and school shootings, and compare with basketball, Benghazi, or anything to do with a Kardashian. Mass media gets to pick what people talk about.

Their influence over the direction of that conversation is more subtle, again largely dependent on selective not-talking-about. By telling only one side of a controversy. Detail the terrorists killed in drone attacks, but "collateral damage" with only that phrase (if at all). Contrast the kookiest extremist from 'the other side' with a bunch of moderates from their own side. Media control is about subtle manipulation, which is exactly what makes Colbert and Limbaugh such great comedians: their bluntness mocks propaganda machines.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

You are suggesting that having any confidential information in a democracy is anti-democratic. That is clearly nonsense.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.

Only for the most basic, wasteful, and physically large type weapons. If you want to build high yield weapons, efficient weapons, or compact weapons, there are engineering considerations based on practical experience. Would you willing hand over that experience in the form of test data and design plans? If so then I have another nomination for idiot.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't trying to claim that you have never heard of a law that was the result of a crusade by one ordinary but determined person, are you?

Sure. Megan's law, and Sadie's law, and whatever else. Those laws come up about once every 2-3 years and generally involve establishing some system of information distribution (eg, sex-offender registries), and generally at the state level. Meanwhile, the real business of government results in (about) 300 new federal laws and 40,000 new state laws each year. If you want to equate the influence of that 1-in-10,000 populist law with the rest of government activity, you go right ahead, but that lack of proportion is what makes you one of slashdot's recognizeable crazy persons.

When did "the rich" develop a monopoly on TV and radio stations? Are you confusing "the rich" with corporations?

Are you confusing corporations with democracies? Seriously: if Rupert Murdoch owns 30% of News Corp's stock, while simultaneously being the President, CEO, and chair of the Board, then NewsCorp is pretty much Rupert Murdoch. That 30% block means you'd need a very well organized shareholder revolt to oppose him in any meaningful manner.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

So who rules NBC, ABC, CBS, and various other media conglomerates with an iron fist?

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They would have to do something actually useful to advance their chances of becoming rich.

Why? A lot of people become rich without doing anything useful. And that's not even including the ones who simply got born to the right parents.

Re:OCA

[tinkerghost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... The US Government used their privilege to avoid embarrassment - claiming the crash report exposed damaging information about the classified equipment being tested on the flight - when the document was de-classified, the only comment was that it was testing classified equipment and the equipment was unrelated to the crash. From the start, the government has been lying about the need to classify information simply to avoid accountability, is it surprising that they are not trusted to do so?

Re:OCA

[thaylin]

How is that nonsense, let alone clearly nonsense? Having permanently confidential information is damaging to the democracy. A democracy only works if the system is transparent.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people cannot even define Marxism. They think it means "Whatever I don't like." So even if you're right, they still don't know what it means. Same with socialism.

Also, No True Marxist would do such a thing. Just like No True 1 + 1 equals 2.

Re:OCA

[AHuxley]

The US and UK tried their magic in Iran with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...'état as Operation Ajax, Operation Boot.
They then let the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service as the SAVAK contain the results of the coup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Over time trying to contain your own population does not work no matter the wealth, outside support or methods :)

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

That or I work in the industry and know first hand, while you're spouting off the propoganda from thinkprogress.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

read the rest of it ... "In the case of Herring v. United States, where it was disclosed that the declassified accident report from Reynolds was reviewed, Judge Davis found, "[d]etails of flight mechanics, B-29 glitches, and technical remedies in the hands of the wrong party could surely compromise national security," and thus "may have been of great moment to sophisticated intelligent analysts and Soviet engineers alike."[25] ...

The crash report may not be viewed in itself, but must be viewed in the context of other information likely to be present. Mishap reports generally include the altitude the aircraft was at, which in this case likely revealed the design operational altitude of the equipment being tested.

Re:OCA

[Sique]

I will in no way contest the results of the U.S. elections (except for the usual fraud allegations), but I am deeply convinced, that in a democracy, you have the government you deserve.

Re:OCA

[gstoddart]

Of course the flip side of that is the assumption that many people here make which is that there is nothing that is genuinely sensitive and damaging to release.

Oh, we believe it would be sensitive and damaging -- but we also believe it would be because they've breaking the law in many cases and bypassing any real oversight.

The assumption is the FISA court rubber stamps everything without actual regard for the law.

We don't trust them. We can't verify what they do. So we pretty much have to assume the worst.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Confidential information is information kept away from the people. In a democracy, the people are supposed to be in control of the government (you know, "government of the people", and all that).

So, when you keep information away from those who are in control, how can they make decisions based on that information?

I.e. should we have voted for those who wanted a war in Iraq? Without the real, classified, information on those weapons of mass destruction, none of us were capable of coming to a valid conclusion on that question. In other words, we were voting in blind - we had no idea what we were actually voting on. If Saddam had nukes, we might have been voting on saving the world. But in reality, we were voting on transferring Iraq from Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda.

If you vote without the necessary information, you may as well toss a coin. And nobody would suggest that a coin is democratic.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off and die, apologist. After all the corruption we've seen revealed in the US military-industrial-espionage complex, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is nuclear launch codes.

