"When I said "absolute, questioned control" I wasn't referring to you and me"
Then it's not ABSOLUTE and UNQUESTIONED.
Why do you use language that you don't understand?
Why can't you just admit you overstated you position and got stepped on, instead of saying "I didn't mean a=b when I said a=b, I meant something completely ridiculous and irrational, that I'm only trying to pawn off because I'm embarassed that I got outsmarted."
Is that really so hard, or does your humongous ego prevent you from admitting you fu*ked up?
I'm going with ego, and I'll bet money you'll try to find a way to make "a=b" into "a=w" again.
Don't bother, you sound like an idiot and I don't humor idiots.
Nice use of the weasel phrase "locks out", but facts just don't support you.
Please post a link to the part of patent law that "locks out" collaboration. While you're fruitlessly searching, you'll realize you made that entire line of reasoning up, if you haven't already been forced into that conclusion.
What recourse does an individual have when they've exhausted all their options, and your guarantees don't satisfy them?
The law.
Your guarantee is worthless without legal remedy when it fails.
One other thing
This
"How is that untrustworthy?"
Where did I say ANYTHING about trustworthiness?
WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY MAKING SHIT UP? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU CAN'T READ AND RESPOND TO WHAT I SAID WITHOUT ARGUING A POINT I NEVER EVEN REFERENCED, MUCH LESS ATTEMPTED TO MAKE?
Are you just fucking stupid? Do you have some difficulty with the language that you saw the word "untrustworthy" and the argument related to it in a post consisting almost completely of "BWAHAHAHA....."?
"Being a totalitarian state is not a matter of interpretation, as you seem to think it is. In fact, it is pretty much an absolute. Says it right in the name: totalitarian. Totally not much wiggle room there, dude. If a given country's government maintains absolute, unquestioned control of its citizens and has the right to mass-murder or imprison them at will without the slightest repercussion, then pretty much we can call it totalitarian. China fits that particular bill to a tee, I'm afraid. See: Tianamen Square"
Your statement is itself indicative of how difficult this subject is, and how easy it is to fall into rhetoric without thinking, like you did.
If "a given country's government maintains absolute, unquestioned control of its citizens" and "has the right to mass-murder or imprison them at will without the slightest repercussion", then what does it meant that you're questioning them RIGHT NOW, and people are boycotting Chinese products RIGHT NOW.
If we use your definition, China is not a totalitarian state, because it is not doing its business unquestioned, and there are repurcussions.
I believe the phrase is "hoist upon your own petard".
"American companies doing business in America conduct themselves with a very different set of ethical standards than when they conduct business abroad."
Yes you're absolutely right. In the US and Europe, MS breaks the law, and gets vilified.
In China, they follow the law and get vilified.
So while MS behaves very differently depending on the circumstances, the slashbots respons the same way every time.
"I would not call Unnecessarily dropping a nuke on japan during ww2 as responsible."
Well, since that's never happened, you won't have to make that decision will you.
Now, what you meant was "I would like to make an idiotic attempt at revising history, because I'm a foolish child who is easily duped, and then attempt to smear the US because I'm historically ignorant. In addition, I would like to apply my moral compass to a situation that occurred SIXTY years ago, during a time I'm neither able nor qualified to comment about. Oh, and tactily approve of Japan's cowardly actions in starting the war by ignoring them in my factually inaccurate post." That's a bit closer to the truth.
"The movie Deliverance was filmed in Georgia and took place there as well. Get your facts straight."
Most of it was filmed on the Chattooga (great rafting) which is in NC, SC and Georgia. The guides on the river showed us some of the more prominent spots.
"Take home finals abdicate the instructors responsibility to make cheating as hard as possible and catch it if they can."
Where do you get the idea that making cheating as hard as possible is a professor's responsibility?
You are allowing parents and students to abdicate THEIR responsiblity to behave correctly.
I don't know why you think it's a professor's responsibility to modify your behavior, but college isn't high school.
Adults go to college, and they're expected to act like adults when they are there. Why do you keep insisting that professors should treat adults like children?
"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."
I'm going to highlight this, but I'll let you figure out where you screwed up. My guess is you're so blinded by your bias and bigotry that you won't be able to.
"Therefore, according to the excerpt you posted, the approval of the FISA court is necessary."
Funny how you ask if I read my excerpt when it's pretty clear you didn't bother to. If the FISA courts approval is required then explain this part
"OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States "
Well? Did YOU read my post? It's pretty clear you didn't bother with that part or you woudln't have said this
"Also please point out any ambiguity in the FISA law, as you are so sure that it exists."
Can the attorney general authorize warrantless searches? In what cases in the answer yes, and in what cases is it no?
Well? GIVE ME CASES, not your opinion.
