Court Orders Dismissal of US Wiretapping Lawsuit 362
jcatcw writes with a link to a ComputerWorld article about the dismissal of a case against the NSA over the wiretapping program revealed last year. The case was brought by the ACLU. A three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit has sent the case back down to District court for ultimate dismissal. "The appeals court decision leaves opponents of the NSA program in a difficult position, said Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has opposed the program. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue because they can't prove they were affected by the program, and at the same time, ruled that details about the program, including who was targeted, are state secrets."
Fir Pos? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:4, Insightful)
This really isn't anything to do with Bush, though it is his actions we are concerned with; it is a shortcoming in the legal system, a loophole that arises because of the way lawsuits are qualified. The president has violated his oath to uphold the constitution; via US telecomm laws, wiretapping is linked inextricably to fourth amendment citizen immunity to unreasonable search; the president swears to uphold and defend the constitution, and he has not doe so, in fact a strong case can be made that he has directly violated it. There is a remedy for this. Recourse is via the congress, who should impeach and convict him for this violation of the presidential oath, a "high crime" if there ever was one.
The problem that we actually face is a congress that has absolutely no spine and is so corrupt itself that they find it perfectly natural to violate the constitution. After all, they have done it many times by producing blatantly unconstitutional laws. Examples abound: ex post facto gun laws, suppression of speech in public areas (most recently, the ruling on that kid's Jesus / Bong banner), the witless inversion of the commerce clause, violation of the right to keep and bear arms and so on.
We can't fix any of this because of the entrenched two party system, and because the legislators themselves are corrupt (with the exception of one or two.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I may have posted this idea once before, so apologies if its familiar, but what about a movement to un-elect the incumbents?
Next time you vote, vote against anyone currently holding office. Keep your party affiliations, if you must, just make sure the old blood is booted out the door. Make it widely known that your reasons for doing so are t
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:5, Informative)
From an article in the New York Times [nytimes.com]:
Judge Batchelder was appointed by President George Bush, Judge Gibbons by President George W. Bush and Judge Gilman by President Bill Clinton. Judge Taylor, the district court judge, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
Judge Batchelder (George Bush) wrote the majority opinion, Judge Gibbons (George W. Bush) concurred with the majority, and Judge Gilman (Bill Clinton) dissented. Judge Taylor (Jimmy Carter) was the district court judge who was over-ruled.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all fine, but you have to understand what happened here. They didn't say that the action (wiretapping) was legal; they just said - and I think, correctly - that the complaining party couldn't show that it had been directly affected, and so they had no standing to sue. Lawsuits require that you show that harm has been done to you - the party with the objection - in order to proceed. Without standing, this was stopped. Lawsuit is probably the wrong remedy for this issue unless the party objecting know
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to know is how is one supposed to challenge a blatantly unconstitutional program when the govt has a monopoly on the evidence needed to show individual harm.
I give up (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to improve all the issues pointed out in the article, stop having a two party system. However, I realize that having more than two options to vote for confuses most Americans.
Lastly, I'd like a "None of the Above" option on all elections. And looking at the approval ratings of congress, and the president, I think NOTA would win most elections.
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the third parties were at the 2004 debates, so lets not make it seem like they don't participate. Weren't the Green party and Libertarian party [worldnetdaily.com] candidates in the back of a police car outside the building holding the debates. The two parties have locked all the other parties out. Welcome to America says the sign.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tough ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tough ground (Score:4, Insightful)
We've had them throw out the appeal by someone who, told by a judge he had 17 days to file his motion, filed his motion in 16 days, only to find out that the bureaucratic rule was 14 days (the judge took a weekend into account). If this doesn't violate the spirit of the law, I don't know what would. We've seen a new strategy in cases brought by US citizens that, where instead of saying the facts or the law were against them, the judges claimed they "didn't have standing to bring suit". What does it tell you when the citizens of a nation don't have standing to bring suit against their own government. I wonder if Clarence Thomas has ever read the Declaration of Independence as closely as he read the back cover of the latest XXX DVD by Long Dong Silver.