Too late.

http://www.google.com/search?q=00000000

Re:OCA

[DNS-and-BIND]

The neck that the Shah's boot was on was the Islamic extremists. The revolution didn't turn out very well for Iran. They would have been better off with the Shah. Eventually there would have been a Ferdinand Marcos moment and Iran would have become a messy republic like the Philippines. But no, they got theocrats, and the country still suffers to this day.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Opportunist has taken his place. It was a very long time before cold fjord stopped getting modded up, I expect the same for the newcomer using similar tactics as cold fjord did a year ago before he got too bold.

Re:OCA

[Somebody Is Using My]

Third-party voting fails only if you consider victory the only consideration. But it need not be so cut and dried.

Voting for a third-party is more than getting somebody else into office; it sends a message to the incumbent two parties. More than anything else, it says to them that their constituents are dissatisfied with their policies and are looking for alternatives. It is a warning that their position is directly in threat and that it is necessary for them to become more reactive to the the desires of the voters.

In any election, it is unlikely that a third-party candidate will win - but not impossible. Democrats and Republicans are well aware of this. If enough people start voting for third-parties, they will change their policies to better reflect the attitudes and wants of their constituents. A rise of a third-party terrifies them and they will change to prevent it.

Your third-party candidate may not win, but if his policies are taken up by the primary parties anyway, it is still an effective win for the electorate.

So if your conscience dictates it, vote third-party. It is one of the major ways we as voters can indicate our dissatisfaction with the current regime - and one of the few ways to which they actually listen - and is most definitely /not/ a wasted vote.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

Well, if anything, the revolution of 79 in Iran is a showcase example of why rebellions don't accomplish anything. They just trade one asshole for another one.

Rarely it's a better one.

Re:OCA

[Hodr]

So I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say, but please explain what exactly gives a State judge the right to appoint themselves arbitor of Federally classified information? And even if they were granted acess, and then released what information they deemed to be "safe", how would that make them different than any other person who illegally releases classified information they believe the public should know about?

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

The problem is that those that joined in on the rebellion didn't know that. Many were honestly expecting things to get better, with a real democracy (wasn't that what they were promised by the western democracies in the first place?).

I know that because many who fought in that rebellion fled the country when they found out that they had been betrayed and that they just traded a police state for a theocracy. Which is pretty much the same shit just with more praying.

But it IS easy to motivate people to overthrow a government when they have the feeling that their government is working against them and only for the interests of either a minority or even a foreign power. Twice so if that feeling is justified.

And hence I fear for the US. Because I have no idea just what kind of regime will establish itself after the revolution.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

You still need people willing to shoot. Can you rely on the US military to shoot US people? The US government is not a military junta where military would be used to something like that, the military still thinks they're protecting these people.

Re:OCA

[Kielistic]

And the remaining define it as "whatever I like" and ignore and fallasate away the bad parts. Ideologies and integers do not compare well. Pretty easy to tell if an integer is a 1 or not. Although I guess it's pretty easy to tell if it's a "True Marxist" as well: it's not.

Re:OCA

[CaptnZilog]

You are suggesting that having any confidential information in a democracy is anti-democratic. That is clearly nonsense.

No, that's not it at all. Look, *nobody* is saying that the nuclear launch codes shouldn't be top secret information and not given out to the public, and *nobody* is saying that our nuclear bomb research (in depth) shouldn't be secret... but it's not a secret that there *are* launch codes and bomb secrets. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't have secret research for new military hardware, Lockheed Skunkworks type stuff, etc - we know it exists and much of it is "black budget" stuff, but there's a reason it's secret.

Nobody (I don't think) is saying the government shouldn't be able to *get a warrant* (with reasonable suspicions) to wiretap someone, track their cell location, and any number of other things. Even if the warrant is issued by a secret court on a person-by-person basis, there may well be reasons the warrant shouldn't be "public record". That being said, *everyone* should be against warrantless tracking/wiretapping of citizens of your country, not of select people but of *everyone* in bulk. If they can't come up with a reason for someone, much less *everyone*, to be a "suspect" and get a properly issued warrant from a judge for that person (or people) *by name*, then they shouldn't be doing it because it is illegal. They don't want the documents of even just what they are doing (in general, without any specific names/people) released - nobody is asking them where the 'taps' are for the internet cables, what the exact technology is they are using, etc... but when they can go in front of Congress and flat out *lie* about gathering information on everyone, there's an obvious problem.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to point out the facts I get wrong...

Oh no, like the bits of the T-1000, the identities are converging...

Is cold fjord really Bennett Haselton?

Re:OCA

[CaptnZilog]

I.e. should we have voted for those who wanted a war in Iraq? Without the real, classified, information on those weapons of mass destruction, none of us were capable of coming to a valid conclusion on that question. In other words, we were voting in blind - we had no idea what we were actually voting on. If Saddam had nukes, we might have been voting on saving the world. But in reality, we were voting on transferring Iraq from Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda.

