They black holes who answered the survey overwhelmingly disapprove of the Bush Administration. Most blame Bush directly for their woes. "George Bush doesn't care about black holes" was a common sentiment.
Blame for Dick Cheney was surprisingly sparse, despite the gravitas he added to Bush's presidential bid in 2000.
What about the way-less-than-one-percent rejection rate was unclear to you?
The part where that necessarily means these warrants are easy to get. It seems to indicate that there are clear rules that outline when you get a warrant and when you don't. So applications aren't submitted that won't ultimately succeed. What would be the point of that?
"Clear rules" doesn't mean "every wiretap is allowable under the rules" or even "every wiretap needed to prevent terrorism is allowable under the rules".
But nevermind. I'm sure Karl Rove is out to listen to your private thoughts.
If the warrants are so easy to get, and if the warrants are never refused, why didn't they just go get one? And the only answer you guys have is conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.
You have no information that the FISA warrants are easy to get. You don't try to find out anything about the process of getting one.
There are real explanations -- real answers to these questions.
Maybe, just maybe, those FISA warrants aren't as easy to get as you guys are saying. You have no reasonable basis to conclude they're easy to get and no actual knowledge of the FISA court.
That makes a lot more sense than the huge conspiracy.
It can't just be that when you're applying for a FISA warrant, you know what the criteria are in advance. So you make sure your application meets the criteria before the hearing. And that results in you being granted the warrant. Nope. Can't be.
If it wasn't a rubber-stamp, can't-miss, sure-thing, about half of the warrant requests would be denied, right?
Right. Conspiracy and paranoia answer all the questions. Except why someone who is so paranoid believes that the FISA court justices can be trusted.
How do I know you're not in on this giant conspiracy? Trying to trick us by offering weak arguments. So we'll disbelieve them, support Bush, and then Karl Rove can continue to setup his empire of looted secrets?
Yep, paranoia is the answer. It's a vast international conspiracy to spy for power and profit. It must be. And no one will ever find out because they're all in on it.
It can't just be that FISA warrants are harder to get than you're saying. FISA court due process is so minimal that it's hardly a process at all. Of course. But following it is the most important thing and not doing it is evil police-state Orwellian nightmare fascism.
And no matter how paranoid you are, the FISA court can be trusted.
That's good question. Do you guys even wonder what the real answer is?
FISA warrants are so easy to get that you hardly even have to ask, right? The FISA court is just a rubber stamp for whatever Bush wants, isn't it? That's what you guys are selling.
So why wouldn't they just get a FISA warrant?
Are you trying to tell us that they forgot to ask? Or is it a big conspiracy to listen in on my cell phone conversations to find out that I'm going to be 10 minutes late for my lunch meeting?
Got any idea why? Any at all?
(No. You don't. You don't care that your arguments make no sense. Nevermind. Because Bush is Hitler -- or whatever the new one is these days.)
Pretentiously. As in they're pretending to be shocked and surprised to trick paranoid folks into thinking Karl Rove is listening to their thoughts. He won't stop until he's rounded up you and all your friends and waterboraded you at camp X-ray for wearing that Che Guevara shirt when you were 17.
They're not "afraid" to mention it because it weakens their argument. It's just a dumb way to argue a point. You don't lead with weakness.
But you're correct to point out that the summary is completely one-sided to the point of being intentionally deceptive. It's makes the point deceptively, but with no weaknesses that might be evident in a less deceptive summary. It's the new mainstream mode of political communication and news reporting.
Deception is ok as long as "the good people" win the election, isn't it?
In other words, the appeals court ruled that the original court's decision was likely-enough to be overturned that it should not be enforced until the appeal could be heard.
It's so unconstitutional that the appeals court is going to rule that... it's not unconstitutional at all.
You're basically arguing that your plan will work because you're one of "the good people". And "you just know" it'll work.
No matter how many layers of procedure you add, no matter how many levels of approval, no matter how many safeguards, it'll still work just as well. There will never be a delay. Process will never get in the way of intel gathering. Adding dozens of people into the process of making every intelligence-gathering and battlefield decision couldn't possibly cause us to miss an opportunity to prevent terrorism (like it did with Zacharias Moussaoui's laptop).
A fine fantasy, but it's irresponsible when lives are at stake.
Better intel would certainly have helped prevent the USS Cole attack.
And we'd get that intel how?