I've been strongly critical of the Bush administration for several years, but I've never before believed that impeachment was the best approach. That has changed. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have clearly decided that they're going to push the envelope of legality and morality as far as they possibly can, assuming that as long as they don't get a blowjob in the Oval Office, they won't be touched. I'm not sure America can move forward until these men are brought before Congress under articles of impeachment, and Americans are going to remain angrily divided until the 68 percent of us who believe this administration has been harmful to this country get some answers. It appears that more than half of Americans agree with me that impeachment is warranted, and it's time for that half to contact their congressmen with the same energy with which they defeated the Immigration Bill. Twelve million illegal immigrants can't begin to do the kind of damage to this great nation that the two men in the White House have perpetrated. Whether they are convicted and removed from office is to be determined by Congress, but it's time for them to answer for their actions.
Re:Tough ground (Score:5, Interesting)
If people know they are being spied on an tapped, they'll take fewer risks and give less away.
Likewise, if they know they
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the judgement above, you'd also be creating a list of people who now have the right to sue you.
As it stands, unless they break the "State Secrets" limitation, the government is protected from being held accountable.
In THIS government, accountability is the very last thing they want applied to themselves. As such, I think this, more than those other two arguments, is why they'll never release such a list.
-AC
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
(I kinda wish they would. At least it'd get it out in the open. But to answer your question as to why -- if it were out in the open, if it were made legal, then they co
Re:Tough ground (Score:5, Funny)
Ok . . my head just exploded.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...and how did that affect you?
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it was not from misunderstanding the above statement, but that you just realized that the above statement is in fact reality.
Re: (Score:2)
A little bit of both, actually. ;)
Re:Tough ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, a government that does not follow the rules and restrictions set for it by itself and its people is just as much of a threat as any malicious foreign party. Which leads me to my next question - can they take further action on this case, or was it pretty much shot down, and prevented from going higher? The quotes didn't seem optimistic.
Re:Tough ground (Score:4, Interesting)
as you say, snooping on just my phone calls, no whoop. However they have the computer power to snoop on everyones calls simultaneously, aggregate the data, look for patterns, and it is so secret they 1) can't document abuses 2) can't discipline anyone who abuses it.
eg: if 1000 people call in to the brokers to sell their Haliburton stock at the same time, a flag might instantly pop up on the VP's computer, and automatically sell his stock first. Knowing one persons calls to trade a stock, meaningless, knowing a 1000 insiders did simultaneously, priceless.
Japan was accused of doing stuff like this back in the 70's. eg: The phone Company would automatically take fax's sent or received out of country, and copy them to any interested company's, "in the nations best interest". So if a American executive in japan faxed out a private bid for a contract to his home office, that fax would get to the Japanese business also bidding...
You don't think it will affects you? Business knowing they can't do business inside the US through phones, email, etc. Because they can't trust the privacy of our government...
Lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if you were a lawyer? Do you think the NSA would be bothered in the least about passing along information to the DOJ reguarding your stratagies in pursuing a $B class action case against the US for unlawful imprisonment?
The problem isn't that the NSA is tapping the phones of US citizens, it's that Nixon did it & the US govt expressly wrote laws forbidding exactly what the NSA is doing - unsupervised wiretaps. They created an entire court & post approval schemes to make sure that the approval process didn't interfier with priority/time sensative investigations. I don't care if you aren't breaking the law & don't care who listens in on your calls. I do care that the Federal Government doesn't give a shit about the very rule of law it's supposed to be upholding!
Bush & the NSA got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Like the average 2 year old, they first denied that the facts were the facts. Once they couldn't get past that point they switched to beligerant teenager & just said 'fuck off the rules don't apply to me'. That's where we stand now. Bush & the NSA acknowledge that they broke the law & then hide behind the 'state secrets' act to shield themselves from any investigation/proscecution relating to it.
Note how they are even stonewalling the security subcommity that's trying to look into exactly how bad of a legal fuckup this is. "This stuff is so super secret that we can't even show 8 members of Congress with top level security clearances what we are doing. The fact that we are legally mandated to advise them & we can only perform these operations under their oversight is irrelevant."
I think this is eventually going to fall apart into a cluster fuck that's going to make Watergate look like a well coreographed ballet. This suit was turned down because the plaintifs couldn't show direct harm with the 'chilling effect' on free speech being completely dismissed by 2 judges as a 'concoction'. Eventually there's going to be an arrest made & it'll get tied to the NSA.