Anyone who actually believed that Saddam had nukes wasn't actually paying any attention to anything but the propaganda on the news. There was lots of conflicting reports out there, the UN inspectors flat out said there was no chance he was hiding a nuclear program, it was all over the news if you actually paid attention - I for one knew they were lying to drum up support for a war, it was obvious as hell. The main problem there is that the bulk of the population has the attention span of a gnat and is more interested in Snookie and Kimye and who got voted off the island than anything to actually do with what their own government is doing and being an actual *participant* in this thing we call democracy (really a republic).

I had gone on a couple dates with a woman that then made the comment to me of "I don't really care, I trust them to do the right thing"... I wasn't dating her shortly after that (not the sole reason, but one of several). Most people are more concerned with how much it costs to fill their car up to get to Walmart and buy Doritos and cheap imported Chinese crap than they are with what our government is doing. They weren't "voting" for anything about the Iraq war, unless you count being willfully ignorant of any real facts because they rely on a few 'news' blurbs without any real investigation as "informed". They were simply parroting what they were told to parrot by our "leaders".

Re:OCA

[CaptnZilog]

The neck that the Shah's boot was on was the Islamic extremists. The revolution didn't turn out very well for Iran. They would have been better off with the Shah.

... well, and they probably would have been even better off with Mossadegh, but he wanted to keep more oil profits for the people of his own country, to improve their lives, and "we" couldn't allow that.

Re:OCA

[JimSadler]

For how many decades was the M-1 rifle classified even after every enemy in the world could buy one and measure and test every single part of the rifle? I'm not sure the M-1 has ever been declassified despite being developed in the 1930 era.. Even the way the military classifies a weapon is designed to cause confusion. Ask any old GI what caliber the M-1 rifle was or is and he will answer 30-06. Yet on every barrel it is listed as 30 caliber. The 30 caliber rifle fires a 30-06 cartridge. In civilian weapons a similar issue exists. A 357 magnum, a 9mm and a 38 all fire down a 38 caliber barrel.

Re:OCA

[CaptnZilog]

Most people cannot even define Marxism. They think it means "Whatever I don't like." So even if you're right, they still don't know what it means. Same with socialism.

Also, No True Marxist would do such a thing. Just like No True 1 + 1 equals 2.

Really is a shame... like I hear everyone talking about evil "communist" countries... without any clue that there really has never *been* a truly "communist" country. 99.9% of the people I hear tossing around "communism", "Marxism", and the like have never actually read Marx or done any reading on the subject, they're just blindly parroting what they hear in the media. Like calling Obama a "socialist" and "left liberal", when he's really "right of center" (the Republicans being "far right" and there really being no, or very few, actual "left" candidates for anything), and is about as "socialist" as McDonalds and Lockheed Martin.

Re:OCA

[Tokolosh]

You called him "apologist". I call him "Tory".

Re:OCA

[alexo]

You still need people willing to shoot. Can you rely on the US military to shoot US people? The US government is not a military junta where military would be used to something like that, the military still thinks they're protecting these people.

On the other hand, you need people willing to die. The US is pretty short on those as well.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Who owns those corporations? It certainly is not the unwealthy.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/71255/10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy-this-chart-shows-how

Re:OCA

[HeckRuler]

That post he just made is quite useful to to the crowd of people that may not be familiar with you and your particular flavor of bias.
He knows you. And 5 slashot moderators know you and are willing to spend points to bump this up.

His post was, in short, insightful.

But hey, some people need more help than others,

Feel free to point out the facts I get wrong

CAN DO!

Your overall argument is that the rich aren't all that powerful and the poor have plenty of power. That the poor can get together and give their money to political organizations that run this town.
And that'd be nice, if it were true. But the fact of the matter is that the rich ARE powerful, very powerful, to the point that

Fact: The gini coefficient in the USA is rising. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking.

Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.

Not when they're homeless poor people. The crazy guy ranting on the corner WILL always be there and no, there's no real need to go guard against him. If anything we need to guard against the people trying to censor him.
The guy is harmless, at least on a political scale. He has zero hope of swaying the masses. If he somehow managed to gather a crowd and/or become a cult leader, and people started to listen to him, he'd probably no longer be a poor homeless person. He'd transform into a radio host, a televangelist, a full-blown-locked-in-a-compound cult leader, or worse, a CEO.

When did "the rich" develop a monopoly on TV and radio stations?

Since their inceptions? Only the rich could afford to step into those industries. They were serious money ordeals back in the day. But hey, now anyone with a phone can shoot video. Look at all of those mom&pop TV channels watched by millions! Oh, wait, no, that's Youtube and the Internet.
Well radio broadcasters are cheap! Look at all the... oh wait, the barrier to entry for commercial radio stations is really high just to keep competition out. Well there's always HAM... which is specifically barred from making money from it.

So this one is wrong. You're presuming there was a time that the rich didn't have a monopoly on it. And that isn't true.

Are you confusing "the rich" with corporations?

And this might be the basis of why your worldview is so fucked.
YES. The rich and powerful run the corporations. Literally. The job is titled "CEO". Their boss is supposed to be the shareholders, but it's effectively the board, which is composed of a handful of rich people who are CEOs of their own corporations which have the original CEO on THEIR board.

Is there some group or segment of the population that you think doesn't have at least some radio stations catering to it?

