Alpha was intended to have a 25 year life. Unfortunately, it is drawing close to the end of 25 years. The design team is gone. By the time they could reconstitute it, train everyone, start a design, get it through fab, and ready for production systems, it would be close enough to 25 years that it wouldn't matter anyway. There is also the ugly N.I.H. factor which makes it unlikely they would ever revive it. I'm afraid Alpha is gone. R.I.P.
... there are databases ran with information on normal, law abiding citizens just because they have an oppinion different from the current administration
If by "opinion different from the current administration" you mean terrorists trying to bomb, poison, or shoot us, yes. If you mean, "vote against the tax cuts".... no.
...and God knows what other things are being done behind closed doors. Doesn't this worry anyone?
We should always watch government, but what you're worrying about is bordering on nonsense (see below).
US: formerly known as land of the free, currently aquiring police state status and on the fast track to fascism.
Land of the free? Yes, even now.
Police state status? Fast track to fascism? LOL.... no.
Why does no one see the irony in an administration that spouts off about, "A culture of respect for life in every stage", which then pushes for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes.
It is a question of protecting innocent life, which many people believe the death penalty does. But, lets reduce this debate to the choice of either:
A. No abortions and no death penalty
B. Abortions and the death penalty
I expect that the outcome would be:
The choice of many (most?) conservatives would likely preserve the life of many murders they would otherwise want executed.
The choice of many (most?) liberals would likely end the life of many murders they now protect.
Yeah, that is odd, especially as I was talking about American citizens captured in the US. Who we did, indeed, tried during WWII, even while the war was going on. In civilian courts.(1)
No, the Nazi saboteurs were tried by a Military Commission, including the US citizens.
In fact, the courts ruled, during WWII, they must be tried in civilian courts if said courts were operating, unlike the military courts the president wanted to use.
That is wrong. I think that you are confusing things with a Civil War decision over the question of martial law.
However, every enemy soldier captures during WWII did, indeed, have access to a lawyer, and we did, indeed, tell people we had captured them. I'm sure that's just a minor point, though.
We informed the governments, as provided for in the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda and kin do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva Convention. There are tests in the treaty to qualify for its protections, and they fail them.
Of course, we didn't capture random people handed to us by bounty hunters, but solely people in uniform on the battlefield, and there wouldn't have been a lot of point in them using lawyers to challenge their status, so almost none of them used a lawyer to do so.
On the contrary, we did intern large numbers of people toward the end of the war until their status could be settled. At that point there were many members of the Gestapo, SS and other criminal organizations that were trying to blend into the civilian population. It got sorted out over time.
With the war on terror, of course, there is plenty of reason for them to do that, because not only are many of them innocent, but the whole point of POWs is that you get returned after the war is over, and one's bothered to come up when that might be in the war on terror. So even if they are guilty of everything anyone vaguely asserted about them when given 500 dollars for turning a 'terrorist' over, they would still need to be entered into the legal system at some point.
No, they don't have to be entered into the legal system. The findings could be essentially administrative, much like the determination of POW status.
As far as the issue of "returning after the war",... well, that is part of the hazard of taking up arms to make war as a member of a non-state actor without diplomatic recognition, and acting outside the law, isn't it? If it had been, say, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta that had taken up arms against the US, there would have been a non-state actor with diplomatic status who would be accountable for the actions of its members, a semblance of control, and would be likely to adhere to the law of war. As it is, Al Qaeda and kin are making war not merely outside the law, but often violate the law of war, and as a result they have very little legal protection and enormous personal risk. (The hazards of becoming a martyr, I guess.) Since their ultimate goal is to reestablish the Caliphage, this could be a very long war. Some of them may be held for a very long time. It should come as no surprise that a number of fighters have been captured, released based on lies, and then recaptured on the battlefield. That makes for a subtle problem.
So you could be pretty high on the list, but still have every civilian tagged with a radio bleeper with someone watching their every move.
Although economic freedom as defined in the study doesn't directly map 1:1 into what is understood as "civil rights", it is about freedom for people. Also, I don't think your example of putting radio trackers on everybody is compatible with the idea of economic freedom in the study.
Economic freedom is defined as the absence of government coercion or constraint on the production, distribution, or consumption of goods and services beyond the extent necessary for citizens to protect and maintain liberty itself. In other words, people are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in the ways they feel are most productive.
