There was actually a chart published that showed total contributions by Abrramoff and his clients. There were plenty of Dems, and plenty of money to go around.
How on earth is this modded insightful? Only in/.'s warped mindthink would this be considered a intellegent comment. Can we either not post political arguments on slashdot, or have a moderating system that doesn't encourage people to express their political preferences in the form of moderation points?
Or are slashdotters really delusional enough to think that only republicans troll, and nothing from the left can possibly insulting and wrong? It's that kind of narrow scope of vision that I have no doubt infected the trolls that hit the site listed above.
So the $500,000 To democrats, and the $50,000 to Harry Reid were just business as usual? For that matter, the entire rise of K street under the Clinton Administration was accidental?
There is no doubt that the Republicans need to clean ship, before the next election, or the voters will do it for them. But for Democrats to act like they arn't also affect by this, didn't go to the Signature resturant, or didn't stop by the sky boxes is pushing truth past the spin zone.
As for the rest of your agument, I agree completly. Watch the Republican elections, I think you will see the "true" conservitives take more back in terms of bushing for smaller, more acountable government. But until we have real strong and restricted term limits, it won't happen.
Now, given this story, I am sure I will get modded down by people who don't want to hear that the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt. The difference will be that/.'s moderation system will be used to supress the comment rather then curse words.
Try again, and try to be less partisan. Abramoff's client's donations are the primary issue in both the RNC and the DNC. While about 2/3rds have gone to republicans, the remaining one third contains almost half a million dollar to the Democratic parts, and more then 50,000 to Senate Minority Leader Reid (which puts him the in the top 10).
So what do you think Atta's conversations where? A quick conversation about how birthday candles and the number of candles?
Foreign intellgence simply means linked to a foreign power. The USSC has already ruled that this includes terrorist groups. Hence foreign intellegence.
FISA applies when wiretaps are being used for purposes other then intel (ie, criminal prosecution), when both participants are "US persons" or when there is no reason to suspect that either may be a agent of a foreign power or orgaization.
It's not a hard concept to grasp. Congress can not pass a law stating that the President may not appoint justices, or ambassadors, or prosecute a war once a war powers act has been passed(like a decleration of war, or a war powers act like the 8/11 bill). The powers are seperate.
Yep. FISA does not apply in intellgence gathering situations where one or more of the participants are a agent of a foreign power. Everyone from Carter on has claimed this. A USSC review will put the matter to bed once and for all.
You still fail to understand both FISA and the rulings. The rulings apply to situations where the president is using his own authority as the executive to wiretap agents of a foreign country or to prevent a attack on the united states via intellgence. The Courts have ruled (4 times) that FISA does not apply to this circumstance. No law is being ignored. FISA simply does not apply.
I am quoteing a associate A.G. His opinion might be construed to be more informed then yours. Of course, your opinion does not overrule judicial precedence (what you refer to as standing), no matter how self-important you think you are. Four cases are explicitly cited, including bare bones legal language saying that the court takes it for granted that the president has the authority to wiretap for foreign intellgence reasons. The president (in another fact you have not awknowledged) does not ignore the law, in fact the one ruling on this explictly states that FISA recongizes that the President's authority is complete and seperate from the FISA authorization or the FISA courts.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The above article lists explicit facts as to why the program is legal. I therefore pronounce you troll and am done with this.
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
n the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
I believe this is the third time I have posted this correction:
From the Clinton Administration's Lawyers:
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
Written by a friggen associate attorney general of the United States under the Clinton Administration :
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
This is the problem with Slashdot. A intellgent article that rebuts several points and make counterpoints is modded troll. Can I make a sugestion that we use something other then the existing moderation system on political arguments? It's not designed to encourage actual discusion on items that might have massive disagreement. It only encourages groupthink.
The Bush Administration is knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly violating a law of this nation. That is unacceptable.
Just because you state over and over that somehow it is "unacceptable" it does not make it so. At the very least give some ground and admit that given that several judical decisions including the FISA rulings that Bush has authority outside of their purview for national security and Truong might make your legal case shakey. Truong was decided post FISA implementation and the 2002 and 2003 rulings by the FISA courts that certain wiretaps were legal based on the presidents authority shoots a hole in your arguments.
No, it does not. The FISA court has never said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal.
Actually, the FISA court has ruled (and it has neen upheld on review by appelate) that the President's authority and responsibilities trump congresses ability to restrict them when dealing with people who could be agents of a foreign power. That seems to apply with what we actually know (not speculate) about the NSA's programs.