And this here is some fantastic spin. Here let me point it out for you.
"catering to".
There is some rich individual, running a corporation that controls a chunk of spectrum that caters to rednecks. They pay lip-service to the cultural background of the redneck, play the right music, and run ads that hit the mark, but it is wholly controlled, steered, and profited by soulless corporate goons that don't know the difference between a banjo and a guitar. If you think that a corporation that SELLS to a group is the same thing as the group being politically empowered, then you are monstrously fucked up.

Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?

Bush. Rumsfeld. Cheney. They spent billions of (someone else's) dollars to destabilize the middle east. The sectarian violence in Iraq during the US occupation killed 100's of thousands.
Arguably

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no clue of history or what a Marxist is.

Maybe you don't realize the extent of your indoctrination? USA killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century. That might have something to do with your reputation.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

You're both amateurs: no competent terrorist is going to try to build a nuclear device; they're going to put 0.5 kilo of PL around a little bit of dynamite or C4 and pop that from the top of a building during a gentle breeze. Simpler, easier, equally effective in terms or radiation damage and terror effect.

Re:OCA

[gtall]

Really? How about your Social Security number? Can we post that on a web site? Maybe your purchase history, I don't feel that should be confidential. Any arrest history? Please post that so we can all enjoy your discomfit. Any gay marriage? That too should be public just in case you care to visit areas of the U.S. or the world that are not so enlightened.

DoD information? That should be made public so those well-meaning democratic Islamic fighters have the latest. They'd like bio-chem antidote information to plan their strategy.

How about U.S. companies' tax and regulatory information? Foreign competitors should have complete access, eh?

Re:OCA

[s.petry]

I spent a good portion of my life working in the industry and changed sides after realizing the extent of the corruption. You are either sleeping or willfully playing along like a good little toady thinking you will get a crumb. Notice how you hide behind anonymity because you are so sure of your convictions...

Re:OCA

[s.petry]

You don't think an educated person could look at classified documents and make such a distinction? I'm not sure you are thinking very hard about this, or perhaps are over thinking things considerably.

Document contains agent X investigating terrorist Y and is tracking financial information for weapon purchases. Anyone looking at that would know the communication is legitimately classified, if anything is to be released redact Y, X, money amounts, and other pertinent data that would be useful to terrorists to hide their tracks or harm the agent.

That same logic works if the document says "We need to keep this hush or the public is going to have a tizzy about how we are abusing the trust", obviously this type of information is classified for bogus reasons.

Re:OCA

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Your social security number is known by every billing, credit, and banking company you deal with. There is no secrecy over it, every call center employee and up has access to it.

Your purchase history is known by every company you regularly purchase from (unless you always use unmarked cash). It is also known by your bank, and others those companies share it with.

Marriages are public record. Arrests are public record unless sealed by a judge.

Re:OCA

[s.petry]

Does the ACLU have a minimum income requirement for membership? What about the NRA? The AARP? The Teamsters? The NEA?

That is absolutely absurd. Are you really implying that a donor is now the policy makers out giving speeches? Are you further trying to imply that the purpose of all of those groups is nefarious at heart? Are you further trying to imply that those groups get active time on TV and Radio shows outside of being slandered by teleprompter reading actors and actresses?

Those are rhetorical questions, and yes you are implying all of those things. All of them are idiocy at heart and a further attempt to try and shift blame.

Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?

Ahh, the denials are so sweet. Look at how much money George Soros and the "National Endowment for Democracy" pumped into the Ukraine prior to their latest revolution. Easier to track is how much we pumped there for their first revolt a few years back. You won't do the work though, you will just "Deny" and/or "Distract" again won't you? Yeah, we have chatted before and you smell like a dirty sock puppet from here.

Given the totality of the views that you have expressed, I'm not sure that I'm convinced you are against corruption as a general principle so much as you are against your own government.

I don't need a horse to topple your straw man argument. I was very clear in my points and you can not argue with unless you fabricate information (outright lie).

Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.

Somehow thought police will prevent this right? Oh wait, you just repeated yourself on a point I agreed with but somehow insinuate that we can control thoughts. Hrm...

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

*I* am not the government. Individual information only needs to be disclosed when the individual is acting on behalf of the government. That's what we're talking about here, Captain Overly Literal Interpretation.

A democracy only works if the system is transparent.

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

When both sides are spewing propaganda, it's a matter of trust. Which both sides by definition do not really deserve.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to point out "facts" you got wrong when most of your rant was in the form of questions.

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

Third party voting is failing for the same reason

Because not enough people are doing it.

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Even if you don't go in for that religious stuff, some of us have noticed that really rich people only tend to care less about their money when they're getting older and considering how they're going to be remembered.

"They'll simply change" is never so cut and dried. Change is hard.

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

People from all philosophies, religions, and creeds can become mass murderers if you give the philosophy enough time. Citing one particular person (Stalin) as an example why the entire philosophy is evil is rather shaky.

Re:OCA

[ogdenk]

Depends which version of the M-1 you are talking about. The carbine fires .30 Carbine, the Garand fires .30-06/7.62x63. The AR10 and M14 fire .308/7.62x51. Russians typically used 7.62x25 (aka .30 Tok), 7.62x39 and 7.62x54. There's LOTS of .30 cal rounds out there.