All government action involves coercion. Some minimal coercion is necessary for the citizens of a community or nation to defend themselves, promote the evolution of civil society, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. This Lockean idea was embodied in the U.S. Constitution. For example, citizens are taxed to provide revenue for the protection of person and property as well as for a common defense. Most political theorists also accept that certain goods-what economists call "public goods"-can be supplied most conveniently by government.
When government coercion rises beyond that minimal level, however, it risks trampling on freedom. When it starts interfering in the market beyond the protection of person and property, it risks undermining economic freedom. Exactly where that line is crossed is open to reasoned debate. The goal in the scoring of economic freedom is not to define these extremes-either anarchy or utopia-but to describe the world's economies as they are.
Throughout history, governments have imposed a wide array of constraints on economic activity. Many constraints can be measured by assessing their impact on economic choices. Constraining economic choice distorts and diminishes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services (including, of course, labor services).2
One fact, however, is overridingly true: When governments restrict people, their behavior changes, and probably not for the best. Coercion alters choices that ordinary people make. Economic freedom is diminished, and economic growth suffers.
I think that the most controversial part of this won't be the definition, but rather associating the United States with a high ranking as a free society despite the fact that it is legallyspying on a small group of people in direct communication with terrorist organizations that have already damaged the US economy to the tune of $100,000,000,000, killed well over 3,000, and are actively seeking to kill at least 4,000,000 Americans.
You would think that if such evidence existed the Bush administration would release it.
I would think that it would be kept quiet if it was working so it would keep working. I guess I don't think like most people on Slashdot.
(Hey! Its working! Lets tell everybody so the terrorists will find out how we're getting them and stop doing what gives them away!! BULLETIN!! THE NSA HAS BROKEN Al QAEDA SUICIDE COMMANDO CELL 92's PERSONAL CODE AND STOPPED THE ATTACK. IT IS WIDELY ANTICIPATED THE CODE WILL CHANGE FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, FLUSHING THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF WORK, ANALYSIS, AND SURVEILLANCE, BUT REJOICE AMERICA! YOU ARE IN THE KNOW!!) I guess the expectation is that all 300,000,000 can be told the deepest, most sensitive government secrets and it won't leak out.
Also I mean real threats, not some whacko who is going to knock down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.
Shoe bombs on airplanes. Car bombs in the world trade center. Air planes crashing into the world trade center. Truck bombs at embassies and housing compounds. Suicide bombers in boats trying to sink ships. Experiments with poison gas. Land mines. Bombs. Dirty bombs. Does that sound like blow torches to you? That is what Al Qaeda is trying to use, and will use as soon as they find a way.
Even if they haven't been successful in attempted repeat attacks inside the US yet, they will keep trying.
"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands." - Suleiman Abu Gheith, al Qaeda spokesman
I hope it doesn't take 50,000 dead before people take them seriously.
They have, indeed, asserted the right to lock people up without charging them with anything, without access to a lawyer, and without telling anyone.
How odd. It is almost as if they were being treated as if they were captured on the battlefield during wartime. (I don't remember... did we assign a lawyer to each of the millions of German, Japanese, and Italians that were captured in WW2 to challenge their captivity, and evidence used to hold them? (If the Luger doesn't fit, you must acquit!) Maybe not.)
Well - as long as you're happy with the new US motto:
America: still more rights then North Korea
Aw, shucks! The US is WAY better than that!
In the Index of Economic Freedom 2006 , the US ranks 9th in the world, tied with Australia and New Zealand. North Korea ranks 157th. That is a noticable gap.
Plus, I think you have the motto wrong. It is "In God We Trust"
Of course, it is as easy to be mistaken about these issues as it is about the legality of the NSA surveillance program, which actually has a strong legal foundation.
I don't know which is more shameful, the sorry state of government today, or that so few people think there's a problem. It's sad.
Most people don't think it is a problem for one of two reasons:
1) They think that conducting surveillance on people in direct communication with known members of terrorist organizations that have recently attacked the United States is actually a good idea.
High treason is quite explicitly attempting to forcibly overthrow the government. While that might be the effect of the Bush administration, it would be very difficult to prove it as the aim
It is well known by now that the modern interpretation of the Constitution deems any warrantless search of US citizens unreasonable, and therefore illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. Concerns about the implications this may have for intelligence gathering have been addressed by FISA. So far, the only defense of the domestic spying program has hinged on the President's ability to interpret the Constitution as he pleases - clearly an indefensible position.
You are spreading the legal equivalent of urban legends, many of which are also "well known".
