For some people it is because they no longer feel safe letting it show.
I think it would be interesting to number of religious people who "no longer feel safe" vs. those who have actually been persecuted as you describe. In my opinion, many religious people have a persecution complex that is fueled by the religious leaders. The whole "Stop War on Christmas!" is an example of this.. along with the reactions to the recent 10 commandments in public court cases.
Also, from my experience, what you describe is patently false, and I work in NJ. In the Northeast we are known for making religion a more private matter than other areas of the country, but it's still not uncommon for it to come up in the workplace, and when it does, it's no big deal. However, I am aware that anecdotes are not data or a good basis for arguments.
I would imagine that during some discussion or debate that you have asked people to not judge your religion based on the actions and words of some align themselves with your religion (i.e. extremists). I would ask the same of you regarding athiests. Yes, there are athiests who are offended if religion is even mentioned, but I like to think that they're the minority of atheists.. the extremists, if you will.
History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get.
False. Labor protections, consumer safety, environmental protections, fire departments (they used to be private!), health protections, financial protections (think FDIC, SEC, Fed Reserve [quasi-governmental]), construction standards, social insurance, infrastructure, protecting the nation, the list goes on. Only people like you think these are bad things. The rest of us welcome them.
RIM is lying. Lawyers are much more expensive than the cost to implement the patch, and RIM has also offered a boatload of cash to settle the case. Why settle when you can avoid the whole issue? Something's fishy.
Or, they could use it to find out you're in spectacular health and offer you a lower premium.
Hahahaha.. right.
It's not going to be the popular opinion around here, but why should the insurance companies get shafted on covering your self-inflicted damage?
They don't.. that's the whole point of group insurance. People like me, who pay for insurance but almost never use it, subsidize the people who aren't as healthy. Try getting an individual comprehensive (not catastrophic) insurance plan.
I remember an interview with Wanda Sykes where she talked about her other job at her job while working at the state.
I'm baffled as to why this is relevant. First off, comedians are known to exaggerate things for comedic effect. Second, there's nothing that says you can't hold a 2nd job if you're in government (assuming the 2nd job is unrelated to your duties and you're not double clocking the time). Third, how does privatization fix this?
Privatization of New Jersey's DMV inspections was a complete disaster. Therefore, by your logic of "one anecdote is enough for me!" you should be against privatization.
I've been civil, but I'm through with that. You're just a fucking idiot, and with people like you it's no surprise that Bush still has 40% approval ratings.
The FISA law allows warrantless searches in a few clear situations. Those situations are where electronic surveillance is directed at foreign powers and persons, provided that no US persons are spied on, and certain "minimization procedures" are met (those procedures are also outlined in the law). It's that simple. If it's inside the US, FISA applies. If it involves a US Person, then you need a court order. It is that simple. There are no expections, caveats.. the section of the law that covers this is half a page.
Did you read the whole (b) clause? It's not "(b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States", its "(b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States". It only applies to activities outside the United States, where FISA does not apply. You can basically make a flowchart from the USSID document. If it's inside the US, go to FISA procedures. If it's outside the US, go to AG certification procedures.
And you STILL haven't posted the law that you think makes this illegal. Posting the whole FISA document is nice,
The "FISA Document" is a fucking law. It can't be any more clear.
You haven't demonstrated anything as false. Did you even read what you pasted? The USSID allows for warrantless surveillance of US persons outside the United States, as you rightly point out. However the program in question is a domestic surveillance program. Therefore, according to the excerpt you posted, the approval of the FISA court is necessary. There's no conflict between FISA and USSID. Also please point out any ambiguity in the FISA law, as you are so sure that it exists.
Your understanding of FISA is way off. Please read the law. It is never for criminal prosecutions and is only to be used for foreign intelligence/national security matters. This is the whole "Gorelick wall" issue. See Sec. 1804 (a)(7)(A) and (B) and (D) and (E).here. Also if one party, not both, is a US Person then FISA warrants must be obtained. See previous links to Sec 1802(a)(1)(B).
Congress can not pass a law stating...
They most certainly could, if they were so compelled. Alien and Sedition Acts ring a bell? Obviously such laws would be quickly ruled unconstitutional.. but there's nothing in the Constitution that limits the Congress from passing unconstitutional laws. That's the whole point of the Judiciary. Furthermore, I believe Congress can certainly revoke a declaration of war, or use of force authorization, if they saw fit.
Right but the section of the law that deals with warrantless searches explicitly says that if there's a likelihood of US Persons being involved, a warrantless search cannot be authorized, and a court order is therefore required. FISA law Sec 1802(a)(1)(B).
I want to be clear here.. authority aside, are you arguing that the domestic warrantless surveillance conducted by the NSA under order of the President does not violate the FISA law?
If you think this scandal has been 'dismissed', you're off your rocker. Congressional hearings are going to be held. Whether it'll go anywhere after that, who knows.