The game is over once that happens, Bush has already lost almost every aspect of the 'state secrets' cover he has. As more & more information is leaked out, he's got less & less coverage. The 'unable to show cause' requirement to continue these cases is one of the last pieces of the puzzle. Once a case is tied to the project, that's gone & he's down to 'fuck off'. There's one case that's already in play because of this very fact. Parts of it were thrown out, but the judge ruled that there is enough public knowledge about the project to continue, and the fact that the party suing was accidentally provided documents showing he was under survailance is sufficient to prove cause.
The Shrub has all the pieces he needs to do the job, he just doesn't like having to play by the rules that accompany those tools. Sorry, if he can't win playing by the rules, he needs to step asside & let someone else have thier chance.
Re:Lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know this how exactly?
You have no idea who Bush is wiretapping whatsoever. No one does.
Saying 'It's just oversea calls made to suspected terrorists' is just repeating what the government says, and, more to the point, it's almost certainly wrong. Whatever the administration is doing, it is doing something that would not be allowed under FISA, or they're be using FISA. And that sort of behavior certainly would be allowed unless they have an incredibly lax definition of 'suspected terrorists'.
The US government is almost certainly wiretapping people it would not be allowed to had it used the courts, otherwise it would use the courts.
This is not EFF -vs- AT&T (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Better yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better yet... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, contact your congressman (of any Party, they all want to be re-elected) and tell them why this issue is important to you and how this will affect your vote in 2008.
Your congresscritter will know better. There's no absentee voting in Gitmo.
Re: (Score:2)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Why? (Score:2)
If this ruling makes you angry, support the EFF!
Why? They talk a great talk (and they love to talk- seems they're always giving speeches) but when it comes down to court time, their record is less than stellar, particularly with larger cases. I really don't give a shit about CSS or encrypted music/movies. I do care quite a bit when the government is engaged in unconstitutional wiretapping.
Our era's reverse catch 22. (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Instead, it's fear of terror that's the new catch, completely unaccountable in its all-enforcing secrecy from the people the system is supposed to represent, and completely against the constitution that gives it the charter it exists to serve.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Our era's reverse catch 22. (Score:4, Funny)
1) You could only "see" Major Major Major when he was not in. If he was in you could not see him, until later, when he was out.
2) The italian police were not permitted to tell those they arrested what they had been charged with.
Kid's these days! How many slashdotters don't know what Catch-22 is?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"What right did they have?"
"Catch-22. [...] Catch-22 says they have a right to do
anything we can't stop them from doing. [...]"
"Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping
about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read
it?"
Appeal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if the legislature was to subpeona the records of those wire taps from the NSA, and those lists were either leaked, or shared with some of the targeted subjects, THEN you would have a damn good shot.
Technically, the court is following the letter of the law. Short of an activist judge, all courts would like
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is that the Court is saying that the people who brought the case have no standing to have brought the case. In the USA, a party who brings a suit, must show that they have been affected by the person/entity they are bringing the suit against. The people bringing the suit do not have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EXACLTY! Nor will there ever be that possibility so long as this ruling stands. That's the problem. Its a situation in which the Executive Branch can violate Consititional rights with impunity, and that's the exact reason why there's a Supreme Court in the first place.
The thing that really bugs me... (Score:4, Interesting)
...is the standing rulings that have collectively made it law that taxpayer participation (i.e. by paying taxes) in a program is insufficient standing for challenging that program. Is there a lawyer in the house that can explain why if I pay for something that doesn't give me the standing to complain about it? A rational explanation escapes me, but IANAL...
I mean, I can *kind of* see that if taxpayer participation was enough, then the courts would be come much busier with complaints about government spending and programs (perhaps paralyzingly so), but there must be a better way than just excluding the entire class as lacking standing.
Re:The thing that really bugs me... (Score:5, Informative)
It would seem to me that the reasoning goes something like this "you're claiming harm via the payment of taxes, so the harm has to be directly related to the payment of taxes. This means that the violation you're claiming has to be a violation of Congress's constitional authority to tax or to spend. Sorry, any old violation of the Constitution won't do."
Now is that sane? Maybe not, but you asked for a legal argument, not a sane one.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the cites.