President Clinton's former Associate Attorney General, John Schmidt, had this to say:
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.
... and the lawyers at Powerline have this analysis:
The Fourth Amendment includes requirements for the issuance of search warrants, and many critics of the NSA program seem to assume that this means that all searches must be executed pursuant to a warrant. This assumption is wrong. There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts. The overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable.
One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.
There is plenty of other commentary and reaction as well.
"warrantless domestic spying", eh? You do realize that this is isn't aimed at rival Presidential candidates, but at people in direct contact with terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States, right? I'm astonished you might think that to be a bad thing.
Wire-tap all the Dems and, well, need I say more....
Please do. Who has made a credible allegation or has any actual evidence beyond groundless conspiracy theories? Even if it was true, would it help? It didn't help the Clinton Administration, did it?
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
It is clear that the message is: "pick a side, the US or the terrorists", not "Bush v. world". Who are you cheering for? Would you stand with those who would welcome many deaths in the US if it meant political damage to President Bush?
... you talk about "wartime authorities under the Constitution" without mentioning that the Constitution only gives the power to declare war to Congress, who have not done so.
The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). - Robert Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, FISA vs. the Constitution
you think that wiretaps which would be a felony when done by private citizens aren't even "unreasonable" when done by the government.
It's unreasonable for the government to conduct surveillance of people communicating with terrorist organizations during wartime? Right..... I imagine that you must have an interesting view on that whole "government monopoly on force" issue too.
you haven't questioned the premise that the unwarranted wiretaps are listening to known al-Qaeda members, even though such wiretaps surely would not have been among the ~0.1% of warrants that FISA has denied.
I guess timeliness and rapid developments would never play a part. Of course, that assumes that under current circumstances it is necessary for the NSA to actually get warrants. Of course, informed legal opinion from liberals and conservatives concludes that the NSA surveillance program was likely legal, and within the President's powers.
.... you think that civil libertarians don't realize that terrorism is a threat, or you falsely pretend to think so to score rhetorical points.
Old problem, isn't it?
And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, 1978
I forget, who was it that was filing lawsuits to try to prevent the US government from listening in on conversations of people talking to known terrorists?
.... you do think that terrorism is a threat worth suspending the Bill of Rights for, but you don't realize just how much more the USA was threatened when the Bill of Rights was written.
.... you think the Bill of Rights is something to be suspended by executive fiat rather than the democratic amendment process in the Constitution.
And that was proposed when and where? (Or is this a case of that "...you falsely pretend to think so to score rhetorical points" thing you mention above?)
One final thing: military action and law enforcement are different legal realms. Confusing them leads to no end of consternation.
Nope, but I'd volunteer to be part of the world outlined by the parent even if it meant the possibility that I'd be in one of those buildings, while meanwhile you would benefit.
It won't happen as long as the Islamist extremists are willing to kill millions to try and rebuild the Caliphate. 9/11 cost 3,000 lives and $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. Western civilization, let alone people, will never tolerate it if that sort of thing starts becoming a regular occurance.
Besides, the E.U. and the U.S. are effectively that way now, only on a regional basis. (Many US states are the size of countries. California is about equal in size and population to Iraq.). I don't think we're in danger of nearing Nirvana yet.
Worked wonderfully, and was a big part of why the budget got balanced under Clinton. The only problem was that it also made the president a near king who could reshape bills at will, and congress quickly got rid of the provision. Congress remained pissed off at Clinton for exposing how much money could easily be saved by eliminating pork projects, and this had a lot more to do with his subsequent impeachment than any blowjob.
But it wasn't until last year-- under the guidance of the first Republican-controlled Congress in 40 years--that the line item veto finally became law. And it could change the rules by which spending decisions are made.
And why did it end?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Will be used as a club to be held over the head of every member of the United States Senate and every member of the House of Representatives by power hungry presidents who will seek to impose their will over the legislative process to the detriment of the American people whose elected representatives in Congress can no longer be free to exercise their judgment as to what matters are in the best interests of the United States, and the people whom they serve.
KWAME HOLMAN: Last April, federal district court Judge Thomas Pennfield Jackson sided with Senator Byrd when he ruled the line item veto was unconstitutional.
The line-item veto was used once by President Bill Clinton before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
President Clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice, not for performing any sexual acts, but rather for lying about them. That information was being sought in a civil suit against him for which it was considered material information such as is common in sexual harassment lawsuits.