As far as 9mm goes there's a TON of different sizes. .357 Mag, .38 special, 9x17/.380ACP, 9x18 Makarov, 9x19 Luger, 9x23, etc, etc. To make matters even worse, some of them are even interchangeable to a degree. 9x18 pistols can fire .380ACP in some cases. .357's can shoot .38 special in a pinch, 7.62x25 pistols can often shoot 7.63 Mauser cartridges, etc.

Basically, if you don't know what you're doing and rely on a stamp on a gun to tell you what it shoots..... you should probably find a different hobby.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

The launch codes were not that secret: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/nuclear-missile-code-00000000-cold-war_n_4386784.html Basically, the same code you use on your luggage.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Third-party voting fails only if you consider victory the only consideration.

You're giving first/second party voting too much credit. Another qualifier has to be that the race is decided by one vote. All additional votes are not only superfluous, but potentially harmful as it creates a false sense of mandate for both sides.

I'm unlikley to ever vote in a Federal office race that is decided by one vote. Ergo, I consider all first/second party votes as wasteful and harmful. Even if I had the deciding vote, I wouldn't likely cast it for the 'lessor evil'. There might be 5% in Congress on either side that are the exceptions, the sufficienlty less evil. The rest can G2H.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why Americans should REVOLT NOW, 300 million people sacking all their local government critters is an undeniable force overload. But you can't do it sitting at home drinking beer and watching Simpsons.

Re:OCA

[HiThere]

Sorry, but secret courts have repeatedly proven to be untrustworthy. Even non-secret courts that specialize tend to be owned by corrupt powers. Think of Texas and patents.

Re:OCA

[HiThere]

I don't think that's it, though it might be a component. I think it's more that they don't get to the top of the heap without forming the habit of competing by all available means. And if it's illegal, but they probably won't suffer consequences, they don't care that it's illegal.

I suspect that they *do* classify things to foster their prospects, but "their" in this case is personal rather than party. Groups that work together, of course, tend to have aligned goals AND be of the same political party, but I tend to think of that as happenstance, most of the time. Of course, when the head (or titular head) of the party is a party to the action...

But the "corporate masters" aren't likely to be involved in such shenanigans unless it's to their direct benefit. And they (the corporate group) aren't much worried about which party will bear the blame. Both parties that have a chance are already purchased. (Which is why the two party system is such a bad idea.)

And this all traces back to plurality wins voting. It's a part of the design of the system that's broken. Instant Runoff Voting (or Condorcet) wouldn't have THAT problem. In that case, though, the information overload that happens around election time would be increased. People would need to be deciding between people that they didn't know anything about. (This already happens for minor offices, such as judicial.)

Re:OCA

[cheater512]

What would the terrorists that are (apparently) lurking behind every corner want?

Yep. They wouldn't give a rats ass about efficiency if it is in the middle of New York City.

But it probably would have been done already if there were the terrorists everywhere. Oh and the boogey man under the bed isn't real either.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Start by dehumanizing the other side. For example, convince your supporters that the other side consists only of racists, sociopath rich people, and nutbag "regressives" and they might be willing to shoot "those" people.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

That's pretty much what I said, just with more words. Sorry, been paid by the letter for too long it seems, verily I should start to understand the need to express my thoughts in a more terse and less lavish way, often it seems that the only thing I can accomplish by writing more is to fill more room without actually adding anything tangible to the point that is being discussed and that I try to support with my writing. Though I have to say that a precise expression of ideas does lead to a better understanding at the receiver's end of the conversation, due to more facts and arguments being presented and...

what did we talk about again?

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

That's pretty much what I said, just with more words. Sorry, been paid by the letter for too long it seems, verily [blah blah ramble ramble waste my time TL;DR sarcasm yaaaaay]

More accurately, you said, "It doesn't work because enough people don't do it, therefore enough people will never do it, so you shouldn't care, so just give up."

I like my way better. It's more constructive: "It doesn't work because enough people aren't doing it...but we can't control other people. We can only control our own vote, and if we're lucky maybe convince a couple other people to vote the same way."

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

A guy named "Opportunist" is arguing that it doesn't matter anyway? Next we'll have Nietzscheans arguing for romance.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

You're young, I guess. I was like that. If we just get enough people we can change the world!

Sorry. Nope. I wish you the best of luck and I really hope you will have more success than I ever had, but I'm done with the people. The people are too stupid, they're not worth being "saved".

I'll continue to vote, I'll continue to "throw away" my vote on a third party candidate that has no chance against the idiots that follow the herd to this or that trough. It gives me the good feeling that I can at least say that I voted "right", and that I'm not part of the problem.

But my time of trying to be part of the solution is over. Sorry. I have to pick my fights, I'm not young enough anymore to go chase windmills.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

Duh?

The very last thing you need when you're rich is poor people with their back against the wall. There's nothing more dangerous than people who have nothing to lose. So always, always make sure they have something to lose.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

I'm already pondering starting a torches-and-pitchfork shop.

Re:OCA

[Opportunist]

Still, still. Give it time. People still have something to lose.

Such things take a while. You can't reach the breaking point over night, something like this has to develop.

Re:OCA

[sjames]

They seem to be very busy taking away the bread and circuses these days. No good can come of it.