I'm curious, then, how this particular case lines up with the general legal notion of judicial review. It seems to me that if a citizen can't prove he/she was harmed by a government program because the existence and breadth of the program is a state secret (such that it is normally never possible to find out if you are in fact having your Civil Rights violated), the constitutionality of the program can never be challenged, which abrogates the general idea that all legislative and exe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you, but I don't see how that applies to my question... I was asking why it is difficult for a taxpaying citizen to raise questions of constitutional validity based on the notion that the justification of the government emanates from it acting on behalf of the people, and the means of the execution of its business emanate directly from the taxes being collected. A taxpayer's ability to challenge the constitutional legitimacy of a government program isn't mob rule in any sense I've ever heard of
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between Toyota and the Federal Government is, though, that the Fed has police powers, including enforcement and punishment of laws that can deprive persons of life and liberty. And they do this in the name of the people at large. I am a member of 'the-people-at-large'. Since they are doing things in my name (among others), and I am subject to those rules, and I am also a dutiful taxpayer (my *buy-in* to be served by that Fed which acts in my name and others) does this not entitle me to sligh
Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
We are looking at an example where the checks and balances system is being undermined at the most fundamental level.
We seem to be living at the period in American history that future peoples will point to when discussing the unraveling of our Nation.
Regards.
Re: (Score:2)
> undermined at the most fundamental level.
Which is clearly why we need to return to the system of Jacks and Palances [theonion.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the monkey.
My sig is inappropriate for this post.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with you, but I'd say this period began several decades ago, when television became the primary source of political information for the electorate and the primary requisites for national leadership positions became telegenicity and demagoguery.
Quite a few historians out there have been pointing to the decline of the free American nation for some time now. It's ju
Re: (Score:2)
From a "free nation" standpoint, I'd say that we're still much better off than we were a hundred years ago. We tend to paint the e
FUCK! (Score:2, Insightful)
See no evil, hear no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course at SOME point, maybe in 20 years or so, the names of who the government was spying on will have to become a non-secret, and thus available under a FOIA request.
Re: (Score:2)
not really fair... (Score:2, Insightful)
Better luck next time (Score:2)
Which is all true. So they should have chosen a better angle under which to file a complaint. Either find someone affected, or argue convincingly that such state secrets are unconstitutional. Should be a breeze given the current make up of the supreme court.
Otherwise, just put your mo
Re:Better luck next time (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. You think that the current conservatively-biased court would vote against the Republican administration and its theories about state secrets and executive privilege?
Not a complete loss (Score:2, Informative)
Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately, the decision can be appealed. No guarantee that would do any good. Since we're in election season, judges are standing by their political affiliations on all sides. Even if the decision was favorable to the plaintiffs, though, there's no reason to believe that it'll do any good. How many Republican senators are going to want to look weak on national security right now? That means even if the matter does stay in the courts, it is very unlikely anything will happen before late in November 2008. Of course, if it does stay in the courts, the NSA could just plead guilty and have the President issue a full pardon the following day, rescinding the finding and penalties exacted.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who can reasonably conclude they were probably affected can't sue because probable cause is not proof
Normally, probably cause is enough to move a case into the discovery process, where you get real proof (or you find nothing and your case dies).
Unfortunately, the goals of the Discovery process clashes with the Government's contention that everything is a state secret. So even if they had standing, the court seems to be saying that their claims won't get very far anyways.
Wow, two for the price of one (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal System = game of chess? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe the question is naive and the game of chess is obvious to everyone else. The submission says this ruling puts the ACLU in a difficult position. They are not permitted to know whether they are affected by the program or not. Perhaps the difficulty of the ACLU's current position is an unintended consequence, but that seems unlikely to me. What seems more likely is that the court did this as sort of a gotcha, as in "better luck next time, smart guy." I get this feeling every time I hear a lack-of-standing ruling. I understand that it's a valid concept it just sticks in my craw.
I admit that it's just a vague sense of the way things are in this country that leads me to believe this way. I wouldn't really know how to begin looking for other examples of this legal maneuvering in the recent past (or any past.) Can anyone give me some insight into this or a place to start reading?
Re: (Score:2)
edit: I Googled "district court legal maneuvering" and found this article about antitrust litigation [law.com] at Law.com so far. Any suggestions are still very welcome
Entrap The Government (Score:5, Interesting)
Plant some communications that raise the government's interest enough to show up to investigate. Ensure the communications, once the plot is revealed, would not be judged to be a real threat or significantly illegal otherwise. But make sure it raises ire and causes a response that could not otherwise have been wise to the communications had they not been illegally snooping.
Bonus points if you can make it high profile enough that Cheney cannot absolve himself of knowledge of the details of the trap.