And you STILL haven't posted the law that you think makes this illegal. Posting the whole FISA document is nice, but it shouldn't be too hard for somone as well read as yourself to point me to COURT CASES that support your point.
Face it, you opepen your mouth without all the facts, and now you can't take it back. Learn from the experience and try not to jump to conclusions when you're ingnorant.
"Clinton is nothing but a red herring in this regard"
Really, then explain this
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Hey, look at that, an executive order authorizing... WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. Discussing past examples of similar situations isn't a "red herring", it's informed debate.
USSID (The U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive) States the following:
"Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (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...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
So which one is right? USSID CLEARLY states that a warrant is not required in some cases, and goes on to outline them. I would like the court to make those distinctions clear, and it hasn't yet.
Why do you insist on acting like you have some greater understanding of the law, when I've posted an excerpt FROM THE LAW that CLEARLY invalidates your assertion?
"There's very little ambiguity in the FISA law."
Perhaps if you're on a withchunt, but for those of us who like our laws to actually be defined, you couldn't be further from the truth.
You're wrong. Get over it and start accepting that you got your spin from a bad source.
Again, you're just talking and not listening.
Is it just possible that you didn't have all the facts, or are you going to continue to claim something is true when I've demonstrated it to be false?
Others have posted ACTUAL COURT DECISIONS that make the legality of Bush's actions unclear.
All you've done is espouse your opinion, without one iota of case law to back you up.
So post the relvant part of FISA, the one you think think makes Bush's actions illegal.
Then watch how fast a decent lawyer shows you how ambiguous it is, and why it's a dumb idea to make assertations like you have.
The frustrating thing about this discussion is that when people like me ask people like you to allow the court to make definitive case law, and avoid jumping to conclusions, the people like you respond with stuff like this
"The FISA law has not been faithfully executed. Bush has violated his oath of office and the Constitution."
Why are you bothering to post if you won't even listen to (more) informed debate?
Why are YOU so certain of the legality of his actions when LEGAL PROFESSIONALS can't agree?
What make you an authority in this area? Nothing, so stop acting like you are and start listening.
The point is, the people screeching about civil rights violations sat silent when the same types of violations were ocurring under the Clinton administration.
I agree with everything you said, but that wasn't the point.
The point is the people claiming to be outraged by Bush's behavior are liars and hypocrites.
If they weren't, then there should be an easily verifiable record of public denunciation of Clinton's surveilance activities.
If there is, then those people get to crow about Bush all they want. If there isn't, then somebody needs to explain why they were silent before and suddenly vocal now.
And by "they" I mean public officials. I couldn't care less what the crowd thinks about this.
"But it doesn't take a lawyer to look at the FISA statute and conclude that there is a case to be made."
Sure. At the same time, there is case law already that excludes the type of survelance that Bush did. From what is currently available, the actions are closer to being legal than not.
That, more than anything, is why I would like this case decided. I would like a court to very definitively tell the Government that it messed up.
"At the time the statement you quoted above was made, physical searches did not, I repeat not violate FISA, because physical searches weren't covered by FISA at the time."
So, Clinton was in office before 1978, because that's when FISA was instituted.
The rest of your post is lies too, specifically this part
"However, what Bush authorized, clearly is covered by FISA and illegal according to it."
Lie. What Bush did IS NOT specifically covered under FISA, which is why this happened in the first place. The confusion about what FISA covers allowed Bush to authorize something that fell in a grey area, and the exact case law hasn't been hashed out yet.
I can see why you posted AC. If I was making things up like you are, I would post AC too.
"People are upset because Bush deliberately broke the law,"
Well, to be perfectly accurate, they're upset because they believe he broke the law. They're wrong.
There is currently no case law in this area that could be considered definitive, meaning that he may have broken the law, and he may not have. The courts haven't decided yet.
So if people are genuinely upset "because he broke the law", that stems from their ignorance and they should be corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
"So, I guess we can go ahead and tattoo barcodes on the little buggers' arms too, right?"
First of all this is the parents, not the kids, so your answer doesn't make sense.
Second, taking a measure of something already present is a bit different from actively tattooing them.
What a dumb attempt at an analogy, and the worst part is YOU DIDN'T EVEN ANSWER MY QUESTION.
"When I said "absolute, questioned control" I wasn't referring to you and me"
Then it's not ABSOLUTE and UNQUESTIONED.
Why do you use language that you don't understand?
Why can't you just admit you overstated you position and got stepped on, instead of saying "I didn't mean a=b when I said a=b, I meant something completely ridiculous and irrational, that I'm only trying to pawn off because I'm embarassed that I got outsmarted."
Is that really so hard, or does your humongous ego prevent you from admitting you fu*ked up?
I'm going with ego, and I'll bet money you'll try to find a way to make "a=b" into "a=w" again.
Don't bother, you sound like an idiot and I don't humor idiots.
But what part of asking for identification "having their privacy infringed"?