- Talking to detainees? Can't do that without their lawyer present. It would be too Khmer-Rouge-like. - Hiring informants? Until recently, there was a rule against the CIA employing "unsavory" assets (i.e. anyone likely to know terrorists) - Signals Intelligence -- otherwise known as "police state domestic spying"? That's an invasion of the terrorist's privacy!
I guess all of those are out.
So that leaves: - Satelite photos, to see if terrorists are conspiring. Only works on sunny days and only if they're conspiring on the roof. - Reading the newspaper.
So you're right. If the terrorists start publishing advance notices of their plans in the newspaper, we can get intel, and that will allow prevent terrorist attacks. I'm sure they'll be willing to start doing that after some intense social work.
kdawson is really bangin the drum on this outsourcing stuff. News for Nerds is "OMG! we're all going to lose our jobs to the Asians!!!!" when kdawson is here, apparently. That and voting machine conspiracy theories.
With Zonk, it's all about hating Sony (er, I mean $ony). (Hmm, Sony is Japanese. Maybe the new Slashdot editors just don't like Asians.)
Where's the wholesome Microsoft-bashing and SCO-hating that built this site?
Yeah, what a hassle. Having to book your own travel. So you actually have a ticket when you get to the airport. So you actually get where you're going without a long layover in the Las Vegas airport (because it was $20 cheaper). So you can actually get the travel booked without the secretary bringing you bad itineraries the first 4 times. The much convienience would be too much for anyone.
And those buttons on the travel web sites are so hard to push for a "well-trained software developer".
You're presuming that if you don't get the OK to violate everything the Constitution...
It's a war against a foreign enemy. The Constitution does not exist to protect foreign enemies from the US.
It exists to protect US citizens from the state. And I'm actually very interested in that being done. I'm a big fan of the Constitution. It's too bad you're pretending it supports your position. It doesn't.
Also, listening to terrorist phone calls is hardly "everything".
...that no amount of traditional police, intelligence, diplomatic, and social work will be sufficient to combat terrorism....
Of course it won't. How absurd.
Which one of these would have stopped, say, the bombing of the USS Cole? How many cops? Doing what?
What kind of diplomacy? Who would make a good ambassador to Al Qaeda? Ward Churchill? What would be our bargaining position? "I hear you want us all dead or to convert to Islam. That's not going to work for us. How about some foreign aid? No? OK, how about if we just force the people in the blue states to convert to Islam? Discuss that with your people and we'll talk after the big embassy party."
And putting "social work" in there is extremely humorous.
In other words: "allow terrorists to succeed because listening into a particular conversation technically doesn't fit into a situation where you can get a warrant".
So you want to prevent "Patriot Acts" by advocating for even more onerous laws? That's some kind of fucked up logic.
No. The point is: if you care about civil liberties, you need terrorists to fail. If you allow them to succeed because you're afraid for your civil liberties, then you'll lose the civil liberties you were trying to protect.
If someone really cares about civil liberties, then their best bet is to actually pay attention to reality. Wiretapping terrorists who make phone calls to the US is not, in reality, a threat to civil liberties. But it might prevent a terrorist attack which, in reality, is a threat to civil liberties.
Allowing terrorists to succeed because you're pretending -- for political gain -- that monitoring terrorist phone calls injures civil liberties may actually lead to real injury to civil liberties.
The pro-civil liberty position is to put politics aside, face reality, be a grown-up, and do the responsible, practical thing to protect the US from a terrorist attack: Listen in on the terrorist phone calls.
Better get started writing that letter to Mrs. Smith and all the other Mrs. Smiths who wish their family could be protected. When you tell her why you allowed her children to die, give her that line about your fear (there's that word again) of creeping authoritarianism.
Maybe the terrorists who kill her family were held in a "secret prison", but had to be let out on a legal technicality -- bad coffee and lukewarm showers were "outrages on personal dignity" and the CIA people running the prison have been arrested on war crimes charges and are being tried by North Korean prosecutors at The Hague.
The next time the US gets hit with a major terrorist attack, the government will fail to prevent it because of obstruction from people like you.
Slashdot Mirror
Predictions of the future from a one-sided, partisan anti-oil/peak-oil site?
What could possibly be more credible than that?
I have a story from the Sony web site saying the PS3 "rules". I guess I should have submitted it.
They black holes who answered the survey overwhelmingly disapprove of the Bush Administration. Most blame Bush directly for their woes. "George Bush doesn't care about black holes" was a common sentiment.