In any case, the idea that the President has 'inherent authority' would be a justification for ruling the FISA law unconstitutional, unless you feel that the 'inherent authority' allows the President to break the law. Current federal law says that the death penalty can be issued, but only by a jury. Do you feel the President has the 'inherent authority' to issue death sentences on US Citizens for national security reasons?
I therefore pronounce you troll and am done with this.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
In any case, the article provides arguments for why the FISA law may be unconstitutional. It does not provide arguments for the President ignoring the law. I don't know of any SCOTUS decision that says the President can ignore a law if he feels that it's unconsitutional. If there is one, please provide it.
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
The problem is that there was already a law on the books prohibiting certain types of surveillance without a court order. The AUMF did not explicitly invalidate that law, and there's no reason to believe that was the intent of Congress. Basing the authority on the AUMF is a very, very weak argument.
I posted a link to the FISA law in another post. The law clearly requires a court order if a US person is involved (Sec. 1802(a)(1)(B) to be specific), and I haven't heard anyone, including the Bush Administration, deny this. Even Bush himself said in a speech in 2004 something along the lines of "when we're talking about wiretaps, these require court orders". His spokesperson has since tried to claim that Bush was talking about something else.
Hey, look at that, we agree on something. An interesting question is why Bush didn't address this conflict in the laws/authorities 4 years ago when this program was started.
First, you are quoting one Clinton administration lawyer.. and you keep emphasising that as if I'm going to say "Oh, a Clinton guy says that? Oh. It's okay then.." I'm sorry but that simply won't work. I don't accept arguments based on standing.. only on the merits of the argument.
Further, as I outlined elsewhere, all of those judicial rulings do not exempt the President from "[taking] care that the laws are faithfully executed". If the President thinks a law is unconstitutionally restricting him, it's his duty to petition the Court, not ignore the law. The problem here is that the Bush Administration did not seek any recourse to this percieved conflict between the law and the 'inherent authority', as the Clinton Administration did after the Ames incident.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but the same thing goes for letters from most elected officials.
When one refers to bridges in New York, they are generally referring to the "19 [that] connect the boroughs."
For some people it is because they no longer feel safe letting it show.
I think it would be interesting to number of religious people who "no longer feel safe" vs. those who have actually been persecuted as you describe. In my opinion, many religious people have a persecution complex that is fueled by the religious leaders. The whole "Stop War on Christmas!" is an example of this.. along with the reactions to the recent 10 commandments in public court cases.
Also, from my experience, what you describe is patently false, and I work in NJ. In the Northeast we are known for making religion a more private matter than other areas of the country, but it's still not uncommon for it to come up in the workplace, and when it does, it's no big deal. However, I am aware that anecdotes are not data or a good basis for arguments.
I would imagine that during some discussion or debate that you have asked people to not judge your religion based on the actions and words of some align themselves with your religion (i.e. extremists). I would ask the same of you regarding athiests. Yes, there are athiests who are offended if religion is even mentioned, but I like to think that they're the minority of atheists.. the extremists, if you will.
You're right, but what he thinks about the law also sucks. Unitary executive theory can blow me.
And goddamn get your own talking points. The baseball analogies have been played to death.
You again.
History repeatedly shows that the more government tries to get involved, the worse things get.
False. Labor protections, consumer safety, environmental protections, fire departments (they used to be private!), health protections, financial protections (think FDIC, SEC, Fed Reserve [quasi-governmental]), construction standards, social insurance, infrastructure, protecting the nation, the list goes on. Only people like you think these are bad things. The rest of us welcome them.
All calculations involving heat and energy should be done using this scale or become invalid
Please don't forget Rankine.
Yet another reason to not outsource.. If there is an injunction, no government blackberries will be shut down. Tough tits if you're a contractor.
RIM is lying. Lawyers are much more expensive than the cost to implement the patch, and RIM has also offered a boatload of cash to settle the case. Why settle when you can avoid the whole issue? Something's fishy.
Or, they could use it to find out you're in spectacular health and offer you a lower premium.
Hahahaha.. right.
It's not going to be the popular opinion around here, but why should the insurance companies get shafted on covering your self-inflicted damage?
They don't.. that's the whole point of group insurance. People like me, who pay for insurance but almost never use it, subsidize the people who aren't as healthy. Try getting an individual comprehensive (not catastrophic) insurance plan.
66 euros is low? That's $80. IIRC, most of the fines in New Jersey for riding without a ticket start at $25 and max out at $100.
I remember an interview with Wanda Sykes where she talked about her other job at her job while working at the state.
I'm baffled as to why this is relevant. First off, comedians are known to exaggerate things for comedic effect. Second, there's nothing that says you can't hold a 2nd job if you're in government (assuming the 2nd job is unrelated to your duties and you're not double clocking the time). Third, how does privatization fix this?
Privatization of New Jersey's DMV inspections was a complete disaster. Therefore, by your logic of "one anecdote is enough for me!" you should be against privatization.
Authorizations of force are not 'declared wars'. The War Powers Act is very clear on this point.
Very good document. Thank you.