Go ahead and blather all the rationalizations you want, but efficacy is the main concern, and privacy is a stupid red herring.
The idea that people who disagree with you are incapable of understanding something corrctly is as elitist as it gets.
That you fail to recognize that speaks volumes about you.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white _papers_and_tech_docs/25759.pdf
And as an aside, it took two seconds (actually .08) seconds to look up on Google. Maybe try that next time.
"The patent system locks out collaberation"
Nice use of the weasel phrase "locks out", but facts just don't support you.
Please post a link to the part of patent law that "locks out" collaboration. While you're fruitlessly searching, you'll realize you made that entire line of reasoning up, if you haven't already been forced into that conclusion.
"It seems that most of the comments belittle wine and wine drinkers as some sort of elitist group."
I noticed that too. I wonder why.
"I'm guessing that the people who are posting these comments have never actually tasted good wine, or don't appreciate it."
Ok, I think I understand why now.
What recourse does an individual have when they've exhausted all their options, and your guarantees don't satisfy them?
The law.
Your guarantee is worthless without legal remedy when it fails.
One other thing
This
"How is that untrustworthy?"
Where did I say ANYTHING about trustworthiness?
WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY MAKING SHIT UP? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU CAN'T READ AND RESPOND TO WHAT I SAID WITHOUT ARGUING A POINT I NEVER EVEN REFERENCED, MUCH LESS ATTEMPTED TO MAKE?
Are you just fucking stupid? Do you have some difficulty with the language that you saw the word "untrustworthy" and the argument related to it in a post consisting almost completely of "BWAHAHAHA....."?
Why do constantly just make shit up?
It's really amusing that this guy doesn't understand how research works, especially in this case. I know, it's a little confusing sometimes.
The best part though, is that so many other people are ignorant as well, and found a way to display it by modding him up.
RTFA was never more appropriate than in this case.
"Is the law useful? Not one bit."
"Get a good consultant, pay them well, and make them back it up with guarantees. Problem solved."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH. You don't trust the law, but you trust a CONSULTANT'S GUARANTEES!?!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"Being a totalitarian state is not a matter of interpretation, as you seem to think it is. In fact, it is pretty much an absolute. Says it right in the name: totalitarian. Totally not much wiggle room there, dude. If a given country's government maintains absolute, unquestioned control of its citizens and has the right to mass-murder or imprison them at will without the slightest repercussion, then pretty much we can call it totalitarian. China fits that particular bill to a tee, I'm afraid. See: Tianamen Square"
Your statement is itself indicative of how difficult this subject is, and how easy it is to fall into rhetoric without thinking, like you did.
If "a given country's government maintains absolute, unquestioned control of its citizens" and "has the right to mass-murder or imprison them at will without the slightest repercussion", then what does it meant that you're questioning them RIGHT NOW, and people are boycotting Chinese products RIGHT NOW.
If we use your definition, China is not a totalitarian state, because it is not doing its business unquestioned, and there are repurcussions.
I believe the phrase is "hoist upon your own petard".
"American companies doing business in America conduct themselves with a very different set of ethical standards than when they conduct business abroad."
Yes you're absolutely right. In the US and Europe, MS breaks the law, and gets vilified.
In China, they follow the law and get vilified.
So while MS behaves very differently depending on the circumstances, the slashbots respons the same way every time.
"I would not call Unnecessarily dropping a nuke on japan during ww2 as responsible."
Well, since that's never happened, you won't have to make that decision will you.
Now, what you meant was "I would like to make an idiotic attempt at revising history, because I'm a foolish child who is easily duped, and then attempt to smear the US because I'm historically ignorant. In addition, I would like to apply my moral compass to a situation that occurred SIXTY years ago, during a time I'm neither able nor qualified to comment about. Oh, and tactily approve of Japan's cowardly actions in starting the war by ignoring them in my factually inaccurate post." That's a bit closer to the truth.
I blame your parents.
"The movie Deliverance was filmed in Georgia and took place there as well. Get your facts straight."
Most of it was filmed on the Chattooga (great rafting) which is in NC, SC and Georgia. The guides on the river showed us some of the more prominent spots.
"Take home finals abdicate the instructors responsibility to make cheating as hard as possible and catch it if they can."
Where do you get the idea that making cheating as hard as possible is a professor's responsibility?
You are allowing parents and students to abdicate THEIR responsiblity to behave correctly.
I don't know why you think it's a professor's responsibility to modify your behavior, but college isn't high school.
Adults go to college, and they're expected to act like adults when they are there. Why do you keep insisting that professors should treat adults like children?
"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."
I'm going to highlight this, but I'll let you figure out where you screwed up. My guess is you're so blinded by your bias and bigotry that you won't be able to.
"Therefore, according to the excerpt you posted, the approval of the FISA court is necessary."