And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases. A World Split Apart
In fact, I would go even further and say that I would like to live in a world where anyone can live where ever they want and cross any border without restriction. The United States would probably see an increase in terrorism (more large buildings getting knocked down, etc.) but I would personally be willing to accept that in exchange for the freedom to travel and live anywhere in the world without government interference.
That's mighty big of you.
Would you volunteer to be in one of those buildings if I benefited and you were the one who died?
On second thought you don't need to worry about volunteering. Someone is already hard at work trying to make some choices for you..... and 3,999,999 other Americans. Of course maybe you don't need to worry too much since they are working toward their own vision of a borderless world, of sorts. Of course you might find the embrace of government they intend to be a little close for your tastes. But, hey, what can you do? Take the good with the bad, right?
Further down in the story you link to is this interesting nugget:
The three were flush with cash, and moved around constantly between the northern cities of Brescia and Vicenza, the Italian capital, Rome, and the southern city of Naples, police allege. They were also in contact with other terror cells in the northern cities of Venice, Cesena and Milan, as well as the central Italian city of Florence, according to the investigators. They say they also have evidence of the three men being in contact with extremist groups in Norway, France and Britain.
Bourhama is thought to have undergone training at terrorist camps in Chechnya and Georgia and may be capable of making explosive belts used by suicide bombers. He allegedly had in his possession a bottle of "perfume" containing toxic substances, police said.
There seems to be a common thread between the groups in the two stories, but they don't appear to be exactly the same bunch.
I wonder if they were connected in any way to the 20 arrested in Spain trying to recruit Jihadis for Iraq (and who had connections to the attacks in Spain last year)?
Regarding allegations that the NSA's actions broke the law, I don't think you are getting as many facts and contrary views as are available.
Much of the information in your post is simply wrong. Regarding the "Authorization of Force" vs "Declaration of War" issue, Robert Turner, co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, writes:
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
It's the reason they couldn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason during the Vietnam war - there was NO LEGAL STATE OF WAR - it was a "use of military force".
If they did declare war, they would be bound by the Geneva Convention, which would mean George Bush would be prosecuted as a war criminal for the torture at Abu-Garaib.
You are wrong on two counts:
A country is bound by the Geneva Convention once it signs the treaty, declaration of war or not.
Much of what is associated with the infamous acts at Abu Ghraib were conducted by rogue soldiers who have already plead guilty or have been convicted and are being punished, or faced other administrative action, as appropriate. The Army had already stopped the criminal acts by those soldiers and was already investigating them when it was publicized in the press.
You're wrong about the legal aspects of this. There is a strong argument that the President's actions were legal and consistent with his Constitutional powers.
Tice had been making noises before he got fired. He was one of those pushing for greater congressional protection for whistleblowers. Hint, hint.
If he wanted to be a whistle blower, he should have gone to the Inspector General, or the proper Congressional committee directly. Hint Hint. That way, if it turned out that those operations were, say, actually legal and part of the President's powers, the operations wouldn't be exposed and our enemies alerted to their exposure. What he actually did was alert our enemies to their vulnerability, cause a political firestorm in the US that is likely to impede future legitimate operations, and put him in the position of seeming to be a "hero" to the uninformed. It is almost as if he had bad judgement, or maybe a complex...
Shortly thereafter, his bosses had him pulled in for a medical exam, where despite having no symptoms, the MO labeled him as suffering from paranoia. This is standard practice in such circles to ensure compliance, and to provide ammo for any subsequent smear campaigns.
Of course. There has never been a member of the intelligence community who betrayed the confidence of the United States, is there? Who could imagine anyone in governmnet service betraying their country, especially now?
By the way, you do have a link to a reputable source showing there was no problem, right?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you aren't doing anything wrong to attract attention.
It's like this. Anyone who believes that the NSA was not spying on their own country, is the real mentally unstable individual.
You should go back and read the articles on this matter again. NSA was not "spying on their own country", they were conducting surveillance on people in the United States communicating with, well, radical Islamist terrorists who want to overthrow Western civilization and install a world-wide Islamic government*. That is a subtle point to be sure, but an important one. What amazes me is that so many people get it wrong.
Here's what happened. After 9/11, authorities found a bunch of e-mail addresses and phone numbers in the phones and computers of confirmed terrorists. They tracked down those leads. Most of the people the NSA started eavesdropping on -- about 7,000 -- lived overseas, and their phone calls were to other foreigners living abroad. But, according to Risen's book, "about 500 people" living in the U.S. who were in contact with suspected terrorists had their communications tapped. Risen calls this "large-scale" spying on the American people even though, as the Weekly Standard recently noted, this constitutes "1.7 ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the U.S. population."