Blame for Dick Cheney was surprisingly sparse, despite the gravitas he added to Bush's presidential bid in 2000.
What about the way-less-than-one-percent rejection rate was unclear to you?
The part where that necessarily means these warrants are easy to get. It seems to indicate that there are clear rules that outline when you get a warrant and when you don't. So applications aren't submitted that won't ultimately succeed. What would be the point of that?
"Clear rules" doesn't mean "every wiretap is allowable under the rules" or even "every wiretap needed to prevent terrorism is allowable under the rules".
But nevermind. I'm sure Karl Rove is out to listen to your private thoughts.
The question remains:
If the warrants are so easy to get, and if the warrants are never refused, why didn't they just go get one? And the only answer you guys have is conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.
You have no information that the FISA warrants are easy to get. You don't try to find out anything about the process of getting one.
There are real explanations -- real answers to these questions.
The point is this:
Maybe, just maybe, those FISA warrants aren't as easy to get as you guys are saying. You have no reasonable basis to conclude they're easy to get and no actual knowledge of the FISA court.
That makes a lot more sense than the huge conspiracy.
Did they fake the 9/11 "attack" in order to start the war on terror so they could use it as an excuse to start this spying?
I forgot this part.
It can't just be that when you're applying for a FISA warrant, you know what the criteria are in advance. So you make sure your application meets the criteria before the hearing. And that results in you being granted the warrant. Nope. Can't be.
If it wasn't a rubber-stamp, can't-miss, sure-thing, about half of the warrant requests would be denied, right?
Right. Conspiracy and paranoia answer all the questions. Except why someone who is so paranoid believes that the FISA court justices can be trusted.
How do I know you're not in on this giant conspiracy? Trying to trick us by offering weak arguments. So we'll disbelieve them, support Bush, and then Karl Rove can continue to setup his empire of looted secrets?
We're through the looking glass here people.
Yep, paranoia is the answer. It's a vast international conspiracy to spy for power and profit. It must be. And no one will ever find out because they're all in on it.
It can't just be that FISA warrants are harder to get than you're saying. FISA court due process is so minimal that it's hardly a process at all. Of course. But following it is the most important thing and not doing it is evil police-state Orwellian nightmare fascism.
And no matter how paranoid you are, the FISA court can be trusted.
That's good question. Do you guys even wonder what the real answer is?
FISA warrants are so easy to get that you hardly even have to ask, right? The FISA court is just a rubber stamp for whatever Bush wants, isn't it? That's what you guys are selling.
So why wouldn't they just get a FISA warrant?
Are you trying to tell us that they forgot to ask? Or is it a big conspiracy to listen in on my cell phone conversations to find out that I'm going to be 10 minutes late for my lunch meeting?
Got any idea why? Any at all?
(No. You don't. You don't care that your arguments make no sense. Nevermind. Because Bush is Hitler -- or whatever the new one is these days.)
What warrants this obviously lefty post on Slashdot?
You must be new here.
How is anyone shocked or surprised by this?
Pretentiously. As in they're pretending to be shocked and surprised to trick paranoid folks into thinking Karl Rove is listening to their thoughts. He won't stop until he's rounded up you and all your friends and waterboraded you at camp X-ray for wearing that Che Guevara shirt when you were 17.
They're not "afraid" to mention it because it weakens their argument. It's just a dumb way to argue a point. You don't lead with weakness.
But you're correct to point out that the summary is completely one-sided to the point of being intentionally deceptive. It's makes the point deceptively, but with no weaknesses that might be evident in a less deceptive summary. It's the new mainstream mode of political communication and news reporting.
Deception is ok as long as "the good people" win the election, isn't it?
In other words, the appeals court ruled that the original court's decision was likely-enough to be overturned that it should not be enforced until the appeal could be heard.
... it's not unconstitutional at all.
It's so unconstitutional that the appeals court is going to rule that
You're basically arguing that your plan will work because you're one of "the good people". And "you just know" it'll work.
No matter how many layers of procedure you add, no matter how many levels of approval, no matter how many safeguards, it'll still work just as well. There will never be a delay. Process will never get in the way of intel gathering. Adding dozens of people into the process of making every intelligence-gathering and battlefield decision couldn't possibly cause us to miss an opportunity to prevent terrorism (like it did with Zacharias Moussaoui's laptop).