Funny how you ask if I read my excerpt when it's pretty clear you didn't bother to. If the FISA courts approval is required then explain this part
"OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States "
Well? Did YOU read my post? It's pretty clear you didn't bother with that part or you woudln't have said this
"Also please point out any ambiguity in the FISA law, as you are so sure that it exists."
Can the attorney general authorize warrantless searches? In what cases in the answer yes, and in what cases is it no?
Well? GIVE ME CASES, not your opinion.
And you STILL haven't posted the law that you think makes this illegal. Posting the whole FISA document is nice, but it shouldn't be too hard for somone as well read as yourself to point me to COURT CASES that support your point.
Face it, you opepen your mouth without all the facts, and now you can't take it back. Learn from the experience and try not to jump to conclusions when you're ingnorant.
We're done.
"Clinton is nothing but a red herring in this regard"
Really, then explain this
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
Hey, look at that, an executive order authorizing... WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. Discussing past examples of similar situations isn't a "red herring", it's informed debate.
USSID (The U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive) States the following:
"Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can't be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court...; OR (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...international communications" and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting "significant foreign intelligence information."
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies "when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because...the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security."
So which one is right? USSID CLEARLY states that a warrant is not required in some cases, and goes on to outline them. I would like the court to make those distinctions clear, and it hasn't yet.
Why do you insist on acting like you have some greater understanding of the law, when I've posted an excerpt FROM THE LAW that CLEARLY invalidates your assertion?
"There's very little ambiguity in the FISA law."
Perhaps if you're on a withchunt, but for those of us who like our laws to actually be defined, you couldn't be further from the truth.
You're wrong. Get over it and start accepting that you got your spin from a bad source.
Again, you're just talking and not listening.
Is it just possible that you didn't have all the facts, or are you going to continue to claim something is true when I've demonstrated it to be false?
Others have posted ACTUAL COURT DECISIONS that make the legality of Bush's actions unclear.
All you've done is espouse your opinion, without one iota of case law to back you up.
So post the relvant part of FISA, the one you think think makes Bush's actions illegal.
Then watch how fast a decent lawyer shows you how ambiguous it is, and why it's a dumb idea to make assertations like you have.
The frustrating thing about this discussion is that when people like me ask people like you to allow the court to make definitive case law, and avoid jumping to conclusions, the people like you respond with stuff like this
"The FISA law has not been faithfully executed. Bush has violated his oath of office and the Constitution."
Why are you bothering to post if you won't even listen to (more) informed debate?
Why are YOU so certain of the legality of his actions when LEGAL PROFESSIONALS can't agree?
What make you an authority in this area? Nothing, so stop acting like you are and start listening.
"and America was founded by hardcore BRITISH slaveowners."
If you're going to play the "assign blame" game, make sure you put it in the right place.
The point is, the people screeching about civil rights violations sat silent when the same types of violations were ocurring under the Clinton administration.
I agree with everything you said, but that wasn't the point.
The point is the people claiming to be outraged by Bush's behavior are liars and hypocrites.
If they weren't, then there should be an easily verifiable record of public denunciation of Clinton's surveilance activities.
If there is, then those people get to crow about Bush all they want. If there isn't, then somebody needs to explain why they were silent before and suddenly vocal now.
And by "they" I mean public officials. I couldn't care less what the crowd thinks about this.
"But it doesn't take a lawyer to look at the FISA statute and conclude that there is a case to be made."
Sure. At the same time, there is case law already that excludes the type of survelance that Bush did. From what is currently available, the actions are closer to being legal than not.
That, more than anything, is why I would like this case decided. I would like a court to very definitively tell the Government that it messed up.
"At the time the statement you quoted above was made, physical searches did not, I repeat not violate FISA, because physical searches weren't covered by FISA at the time."
So, Clinton was in office before 1978, because that's when FISA was instituted.
The rest of your post is lies too, specifically this part
"However, what Bush authorized, clearly is covered by FISA and illegal according to it."
Lie. What Bush did IS NOT specifically covered under FISA, which is why this happened in the first place. The confusion about what FISA covers allowed Bush to authorize something that fell in a grey area, and the exact case law hasn't been hashed out yet.
I can see why you posted AC. If I was making things up like you are, I would post AC too.
"People are upset because Bush deliberately broke the law,"
Well, to be perfectly accurate, they're upset because they believe he broke the law. They're wrong.
There is currently no case law in this area that could be considered definitive, meaning that he may have broken the law, and he may not have. The courts haven't decided yet.
So if people are genuinely upset "because he broke the law", that stems from their ignorance and they should be corrected.
"What's with "owning a gun" such a high civil liberty?"
Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government has no repsonsibility to protect private citizens.
Read that again.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS.
Don't believe me? Read about it here.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050329.html
None of the other rights matter if you can't protect your life.