Oh wow, theres a book too? Do you suppose the way this has been released was orchestrated to support book sales?
*You don't have to rely on this link. This information isn't hard to find if you are interested in the facts.
And he reported that there was no way they could do it -- there was too much security.
I hope you don't think that suggests that he should be let off the hook.
And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
This doesn't directly say, but it is strongly hinted at in some measure, i.e. the new Patriot Act information sharing that is now expressly allowed contributed to his down fall.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
You seem to wrongly assume that the FISA court is the only source of authority for surveillance, and that this was illegal. There are strongarguments on the other side, that the administration's actions were completely legal if seldom used Presidential powers. And keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts were informed that they were doing this.
You have the Supreme Courts views on this, and law on the 4th Amendment wrong:
The Fourth Amendment includes requirements for the issuance of search warrants, and many critics of the NSA program seem to assume that this means that all searches must be executed pursuant to a warrant. This assumption is wrong. There are dozens of situations where warrantless searches have been approved by the courts. The overriding principle is that searches of Americans (defined to include resident aliens) must be reasonable.
One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.....
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.
Your investigation into the FISA courts activity didn't quite get all of the interesting facts by stopping just a little too early:
The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.
Warrant requests rejected
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection of a wiretap request in the court's history.
Based on what you've presented so far, I don't think your views are well supported by the facts.
It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally, so they just went ahead and did it anyway.
There are strongarguments that what the administration did was legal. You seldom see those arguments strongly presented in the media, if they are presented at all. I would be "shocked" if this had anything to do with certain historical voting patterns and the the irrationalhatred of President Bush by some in Amerik^Hca.
Slashdot Mirror
Alpha was great.
Alpha was intended to have a 25 year life. Unfortunately, it is drawing close to the end of 25 years. The design team is gone. By the time they could reconstitute it, train everyone, start a design, get it through fab, and ready for production systems, it would be close enough to 25 years that it wouldn't matter anyway. There is also the ugly N.I.H. factor which makes it unlikely they would ever revive it. I'm afraid Alpha is gone. R.I.P.
Then Qwest did it again, two days later, on the same line...
It must have been an important line for them to have 100% redundancy on it.
Right now there are state agents questioning certan US citizens' because of their reading habits,
... there are databases ran with information on normal, law abiding citizens just because they have an oppinion different from the current administration
...and God knows what other things are being done behind closed doors. Doesn't this worry anyone?
If you are refering to the Little Red Book story on Slashdot? It was a hoax, as noted in this Slashback.
If by "opinion different from the current administration" you mean terrorists trying to bomb, poison, or shoot us, yes. If you mean, "vote against the tax cuts".... no.
We should always watch government, but what you're worrying about is bordering on nonsense (see below).
US: formerly known as land of the free, currently aquiring police state status and on the fast track to fascism.
Land of the free? Yes, even now.
Police state status? Fast track to fascism? LOL.... no.
Why does no one see the irony in an administration that spouts off about, "A culture of respect for life in every stage", which then pushes for the death penalty for a wide range of crimes.
It is a question of protecting innocent life, which many people believe the death penalty does. But, lets reduce this debate to the choice of either:
A. No abortions and no death penalty
B. Abortions and the death penalty
I expect that the outcome would be:
The choice of many (most?) conservatives would likely preserve the life of many murders they would otherwise want executed.
The choice of many (most?) liberals would likely end the life of many murders they now protect.
Yeah, that is odd, especially as I was talking about American citizens captured in the US. Who we did, indeed, tried during WWII, even while the war was going on. In civilian courts.(1)
... well, that is part of the hazard of taking up arms to make war as a member of a non-state actor without diplomatic recognition, and acting outside the law, isn't it? If it had been, say, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta that had taken up arms against the US, there would have been a non-state actor with diplomatic status who would be accountable for the actions of its members, a semblance of control, and would be likely to adhere to the law of war. As it is, Al Qaeda and kin are making war not merely outside the law, but often violate the law of war, and as a result they have very little legal protection and enormous personal risk. (The hazards of becoming a martyr, I guess.) Since their ultimate goal is to reestablish the Caliphage, this could be a very long war. Some of them may be held for a very long time. It should come as no surprise that a number of fighters have been captured, released based on lies, and then recaptured on the battlefield. That makes for a subtle problem.