Step 3: Profit? (Score:2)
Now, for step 2, how are you going to prove before the court that the government actually wiretapped you? That's the crux of this decision; you can't sue if you can't prove you're a victim, and who's a victim is protected by the nebulous modern legal construct of "state secrets."
Guess I get to be the Troll here (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but to my knowledge, in order to sue over an act (tort), you have to prove that you were not just negatively affected by that act, but affected in a specific dollar amount which the court can award you as compensation for the act. What measurable harm have these guys suffered? I don't think that the possibility that one of your conversations might be in a secret NSA database causes you any measurable harm that a court could compensate you for. If they have to ask the NSA whether they have any such records, that in and of itself serves as proof that they were not harmed in any way by the records (if they do exist), since if they were harmed in any way, they would be able to prove that in court.
I don't think it's a good idea either to seek to challenge laws in court on the grounds that you paid the taxes that support the program or somesuch. That is trying to place the courts in a role they were never meant to take - of judging the effect of laws. Passing and repealing laws is the job of our elected representatives in Congress and the President. Provided that the laws do not directly contradict the Constitution, the Courts have no say in what those laws are. (yes, I know that we seem to be steadily accumulating laws that do directly contradict the Constitution, but that's another post) If you don't like the laws, you're going to have to take it up with your elected Representatives, and you're going to have to accept that the American people do not necessarily agree with you on all issues, and they have as much right to their views as you do. If you want to change things, you have to convince your fellow Americans that you are right and they should vote your way.
Re: (Score:2)
For a tort, you do have to prove financial harm. However, this case wasn't a tort, it was about violating the fourth amendment (and the first, but that was the weaker argument).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Guess I get to be the Troll here (Score:4, Interesting)
Patriots, out of options (Score:5, Insightful)
The government no longer answers to the citizens, according the the system we set up to run it. It's a very short, swift step from where we are to where ordinary citizens disappear in the night (non-Muslims, that is). We won't know exactly when that moment arrives, because we won't be told, because no one in the government obeys or enforces the law anymore.
Let's assume for a moment that you're not someone who buries his head in the sand, saying 'As long as I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care what the government does to others?' Let's assume that your response to crisis is not to hop in your SUV, drive down to the mall, and go shopping. And let's further assume that you're a red-blooded, patriotic American who really cares about freedom and the rule of law, and about protecting the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
So ask yourself, what recourse do you have now?
What recourse, indeed! (Score:5, Interesting)
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Sound familiar? [archives.gov]
Two minds... (Score:2)
I believe that it's a ton of FUD that people are thinking that we're in the midst of creation of an awful big-brother type government. We have way too many people, and we're way too paranoid to let that happen. You need a semi-complacent population (you listening Britain??) that almost WANTS a nanny-state type surveillance for that sort of thing.
Do I think that international calls should be monitored with known/suspected terrorists? You bet your
Laws are F***ING stupid. (Score:2)
We don't need more laws, we need more JUSTICE. Nothing is going to f***ing happen in this country until people start standing up for their morals as a nation. No laws, MORALS.
Decision Just on Technical Grounds (Score:3, Insightful)
2. In view of the concurring and dissenting opinions, and the importance of the subject matter, it is likely to receive Supreme Court review.
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because what it perfectly legal now, may not be so in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, talking to my grandma in Florida is going to be illegal in the near future?!? Link plz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't know why they choose to hold the people they do, and they do not have to tell us. For all we know the Gitmo detentions are as much to change the political landscape in the Middle East as they are to fight terrorism.
We have no idea what the NSA is looking for when they are wiretapping, and more importantly, we do not know what they might find profitable to look for in the future. We only know that they are permitted to operate without oversight.
Regards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, Bush's approval rating is around 1/3 and probably at about 28%. So, unless you're willing to admit that most US citizens are liberal and that conservatism is loud-mouthed minority, then please stop assuming that anti-Bush means "liberal."
You've just sounded the mating call of the head-burying oppression sheep. Apparently, privacy to you only applies to those in power even when they break the law. I have to assume you respect the President and Co-President's unprecedented lack of disclosure. I suppose you have no problems with the government spying on innocent protest groups or citizens who object to public policy. I suppose you also have no problem with the government spying on the political strategies of its opponents. I suppose you have no problems with government using private details of people's lives to extort or intimidate them. I suppose you have no problems with authoritarianism as well since Big Brother knows what's best for all of us.
If Ben Franklin were here to read your ignorant post, you'd soon feel the swift kick of a brass-buckled foot to your back-side.