I've been civil, but I'm through with that. You're just a fucking idiot, and with people like you it's no surprise that Bush still has 40% approval ratings.
The FISA law allows warrantless searches in a few clear situations. Those situations are where electronic surveillance is directed at foreign powers and persons, provided that no US persons are spied on, and certain "minimization procedures" are met (those procedures are also outlined in the law). It's that simple. If it's inside the US, FISA applies. If it involves a US Person, then you need a court order. It is that simple. There are no expections, caveats.. the section of the law that covers this is half a page.
Did you read the whole (b) clause? It's not "(b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States", its "(b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to "communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States". It only applies to activities outside the United States, where FISA does not apply. You can basically make a flowchart from the USSID document. If it's inside the US, go to FISA procedures. If it's outside the US, go to AG certification procedures.
And you STILL haven't posted the law that you think makes this illegal. Posting the whole FISA document is nice,
The "FISA Document" is a fucking law. It can't be any more clear.
You haven't demonstrated anything as false. Did you even read what you pasted? The USSID allows for warrantless surveillance of US persons outside the United States, as you rightly point out. However the program in question is a domestic surveillance program. Therefore, according to the excerpt you posted, the approval of the FISA court is necessary. There's no conflict between FISA and USSID. Also please point out any ambiguity in the FISA law, as you are so sure that it exists.
Your understanding of FISA is way off. Please read the law. It is never for criminal prosecutions and is only to be used for foreign intelligence/national security matters. This is the whole "Gorelick wall" issue. See Sec. 1804 (a)(7)(A) and (B) and (D) and (E).here. Also if one party, not both, is a US Person then FISA warrants must be obtained. See previous links to Sec 1802(a)(1)(B).
Congress can not pass a law stating...
They most certainly could, if they were so compelled. Alien and Sedition Acts ring a bell? Obviously such laws would be quickly ruled unconstitutional.. but there's nothing in the Constitution that limits the Congress from passing unconstitutional laws. That's the whole point of the Judiciary. Furthermore, I believe Congress can certainly revoke a declaration of war, or use of force authorization, if they saw fit.
If we are to accept your arguments, then what's the point of FISA? When does it apply?
Right but the section of the law that deals with warrantless searches explicitly says that if there's a likelihood of US Persons being involved, a warrantless search cannot be authorized, and a court order is therefore required. FISA law Sec 1802(a)(1)(B).
I want to be clear here.. authority aside, are you arguing that the domestic warrantless surveillance conducted by the NSA under order of the President does not violate the FISA law?
If you think this scandal has been 'dismissed', you're off your rocker. Congressional hearings are going to be held. Whether it'll go anywhere after that, who knows.
In any case, the idea that the President has 'inherent authority' would be a justification for ruling the FISA law unconstitutional, unless you feel that the 'inherent authority' allows the President to break the law. Current federal law says that the death penalty can be issued, but only by a jury. Do you feel the President has the 'inherent authority' to issue death sentences on US Citizens for national security reasons?
I therefore pronounce you troll and am done with this.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
In any case, the article provides arguments for why the FISA law may be unconstitutional. It does not provide arguments for the President ignoring the law. I don't know of any SCOTUS decision that says the President can ignore a law if he feels that it's unconsitutional. If there is one, please provide it.
At first, I thought this NSA story was a big deal on the merits, and I wrote that Bush should have asked to fix the law rather than work his way around it. I still think that, in a perfect world, the White House would try to get the laws it needs from Congress. Nevertheless, after 9/11, Congress declared that "the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism" and authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against al Qaeda. That strikes me as ample justification for tapping phone calls between al Qaeda associates in Cleveland and Cairo.
The problem is that there was already a law on the books prohibiting certain types of surveillance without a court order. The AUMF did not explicitly invalidate that law, and there's no reason to believe that was the intent of Congress. Basing the authority on the AUMF is a very, very weak argument.
I posted a link to the FISA law in another post. The law clearly requires a court order if a US person is involved (Sec. 1802(a)(1)(B) to be specific), and I haven't heard anyone, including the Bush Administration, deny this. Even Bush himself said in a speech in 2004 something along the lines of "when we're talking about wiretaps, these require court orders". His spokesperson has since tried to claim that Bush was talking about something else.
There's very little ambiguity in the FISA law.
Hey, look at that, we agree on something. An interesting question is why Bush didn't address this conflict in the laws/authorities 4 years ago when this program was started.
First, you are quoting one Clinton administration lawyer.. and you keep emphasising that as if I'm going to say "Oh, a Clinton guy says that? Oh. It's okay then.." I'm sorry but that simply won't work. I don't accept arguments based on standing.. only on the merits of the argument.
Further, as I outlined elsewhere, all of those judicial rulings do not exempt the President from "[taking] care that the laws are faithfully executed". If the President thinks a law is unconstitutionally restricting him, it's his duty to petition the Court, not ignore the law. The problem here is that the Bush Administration did not seek any recourse to this percieved conflict between the law and the 'inherent authority', as the Clinton Administration did after the Ames incident.