No, the Nazi saboteurs were tried by a Military Commission, including the US citizens.
In fact, the courts ruled, during WWII, they must be tried in civilian courts if said courts were operating, unlike the military courts the president wanted to use.
That is wrong. I think that you are confusing things with a Civil War decision over the question of martial law.
However, every enemy soldier captures during WWII did, indeed, have access to a lawyer, and we did, indeed, tell people we had captured them. I'm sure that's just a minor point, though.
We informed the governments, as provided for in the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda and kin do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva Convention. There are tests in the treaty to qualify for its protections, and they fail them.
Of course, we didn't capture random people handed to us by bounty hunters, but solely people in uniform on the battlefield, and there wouldn't have been a lot of point in them using lawyers to challenge their status, so almost none of them used a lawyer to do so.
On the contrary, we did intern large numbers of people toward the end of the war until their status could be settled. At that point there were many members of the Gestapo, SS and other criminal organizations that were trying to blend into the civilian population. It got sorted out over time.
With the war on terror, of course, there is plenty of reason for them to do that, because not only are many of them innocent, but the whole point of POWs is that you get returned after the war is over, and one's bothered to come up when that might be in the war on terror. So even if they are guilty of everything anyone vaguely asserted about them when given 500 dollars for turning a 'terrorist' over, they would still need to be entered into the legal system at some point.
No, they don't have to be entered into the legal system. The findings could be essentially administrative, much like the determination of POW status.
As far as the issue of "returning after the war",
Although economic freedom as defined in the study doesn't directly map 1:1 into what is understood as "civil rights", it is about freedom for people. Also, I don't think your example of putting radio trackers on everybody is compatible with the idea of economic freedom in the study.
I think that the most controversial part of this won't be the definition, but rather associating the United States with a high ranking as a free society despite the fact that it is legally spying on a small group of people in direct communication with terrorist organizations that have already damaged the US economy to the tune of $100,000,000,000, killed well over 3,000, and are actively seeking to kill at least 4,000,000 Americans.
I would think that it would be kept quiet if it was working so it would keep working. I guess I don't think like most people on Slashdot.
(Hey! Its working! Lets tell everybody so the terrorists will find out how we're getting them and stop doing what gives them away!! BULLETIN!! THE NSA HAS BROKEN Al QAEDA SUICIDE COMMANDO CELL 92's PERSONAL CODE AND STOPPED THE ATTACK. IT IS WIDELY ANTICIPATED THE CODE WILL CHANGE FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, FLUSHING THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF WORK, ANALYSIS, AND SURVEILLANCE, BUT REJOICE AMERICA! YOU ARE IN THE KNOW!!) I guess the expectation is that all 300,000,000 can be told the deepest, most sensitive government secrets and it won't leak out.
Also I mean real threats, not some whacko who is going to knock down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blow torch.
Shoe bombs on airplanes. Car bombs in the world trade center. Air planes crashing into the world trade center. Truck bombs at embassies and housing compounds. Suicide bombers in boats trying to sink ships. Experiments with poison gas. Land mines. Bombs. Dirty bombs. Does that sound like blow torches to you? That is what Al Qaeda is trying to use, and will use as soon as they find a way.
Even if they haven't been successful in attempted repeat attacks inside the US yet, they will keep trying.
I hope it doesn't take 50,000 dead before people take them seriously.
They have, indeed, asserted the right to lock people up without charging them with anything, without access to a lawyer, and without telling anyone.
How odd. It is almost as if they were being treated as if they were captured on the battlefield during wartime. (I don't remember... did we assign a lawyer to each of the millions of German, Japanese, and Italians that were captured in WW2 to challenge their captivity, and evidence used to hold them? (If the Luger doesn't fit, you must acquit!) Maybe not.)
Well - as long as you're happy with the new US motto:
America: still more rights then North Korea
Aw, shucks! The US is WAY better than that!
In the Index of Economic Freedom 2006 , the US ranks 9th in the world, tied with Australia and New Zealand. North Korea ranks 157th. That is a noticable gap.
Plus, I think you have the motto wrong. It is "In God We Trust"
Of course, it is as easy to be mistaken about these issues as it is about the legality of the NSA surveillance program, which actually has a strong legal foundation.
I don't know which is more shameful, the sorry state of government today, or that so few people think there's a problem. It's sad.