No, they did not. They got the required warrants from the FISA court.
There are several instances where this is not true, most notably the Ames case.
What amazes me (not really) is people who are so blindly partisan that they will stand behind a man who is breaking actual laws and destroying the ideals of our country in the process. Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.
What amazes me are people who are so blindly partisan that they will shoot a man who is trying to do his job with the constitutional powers granted him, because of blind hatred, tinfoil hats, and seething distrust.
Look, I am under no illusions that this won't be reviewed by the Supreme Court, it's too controversial, but prepare yourself for a shock, cause Bush is going to win this one.
The FISA court itself has ruled that the President's consitutional authority to protect and defend the United States explicitly trumps their restrictions when dealing with Agents of a Foreign Power or Organization. Period. End of Story. That ruling was in 2002, but Clinton, Carter and Reagen all used the same justification and the same authority.
It's simply because of who used it this time that the people are up in arms.
That's kinda the point. Bush used the same justification that Clinton used to authorize that warrent. Namely that in questions of national defense, the President's constitutional duties and privledges granted explictly by the constitution outweigh efforts by congress to curtail them.
To me this is a no brainer. It's called seperation of power. The president has powers that Congress can not usurp by law.
A gross simplification, and speculation to boot. Washington's war by posts had been very successful. The seige of yorktown did end the war true, and the French Fleet blockade of Yorktown was important, but let's be clear here. The British would have withdrawn from the States back up into Canada. They had been shredded by the militia down south. They would have found themselves back where the war started, and the war was becoming desperatly unpopular in England. It is unlikely that the war would have continued much longer even if they had managed to escape from Yorktown.
Franklin was certainly influential in France, but you also have to look at John Adams who also worked on France as well as securing loans for the government and several others.
That's the entire point. Mono removes that lock in. By the way, at a very basic level, Microsoft needs Mono. Their own open source effort around mono (ROTOR) failed. They need a competitor CIL/CLR to have creditability with large IT shops that could just as soon go to Java.
Slashdot Mirror
There was actually a chart published that showed total contributions by Abrramoff and his clients. There were plenty of Dems, and plenty of money to go around.
How on earth is this modded insightful? Only in /.'s warped mindthink would this be considered a intellegent comment. Can we either not post political arguments on slashdot, or have a moderating system that doesn't encourage people to express their political preferences in the form of moderation points?
Or are slashdotters really delusional enough to think that only republicans troll, and nothing from the left can possibly insulting and wrong? It's that kind of narrow scope of vision that I have no doubt infected the trolls that hit the site listed above.
So the $500,000 To democrats, and the $50,000 to Harry Reid were just business as usual? For that matter, the entire rise of K street under the Clinton Administration was accidental?
There is no doubt that the Republicans need to clean ship, before the next election, or the voters will do it for them. But for Democrats to act like they arn't also affect by this, didn't go to the Signature resturant, or didn't stop by the sky boxes is pushing truth past the spin zone.
As for the rest of your agument, I agree completly. Watch the Republican elections, I think you will see the "true" conservitives take more back in terms of bushing for smaller, more acountable government. But until we have real strong and restricted term limits, it won't happen.
/.'s moderation system will be used to supress the comment rather then curse words.
Now, given this story, I am sure I will get modded down by people who don't want to hear that the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt. The difference will be that
Try again, and try to be less partisan. Abramoff's client's donations are the primary issue in both the RNC and the DNC. While about 2/3rds have gone to republicans, the remaining one third contains almost half a million dollar to the Democratic parts, and more then 50,000 to Senate Minority Leader Reid (which puts him the in the top 10).
So what do you think Atta's conversations where? A quick conversation about how birthday candles and the number of candles?
Foreign intellgence simply means linked to a foreign power. The USSC has already ruled that this includes terrorist groups. Hence foreign intellegence.
FISA applies when wiretaps are being used for purposes other then intel (ie, criminal prosecution), when both participants are "US persons" or when there is no reason to suspect that either may be a agent of a foreign power or orgaization.
It's not a hard concept to grasp. Congress can not pass a law stating that the President may not appoint justices, or ambassadors, or prosecute a war once a war powers act has been passed(like a decleration of war, or a war powers act like the 8/11 bill). The powers are seperate.
Yep. FISA does not apply in intellgence gathering situations where one or more of the participants are a agent of a foreign power. Everyone from Carter on has claimed this. A USSC review will put the matter to bed once and for all.