Re:OCA

[cold fjord]

So in short you either don't understand or support the principles of representative democratic government. Fair enough.

Re:OCA

[eriqk]

Because not enough people are doing it.

Plenty people voted third party in the UK last time around. See where that got them.

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

A) I don't follow UK politics.
B) I thought the UK had 3 or 4 major political parties so the situation really is not analogous to the U.S. at all (if true...for definitions of "major party" > 8% of the vote).

Re:OCA

[TangoMargarine]

Yeah:
In 2010, 36.1% Conservative, 29.0% Labour, 23.0% Liberal Democrat.
In 2005, 35.2% Labour, 32.4% Conservative, 22.0% Liberal Democrat

Presumably we're working on different definitions of "third party" here. I'm not saying the party that got the third-highest votes, I'm saying parties that currently in no way compete with the top 2. This is why drawing direct comparisons between the U.S. and other countries doesn't really work a lot of the time. We would KILL for a third party that takes almost a quarter of the vote.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us know when you get representative democratic governance. The rest of the world would really like to know.

Re:OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?

Word-games are fun, but they rarely lead to anything constructive. Just like most of your posts don't.

Hooray.

[Rinikusu]

Now what if the judge gets the documents and indeed agrees that they should remain secret?

Re:Hooray.

[sumdumass]

Then she returns then and doesn't disclose their contents.

Of course she can use her new found knowlege to make decisions pertaining to the case that will seem arbitrary to the rest of us. But i think the chances of that here are slim.

Re:Hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, this judge has proven to be on the right side of the law, and so far, no sign of being inappropriately swayed by the defense or prosecution. I'd trust if this judge says it should remain secret, there's good reason for it.

Re:Hooray.

[Anonymous Coward]

If she says they need to come out, I hope she remains on the right side of the dirt.

A paranoid executive is a dangerous executive.

In related news

[Gothmolly]

A Federal Judge was reported missing today.

Re:In related news

[TangoMargarine]

No no, it's the legislature that take away your rights. Obama just signs the bills.

The republic is dead ....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious the DOJ won't comply with the judge's order. The executive branch has been bingeing on power for way to long and they won't listen to a silly judge. What possible recourse does a judge have ? Hell, what recourse does congress have ? The executive branch has dirt on them all and won't bat an eye to destory them if need be. So yeah, the republic is dead.... -Tyranny for All.

Re:The republic is dead ....

[the eric conspiracy]

This is nothing new. Andrew Jackson one refused to scoffed at a Supreme Court decision, saying in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/suprem...

The Supreme Court has ALWAYS had to rely on the cooperation of the the other branches of government because they have no constitutional mandate to enforce their decisions. It is a clear part of the limitation of the powers of one of the branches of government.

Congress on the other hand does hold the power to impeach the President if they can agree on such. However it has to rise beyond the petty partisanship we have today and get to the point where 2/3 of the Senate will vote for it. If it happened to occur in a partisan manner watch out because then the office of President will become a completely empty shell.

The real danger to the Republic is the factionalism we see today, which was written about by James Madison in the Federalist #10 long ago.

Re:The republic is dead ....

[sumdumass]

The judge can order the executive to do something... just like they did with FDR and he said make me while congress openly considered packing the supream court when it ruled against the new deal legislation. Of course the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in order to head that off and make portion of the new deal appear constitutional.

So i guess we already have the road map for what happens if they ignore the court or congress.

Re:The republic is dead ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon did alot of schemey shit and got impeached. BIG WHOOP, nothing changed ! Impeachment won't fix the problem. Only a complete overhaul of the executive branch will. Considering how large the executive branch is and how they have the other two branches by the balls, it will take a tremendous sacrifice from congress to enact change (we all know that won't happen). Considering how well versed you are in American History, what recourse do the commoners have ?

Re:The republic is dead ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nixon did alot of schemey shit and got impeached.

Nixon was not impeached.

Re:The republic is dead ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't fire me, I quit!

Re:The republic is dead ....

[Anonymous Coward]

...because then the office of President will become a completely empty shell.

Are you suggesting it isnt already?

Re:The republic is dead ....

[AHuxley]

Think of it as a digital, legal Berlin wall 2.0. The US legal system will function in open court and a vast illegal domestic telco surveillance network will be examined.
The other option is legal Berlin wall 2.0 falls into place with color of law been used to stop open courts and protect a large amount of the domestic telco surveillance network and its deep gov connections.
The fun part is as cases move up to the highest courts - sooner or later within a generation some cases will have to be allowed or blocked.
The good news is thanks to whistleblowers and open US courts - further open legal work or a hasty color of law block will be very public.
The big fear is that the color of law efforts win and the legal system becomes optional for a vast section of bureaucrats, technocrats and their favored private sector contractors.
Welcome a legal system under a living document or within a banana republic.

Re:The republic is dead ....

[fnj]

What possible recourse does a judge have ? Hell, what recourse does congress have ?

It is true that enforcement does not take orders from judicial. They are constitutionally in executive's pocket.