Most people don't think it is a problem for one of two reasons:
1) They think that conducting surveillance on people in direct communication with known members of terrorist organizations that have recently attacked the United States is actually a good idea.
2) They understand that the NSA program is very likely legal, as noted by:
The current Attorney General
A former Clinton administration Assistant Attorney General
The Lawyers at Powerline blog
and others in commentary & response.
High treason is quite explicitly attempting to forcibly overthrow the government. While that might be the effect of the Bush administration, it would be very difficult to prove it as the aim
High treason? Impeachment? right....
You are spreading the legal equivalent of urban legends, many of which are also "well known".
President Clinton's former Associate Attorney General, John Schmidt, had this to say:
There is plenty of other commentary and reaction as well.
"warrantless domestic spying", eh? You do realize that this is isn't aimed at rival Presidential candidates, but at people in direct contact with terrorist organizations that have attacked the United States, right? I'm astonished you might think that to be a bad thing.
Please do. Who has made a credible allegation or has any actual evidence beyond groundless conspiracy theories? Even if it was true, would it help? It didn't help the Clinton Administration, did it?
BTW, the quote is:
It is clear that the message is: "pick a side, the US or the terrorists", not "Bush v. world". Who are you cheering for? Would you stand with those who would welcome many deaths in the US if it meant political damage to President Bush?
you think that wiretaps which would be a felony when done by private citizens aren't even "unreasonable" when done by the government.
It's unreasonable for the government to conduct surveillance of people communicating with terrorist organizations during wartime? Right..... I imagine that you must have an interesting view on that whole "government monopoly on force" issue too.
you haven't questioned the premise that the unwarranted wiretaps are listening to known al-Qaeda members, even though such wiretaps surely would not have been among the ~0.1% of warrants that FISA has denied.
I guess timeliness and rapid developments would never play a part. Of course, that assumes that under current circumstances it is necessary for the NSA to actually get warrants. Of course, informed legal opinion from liberals and conservatives concludes that the NSA surveillance program was likely legal, and within the President's powers.
.
Old problem, isn't it?
I forget, who was it that was filing lawsuits to try to prevent the US government from listening in on conversations of people talking to known terrorists?
.
.
And that was proposed when and where? (Or is this a case of that "...you falsely pretend to think so to score rhetorical points" thing you mention above?)
One final thing: military action and law enforcement are different legal realms. Confusing them leads to no end of consternation.
Nope, but I'd volunteer to be part of the world outlined by the parent even if it meant the possibility that I'd be in one of those buildings, while meanwhile you would benefit.
It won't happen as long as the Islamist extremists are willing to kill millions to try and rebuild the Caliphate. 9/11 cost 3,000 lives and $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. Western civilization, let alone people, will never tolerate it if that sort of thing starts becoming a regular occurance.
Besides, the E.U. and the U.S. are effectively that way now, only on a regional basis. (Many US states are the size of countries. California is about equal in size and population to Iraq.). I don't think we're in danger of nearing Nirvana yet.
Almost, but not quite.
And why did it end?
More...
President Clinton was impeached for perjury & obstruction of justice, not for performing any sexual acts, but rather for lying about them. That information was being sought in a civil suit against him for which it was considered material information such as is common in sexual harassment lawsuits.
Solzhenitsyn in quite insightful...
In fact, I would go even further and say that I would like to live in a world where anyone can live where ever they want and cross any border without restriction. The United States would probably see an increase in terrorism (more large buildings getting knocked down, etc.) but I would personally be willing to accept that in exchange for the freedom to travel and live anywhere in the world without government interference.
That's mighty big of you.
Would you volunteer to be in one of those buildings if I benefited and you were the one who died?
On second thought you don't need to worry about volunteering. Someone is already hard at work trying to make some choices for you..... and 3,999,999 other Americans. Of course maybe you don't need to worry too much since they are working toward their own vision of a borderless world, of sorts. Of course you might find the embrace of government they intend to be a little close for your tastes. But, hey, what can you do? Take the good with the bad, right?
Two legal blogs by blatantly partisan shills do not comprise compelling enough evidence to change my mind on this, sorry.
You might want to look more closely since my recollection is that they are from opposite ends of the political specturm but reach similar views.
Further down in the story you link to is this interesting nugget:
There seems to be a common thread between the groups in the two stories, but they don't appear to be exactly the same bunch.
I wonder if they were connected in any way to the 20 arrested in Spain trying to recruit Jihadis for Iraq (and who had connections to the attacks in Spain last year)?