You still fail to understand both FISA and the rulings. The rulings apply to situations where the president is using his own authority as the executive to wiretap agents of a foreign country or to prevent a attack on the united states via intellgence. The Courts have ruled (4 times) that FISA does not apply to this circumstance. No law is being ignored. FISA simply does not apply.
Try again. The phrase is "Agents of foreign powers" which can include both "US persons" and "US citizens".
I am quoteing a associate A.G. His opinion might be construed to be more informed then yours. Of course, your opinion does not overrule judicial precedence (what you refer to as standing), no matter how self-important you think you are. Four cases are explicitly cited, including bare bones legal language saying that the court takes it for granted that the president has the authority to wiretap for foreign intellgence reasons. The president (in another fact you have not awknowledged) does not ignore the law, in fact the one ruling on this explictly states that FISA recongizes that the President's authority is complete and seperate from the FISA authorization or the FISA courts.
You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The above article lists explicit facts as to why the program is legal. I therefore pronounce you troll and am done with this.
Again,1 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-05
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Second time I have posted this:
1 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed
... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-05
n the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the
I believe this is the third time I have posted this correction:
... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
From the Clinton Administration's Lawyers:
President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the
From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-051 2210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinionc ommentary-hed
... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."
Written by a friggen associate attorney general of the United States under the Clinton Administration :
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the
The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.
But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
This is the problem with Slashdot. A intellgent article that rebuts several points and make counterpoints is modded troll. Can I make a sugestion that we use something other then the existing moderation system on political arguments? It's not designed to encourage actual discusion on items that might have massive disagreement. It only encourages groupthink.
The Bush Administration is knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly violating a law of this nation. That is unacceptable.
Just because you state over and over that somehow it is "unacceptable" it does not make it so. At the very least give some ground and admit that given that several judical decisions including the FISA rulings that Bush has authority outside of their purview for national security and Truong might make your legal case shakey. Truong was decided post FISA implementation and the 2002 and 2003 rulings by the FISA courts that certain wiretaps were legal based on the presidents authority shoots a hole in your arguments.
No, it does not. The FISA court has never said that domestic spying without a warrant is legal.
Actually, the FISA court has ruled (and it has neen upheld on review by appelate) that the President's authority and responsibilities trump congresses ability to restrict them when dealing with people who could be agents of a foreign power. That seems to apply with what we actually know (not speculate) about the NSA's programs.
No, they did not. They got the required warrants from the FISA court.
There are several instances where this is not true, most notably the Ames case.
What amazes me (not really) is people who are so blindly partisan that they will stand behind a man who is breaking actual laws and destroying the ideals of our country in the process. Who gives a shit about Democrats or Republicans, Bush is the problem here.
What amazes me are people who are so blindly partisan that they will shoot a man who is trying to do his job with the constitutional powers granted him, because of blind hatred, tinfoil hats, and seething distrust.
Look, I am under no illusions that this won't be reviewed by the Supreme Court, it's too controversial, but prepare yourself for a shock, cause Bush is going to win this one.
Of course, to back up your point, the following clause is in the consitution. Congress shall have the power to:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
The FISA court itself has ruled that the President's consitutional authority to protect and defend the United States explicitly trumps their restrictions when dealing with Agents of a Foreign Power or Organization. Period. End of Story. That ruling was in 2002, but Clinton, Carter and Reagen all used the same justification and the same authority.
It's simply because of who used it this time that the people are up in arms.
That's kinda the point. Bush used the same justification that Clinton used to authorize that warrent. Namely that in questions of national defense, the President's constitutional duties and privledges granted explictly by the constitution outweigh efforts by congress to curtail them.
To me this is a no brainer. It's called seperation of power. The president has powers that Congress can not usurp by law.
A gross simplification, and speculation to boot. Washington's war by posts had been very successful. The seige of yorktown did end the war true, and the French Fleet blockade of Yorktown was important, but let's be clear here. The British would have withdrawn from the States back up into Canada. They had been shredded by the militia down south. They would have found themselves back where the war started, and the war was becoming desperatly unpopular in England. It is unlikely that the war would have continued much longer even if they had managed to escape from Yorktown.
Franklin was certainly influential in France, but you also have to look at John Adams who also worked on France as well as securing loans for the government and several others.
That's the entire point. Mono removes that lock in. By the way, at a very basic level, Microsoft needs Mono. Their own open source effort around mono (ROTOR) failed. They need a competitor CIL/CLR to have creditability with large IT shops that could just as soon go to Java.
And on top of that, The University of Colorado actually did all of this first, narrowly beating the MIT team...