Better to ask what recourse do The People have? Only the one which no power on earth can take away from them. That recourse which makes the blood run cold in government and people alike. The recourse of rebellion. If the grievances run deep enough, the scum will not succeed in defeating the rebellion when it finally comes.

Better for all if we can turn this around peacefully through grass roots upheaval in the political process.

Re:The republic is dead ....

[Culture20]

The Supreme Court has ALWAYS had to rely on the cooperation of the the other branches of government because they have no constitutional mandate to enforce their decisions. It is a clear part of the limitation of the powers of one of the branches of government.

And that's a good thing, considering they're installed for life. Give them enforcement powers, and they'd be kings.

OCA

[Anonymous Coward]

All three branches of government along with the intelligence agencies have proven that they cannot be trusted to hide behind the shield of 'classified information'.

Our rights are rapidly vanishing and a police state is being erected. It has become a competition between each newly elected or appointed set of government to see how they can break more laws than the last guys. It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using government to find new ways to control you, spy on you, rob you and imprison you.

If ever there was a time to push for the 'classified information' curtain to be torn down, that time is now. Information is being kept secret not for national security reasons, but to make it harder to expose overreach and lawlessness by our own government.

Knock, Knock, Knock

[sasparillascott]

I think we're getting someone's attention. (Hopefully the judge makes them public)

They will

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as soon as the U.S. Marshals get there to deputize someone, seize, and destroy everything.

It's gonna be a long war

[Anonymous Coward]

We may have won the battle, but the war is still yet to be won.

the documents, including 1 opinion and 4 orders...

[Anonymous Coward]

also any documentation of embarrassing indiscretions by said judge that the current surveillance programs can drag up, and the location of a large stash of untraceable money.

She can release all or nothing.

Better summary:

[MasseKid]

Stalemate continued, EFF showed some promise, but the DoJ has to 1) actually comply with the order, 2) The judge actually agree on merits, 3) The DoJ not immediately file for an appeal due to matters of national saftey, 4) the DoJ actually give the information to the EFF.

Don't get me wrong, what happened today was good, however calling it a victory is a bit premature.

Re:Better summary:

[Opportunist]

5) The DOJ gives half a shit about any court orders. Or the rest of the country for that matter.

Re:Better summary:

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'd actually make that point 0).

Re:Better summary:

[SlaveToTheGrind]

but the DoJ has to 1) actually comply with the order

The judge would have wide discretion in issuing sanctions for contempt of the discovery order. I personally doubt this is the sort of thing where a whole bunch of people progressively higher up the food chain would be willing to take up residence in a jail cell. We'll see.

2) The judge actually agree on merits

Agreed, though I'm encouraged that one of the reasons in the opinion for ordering the docs to be submitted to the court was the DoJ's prior shady practices in the case: "The evidence in the record shows that some documents, previously withheld in the course of this litigation and now declassified, had been withheld in their entirety when a disclosure of reasonably segregable portions of those documents would have been required. Further, the withholding followed an Order from this Court expressing concern that the agency had failed to explain sufficiently why the withheld documents “would be so replete with descriptions of intelligence activities, sources and methods that no portions thereof would contain” reasonably segregable and producible, non-exempt information." As a result, she seems appropriately skeptical going into this round.

3) The DoJ not immediately file for an appeal due to matters of national saftey

I don't believe an order to produce classified documents is immediately appealable.

4) the DoJ actually give the information to the EFF

The judge should have the same contempt levers available here as in #1.

Re:Better summary:

[FlyHelicopters]

The judge would have wide discretion in issuing sanctions for contempt of the discovery order. I personally doubt this is the sort of thing where a whole bunch of people progressively higher up the food chain would be willing to take up residence in a jail cell. We'll see.

Yes, the Judge would... but whenever a Judge issues such an order, they have to have it carried out by law enforcement, often by the Sheriff...

The Judge might find it hard to actually do anything about it, since the people physically in the courtroom can claim, "we'd love to comply, but our bosses in Washington won't give us access".

It sounds really nice that a Judge, using his/her pen, can simply make the whole Federal Government do something against its wishes, but reality doesn't always work that way.

Time for the next betting pool

[Opportunist]

Why will the papers be unavailable? My 10 bucks are on "technical error and for some mysterious reasons they're nowhere to be found on backups".

Re:Time for the next betting pool

[AHuxley]

Have we had State secrets yet? Retroactive immunity? Anything distracting under color of law
State secrets privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Rename the projects and methods, hand the databases over to the GCHQ and Canada.
Do an exhaustive, in depth search in the US and find nothing?
Anything distracting around the world?

Re:Time for the next betting pool

[TangoMargarine]

"He slipped on an icy patch."
"But he was decapitated!"
"It was a *very* icy patch."

Re:Time for the next betting pool

[Opportunist]

You can only take one of them, let others partake in the bet, too.

In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

So was Obama. He's probably playing golf on vacation again. At least that means he won't be taking away any more of your rights.

Order 66?

[antdude]

That is what I read it as a Star Wars fan/nerd/geek. ;)

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

On a totally unrelated event, a california judge has been found dead in their chambers, apparent suicide due to angst about going over the DOJ's head.

Clearly a warning to any judges that would think to *gasp* overrule the executive^h^honer branch.