Regarding allegations that the NSA's actions broke the law, I don't think you are getting as many facts and contrary views as are available.
It's the reason they couldn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason during the Vietnam war - there was NO LEGAL STATE OF WAR - it was a "use of military force".
Wrong again.
If they did declare war, they would be bound by the Geneva Convention, which would mean George Bush would be prosecuted as a war criminal for the torture at Abu-Garaib.
You are wrong on two counts:
A country is bound by the Geneva Convention once it signs the treaty, declaration of war or not.
Much of what is associated with the infamous acts at Abu Ghraib were conducted by rogue soldiers who have already plead guilty or have been convicted and are being punished, or faced other administrative action, as appropriate. The Army had already stopped the criminal acts by those soldiers and was already investigating them when it was publicized in the press.
Your views are commonly held, but wrong.
You're wrong about the legal aspects of this. There is a strong argument that the President's actions were legal and consistent with his Constitutional powers.
Well said.
I see that dissent from popular opinon on Slashdot continues to be moderated down even when basicly correct.
Continue speaking truth to power.
If he wanted to be a whistle blower, he should have gone to the Inspector General, or the proper Congressional committee directly. Hint Hint. That way, if it turned out that those operations were, say, actually legal and part of the President's powers, the operations wouldn't be exposed and our enemies alerted to their exposure. What he actually did was alert our enemies to their vulnerability, cause a political firestorm in the US that is likely to impede future legitimate operations, and put him in the position of seeming to be a "hero" to the uninformed. It is almost as if he had bad judgement, or maybe a complex...
Shortly thereafter, his bosses had him pulled in for a medical exam, where despite having no symptoms, the MO labeled him as suffering from paranoia. This is standard practice in such circles to ensure compliance, and to provide ammo for any subsequent smear campaigns.
Of course. There has never been a member of the intelligence community who betrayed the confidence of the United States, is there? Who could imagine anyone in governmnet service betraying their country, especially now?
By the way, you do have a link to a reputable source showing there was no problem, right?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you aren't doing anything wrong to attract attention.
It's like this. Anyone who believes that the NSA was not spying on their own country, is the real mentally unstable individual.
You should go back and read the articles on this matter again. NSA was not "spying on their own country", they were conducting surveillance on people in the United States communicating with, well, radical Islamist terrorists who want to overthrow Western civilization and install a world-wide Islamic government*. That is a subtle point to be sure, but an important one. What amazes me is that so many people get it wrong.
Oh wow, theres a book too? Do you suppose the way this has been released was orchestrated to support book sales?
*You don't have to rely on this link. This information isn't hard to find if you are interested in the facts.
I hope you don't think that suggests that he should be let off the hook.
And, btw, where's the evidence that this guy was caught via the wiretaps in question? He was arrested by NYC police, not by federal agents. And there appears to be no information about him beyond this one CNN transcript.
This doesn't directly say, but it is strongly hinted at in some measure, i.e. the new Patriot Act information sharing that is now expressly allowed contributed to his down fall.
There's been absolutely no explanation for why Bush couldn't use the FISA court, just as it was intended to be used. Except that, for some reason, he doesn't think the 4th amendment applies. Despite repeated US Supreme Court rulings stating exactly the opposite thing.
You seem to wrongly assume that the FISA court is the only source of authority for surveillance, and that this was illegal. There are strong arguments on the other side, that the administration's actions were completely legal if seldom used Presidential powers. And keep in mind that both Congress and the Courts were informed that they were doing this.
You have the Supreme Courts views on this, and law on the 4th Amendment wrong:
BTW, there's absolutely no evidence that the FISA court is obstructing the Administration's requests. Just go look at the reports yourself.
I didn't bother looking back further than that, since it's not relevant to Bush's post-9/11 activities. Which just makes his abridgement of the 4th amendment and SCOTUS rulings that much more questionable.
Your investigation into the FISA courts activity didn't quite get all of the interesting facts by stopping just a little too early:
Based on what you've presented so far, I don't think your views are well supported by the facts.
It just shows you Bush's comtempt for the rule of law. They couldn't do what they wanted to do legally, so they just went ahead and did it anyway.
There are strong arguments that what the administration did was legal. You seldom see those arguments strongly presented in the media, if they are presented at all. I would be "shocked" if this had anything to do with certain historical voting patterns and the the irrational hatred of President Bush by some in Amerik^Hca.