Fine, send them transcripts at your expense. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned the NSA/CIA/FBI/??? can wiretap and monitor me to their hearts content I promise it will not only be useless but incredibly boring.
Would it be OK if a government clerk spied out your business decisions and passed them on to a competitor that could pay?
Would you mind if there was only one political party because it was able to identify and neutralize anyone who disagreed with them?
Would you mind doing some menial job for your new corporate masters for the rest of your life? Remember, though crime will result in relative economic hardships. The only thing more expensive then freedom is slavery.
I mind all of the above and resent paying for such abuse. If you want a life like that, pay for it yourself.
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference pre-Bush or pre-9/11 is that the information from the NSA can be used in domestic law enforcement to bring a case against you. Before
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then do this for me:
-Record all of your phone calls and post them on the internet
-Put up all your sent/received e-mails on the internet
-Print out a copy of your bank statements showing all transactions, and put them up on the internet
-Leave your curtains/blinds open 24/7
-Stop mailing things in envelopes, send everything as a post card
-Make sure to leave your stall door open when you use the restroom at Chili's
After all, you have nothing to hide right?
You might argue that the general public having access is not the same as the government having access, and perhaps that's true. But who makes up the government? That's right, people like you and me (of/by/for the people, remember?) And when 10 years from now, your neighbor who now works for the government and has an axe to grind, pulls the complete history of your phone records and searches through it using some key words to find something to embarrass you with, you'll realize that you (and everyone else in the world) DO have something to hide, and it's not unreasonable to feel that way, even if you have committed no illegal acts. Our personal identities and our safety are centered around being able to keep some things private.
But have you REALLY committed no illegal acts? You've never traveled 1 mph over the speed limit, or downloaded a single song you didn't own, or eaten a grape you didn't pay for at the grocey store, or jaywalked, etc.?
Have you ever read Amendment #4, by the way? I'm sure some neocon lawyer type could argue that the subject of this article doesn't violate the letter of it, but it can't be argued against that it violates the SPIRIT of that amendment.
Here's an article for your further consideration:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/ns
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Defined: Liberal (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing this word tossed around like a pejorative. Learn the definition! [wikipedia.org].
Here's a snippet:
You might think twice before you start trash talking a philosophy whose principle tenets promote the very "freedoms" you conservatives claim to love, yet consistently take away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on who gets to do the defining, I guess.
I think the parent's point was that the term is tossed about by people who have no idea what it means, and automatically lump all "liberals" in the extreme left-wing camps. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives that would take mighty offense at being labeled "gun-toting, tax-hating, Jesus freaks", but if you throw an insult in one direction, don't be surprised if there's a ricochet.
It's sad, really.
Echelon story (Score:3, Interesting)
Just image what they'd do if y
Re: (Score:2)
You know, anti-Bush and anti-big-brother aren't mutually exclusive points of view. So I assume everyone who is pro-Bush is also pro-police-state??
The US is supposed to have constitutional guarantees that the government isn't snooping in on its citizenry without good reason. Think of the McCarthy era in which people were persecuted to find out if
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is about gathering intelligence to be used against foreign agents who are engaged in a war against us, and who are trying to kill Americans and attack this country.
I'm pretty much ready to call BS on this one. We are not at war. There is no enemy trying to attack this country. Prove me wrong:
1) Show me a single successful attack on US soil since 9/11, or for that matter prior to it
2) Show me a single 'foiled' attack plot since 9/11
3) Show me a single terrorist apprehended here, in the US, who was actively acting to harm anyone
I don't think you can.
There will not be another 9/11, folks. We can lay off the justification complex at any time...
For that matter, was 9/
Re:None of you understand any of this, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Clinton claim is simply wrong and dishonest and is a flat out lie, you may want to reconsider the source of that info. Clinton did use warrants, and we have a full record that used to be accessible via a FOIA request.
Re:None of you understand any of this, do you? (Score:4, Informative)
Only with the oversight of the FISA court. And that's what the big deal is - will there be checks on who is being listened to or not. Given that the FISA court could be asked for wiretap privilege up to three days retroactively and that it had turned down a total of three (out of thousands of) requests during the Clinton years, this does not seem to be an overly harsh hurdle to overcome. Unless, of course, you're a couple of assholes like Bush and Cheney who think that the law need not apply to them.