Good Luck With That

[Anonymous Coward]

You, a state judge, are challenging a Federal court?

Hang on, I lost my lungs about halfway through that sentence.

You can't handle the truth!

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't handle the truth!"

Although some of us have had little experience and thus are currently not really equipped to "handle the truth" (in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy), most of us are intelligent enough to deal with it.

The problem is that quite a bit of that "can't handle the truth" / "classified material" might influence people to rethink, among other things, whom they will vote for next time, and thats not something the powers-that-be are willing to risk.

Ofcourse, much of that above "can't handle the truth" / "classified material" is just there to keep some embarishment or encounters with the Law of one of the powers-that-be outof the eyes of the voters.

In short: most of those powers-that-be are more than willing to violate the principle of accountability (without which any organisation is prone to corruption) for nothing more than a short-term, personal gain.

As far as I can see its the result of internal (gouvermental) rot that allowed the "classified material" invocation bar to be dropped time-and-again, resulting in it now almost touching the ground.

Caveat:
Some of the "classified material" has been designated as such for good reason. For example, when negotiating deals for your country you do not want the opposing party to be able to look into all of your cards ...

Mod parent down

[amaurea]

In 1983, the US Army Institute for Professional Development considered TV and Radio to be the second and third most effective means of propaganda after face-to-face interaction. (Nowadays internet and social media would probably be high on the list too.)

What did you check to determine that TV is a "piss-poor way to attempt to shape society"? Did you look at yourself and go "I don't feel like I've had my opinions or feelings manipulated by TV, so it clearly doesn't work"? Many (most) people don't think they are affected by advertising either, yet advertising is so profitable that it is almost everywhere. Our minds have known vulnerabilities in the form of appeal to emotion, subconcious association of unrelated things, etc,, and of course these are being exploited. Sadly, we can't fix these vulnerabilities like we can with software, but at least it helps to be aware of the ways we're being influenced.

If you don't hand over evidence...

[gnasher719]

... a court should and will assume that the information you didn't hand over would be speaking against you. That is common practice. So if the judge orders the DOJ to hand over documents, it doesn't really matter that much (in the court case) whether they do or don't. If a plaintiff says "they should hand over these documents because it will clearly show that X is true", and they don't hand them over, then the court will assume that X is indeed true.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we so uncertain as to who the bad guys are? When Dubya was in office it was certainly much easier
to figure out. Now we have to go back to Jackson or FDR or Nixon to find the boogey man? You people
are completely fucked up.

I've been thinking about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

one thing that happens is if you've got extra money, there are
many, many clever people clamoring at you saying "I can make your
money grow!" So you hand it over to them and (for a slice) they
come up with shady deals (i.e. leveraged buyout and gut) that
increase the original owners value so they can get their cut.

It's large surpluses of cash and money managers driving a lot
of the increase in inequality.

Principles are easier than practice

[sjbe]

Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.

Knowing how one works and actually being able to build a functioning one are hugely different things. Any second year physics student understands in principle how they work but that doesn't mean they have the expertise to build a functional one. (thank $diety) I understand in principle how the CPU in my PC was built. In principle it is pretty crude. But that doesn't mean I understand the technology required to actually produce a functional replica. Never underestimate the difficulty of actually creating things and never underestimate the knowledge base required.

They'll use the Lois Lerner defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, guys. We lost the documents in a PC crash. Yeah... that's the ticket.

They haven't played their trump card yet. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You know. . . the " National Security " one. . . .

or the " State Secrets " one . . .

" Teh Terrorists "

" Think of the children "

" Executive Order #randomnumber "

whatever. . . .

Anytime the government thinks there is a chance it can lose in a courtroom, they play one of the aforementioned cards and squash the entire thing.

The government should pay attention to the little things that are happening. Once enough folks realize there isn't any legal means to fix what is perceived to be a problem, they resort to less than civilized methods to do so. It usually involves violence and guns. See recent events towards local law enforcement ( Vegas, Bundy ranch, etc ) if you want to understand where things will ultimately end up.

* * At some point, the populace will tire of the corruption, lies and the " Do as I say, not as I do " attitude of our modern government. When that day gets here, even the news won't be able to keep up with the violence that will come of it. * *

Redacted

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you want to bet that the DOJ will turn over 66 pages of black lines. FOIA and court document request laws need to be given teeth, don't turn over the documents in a timely fashion or overly censor them and you go to prison for a minimum of a decade. The first few bureaucrats who ended up in a prison cell for years would nip this crap in the bud real quick.

Anything for techinical correctness??

[Anonymous Coward]

California judge != federal judge in California.

I know not everyone is a lawyer, but in our federalist system there is a difference between a state court and a federal court.

Good lord. If you are going to submit a summary, be precise.

Re:Anything for techinical correctness??

[TangoMargarine]

A federal judge's order on Friday could force the U.S. government to reveal more information about its widespread collection of citizens' phone records.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the federal district court in Oakland, California, ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review.

Literally the first 2 paragraphs of the article.

Congress People cant even balance a checkbook

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence why the BANK of congress was closed in 1991
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/05/us/private-bank-for-congress-service-from-a-bygone-era.html

They wrote too many bad checks, are these the people we really want running the country?