A fine fantasy, but it's irresponsible when lives are at stake.
Better intel would certainly have helped prevent the USS Cole attack.
And we'd get that intel how?
- Talking to detainees? Can't do that without their lawyer present. It would be too Khmer-Rouge-like.
- Hiring informants? Until recently, there was a rule against the CIA employing "unsavory" assets (i.e. anyone likely to know terrorists)
- Signals Intelligence -- otherwise known as "police state domestic spying"? That's an invasion of the terrorist's privacy!
I guess all of those are out.
So that leaves:
- Satelite photos, to see if terrorists are conspiring. Only works on sunny days and only if they're conspiring on the roof.
- Reading the newspaper.
So you're right. If the terrorists start publishing advance notices of their plans in the newspaper, we can get intel, and that will allow prevent terrorist attacks. I'm sure they'll be willing to start doing that after some intense social work.
kdawson is really bangin the drum on this outsourcing stuff. News for Nerds is "OMG! we're all going to lose our jobs to the Asians!!!!" when kdawson is here, apparently. That and voting machine conspiracy theories.
With Zonk, it's all about hating Sony (er, I mean $ony). (Hmm, Sony is Japanese. Maybe the new Slashdot editors just don't like Asians.)
Where's the wholesome Microsoft-bashing and SCO-hating that built this site?
Yeah, what a hassle. Having to book your own travel. So you actually have a ticket when you get to the airport. So you actually get where you're going without a long layover in the Las Vegas airport (because it was $20 cheaper). So you can actually get the travel booked without the secretary bringing you bad itineraries the first 4 times. The much convienience would be too much for anyone.
And those buttons on the travel web sites are so hard to push for a "well-trained software developer".
Yeah. What a hoser -- being able to communicate clearly like that. None of that for us. This is Slashdot!
It's a war against a foreign enemy. The Constitution does not exist to protect foreign enemies from the US.
It exists to protect US citizens from the state. And I'm actually very interested in that being done. I'm a big fan of the Constitution. It's too bad you're pretending it supports your position. It doesn't.
Also, listening to terrorist phone calls is hardly "everything".
Of course it won't. How absurd.
Which one of these would have stopped, say, the bombing of the USS Cole? How many cops? Doing what?
What kind of diplomacy? Who would make a good ambassador to Al Qaeda? Ward Churchill? What would be our bargaining position? "I hear you want us all dead or to convert to Islam. That's not going to work for us. How about some foreign aid? No? OK, how about if we just force the people in the blue states to convert to Islam? Discuss that with your people and we'll talk after the big embassy party."
And putting "social work" in there is extremely humorous.
What's up with the dishonest police-state fear-mongering?
Just say you don't care if the terrorists succeed (or you want them to succeed).
In other words: "allow terrorists to succeed because listening into a particular conversation technically doesn't fit into a situation where you can get a warrant".
How did a 13-year-old get a 5-digit user ID?
So you want to prevent "Patriot Acts" by advocating for even more onerous laws? That's some kind of fucked up logic.
No. The point is: if you care about civil liberties, you need terrorists to fail. If you allow them to succeed because you're afraid for your civil liberties, then you'll lose the civil liberties you were trying to protect.
If someone really cares about civil liberties, then their best bet is to actually pay attention to reality. Wiretapping terrorists who make phone calls to the US is not, in reality, a threat to civil liberties. But it might prevent a terrorist attack which, in reality, is a threat to civil liberties.
Allowing terrorists to succeed because you're pretending -- for political gain -- that monitoring terrorist phone calls injures civil liberties may actually lead to real injury to civil liberties.
The pro-civil liberty position is to put politics aside, face reality, be a grown-up, and do the responsible, practical thing to protect the US from a terrorist attack: Listen in on the terrorist phone calls.
I guess you're hopeless.
Better get started writing that letter to Mrs. Smith and all the other Mrs. Smiths who wish their family could be protected. When you tell her why you allowed her children to die, give her that line about your fear (there's that word again) of creeping authoritarianism.
Maybe the terrorists who kill her family were held in a "secret prison", but had to be let out on a legal technicality -- bad coffee and lukewarm showers were "outrages on personal dignity" and the CIA people running the prison have been arrested on war crimes charges and are being tried by North Korean prosecutors at The Hague.
The next time the US gets hit with a major terrorist attack, the government will fail to prevent it because of obstruction from people like you.
Just like the last time.