Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned 670

Posted by samzenpus
from the let-me-see-what-you-got-there dept.
schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned

Comments Filter:
  • by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:21PM (#30232140) Journal

    Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.

    It's because I had something bad to say about The Anointed One.

  • by hiscross (1226636) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:04PM (#30232520)
    He is the engine that powers the world. When he leaves he'll be taking his engine with him. That is John Galt.
  • by KiahZero (610862) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:44PM (#30232824)

    Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.

    I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:

    http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml [volokh.com]

  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by daath93 (1356187) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:15PM (#30233062)
    Correction, there are no terrorists, only criminals. This is why we are prosecuting a known terrorist who admitted to masterminding the 9/11 attacks, we dragged him out of another country as an enemy combatant, held him for 8 years out of country, and are trying him with the same rights as an American citizen in a very public media circus that is our criminal court system, instead of under a military tribunal.
  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:43PM (#30233228) Journal

    If they're not POWs, then why would they be tried in a military tribunal?

    Like it or not there's multiple [cato.org] precedents [historynet.com] for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:47PM (#30233256) Journal

    Go research the New Deal and how many people the gov't employed in the 30's to ease the depression,

    None of which actually worked. The economy didn't really recover until the US entered WW2, pulling millions of men out of the job market and putting them in uniform. The post-war boom owed more to the fact that the rest of the world laid in ruins while the US infrastructure and economy was virtually untouched.

  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Xtifr (1323) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:50PM (#30233284) Homepage

    Pretty damn good, thanks for asking! It's far from perfect, but then nobody but complete idiots was expecting perfection. Less evil may still be evil, but it's also still less! (And IMO, a lot less!)

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:54PM (#30233296) Journal

    The focus on Rush Limbaugh is absurd. I know why the Democrats are doing it -- it's great for fund-raising and riling up the base -- but it completely misses the point. If you listen to the White House political hacks you'd think that Rush Limbaugh speaks for the entire Republican Party.

    Does he now? Rush Limbaugh and his ilk couldn't even keep John McCain from winning the South Carolina primary. If they don't have the power to prevent a candidate that they despise from winning in the reddest of the red states then you'll forgive me for rolling my eyes when the Democrats attempt to link every single Republican to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, etc.

  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Informative)

    by daath93 (1356187) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:56PM (#30233318)
    Shamelessly stolen from The Council on Foreign Relations [cfr.org]

    “Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

    The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

    Authority to Detain

    The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

    Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

    Detainee Rights

    All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

    The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.
  • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:59PM (#30233346)
    "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

    Read the whole thing for yourself, or watch the footage. It was all about the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Nothing he said there was even remotely in support of socialism.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html [abcnews.com]
  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by v1 (525388) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @11:25PM (#30233478) Homepage Journal

    there are no criminals only potential terrorists.

    first time through I read that wrong

    there are no criminals only potential tourists.

  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by hedwards (940851) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @12:02AM (#30233680)
    The President is the President, but there's a huge number of people pressuring congress to do things that aren't wise. The same idiots that thought that these policies were a good idea in the general populace are still there. And they're still fighting tooth and nail against any effort to make the country a better place, even against their own self interest. Sure that doesn't make it OK, but it's overly simplistic to assume that the people that were putting pressure on candidates to keep up these unwise policies have suddenly gone into hiding.
  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:2, Informative)

    by HaZardman27 (1521119) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @12:47AM (#30233886)
    Is anything the founding fathers said sacred anymore? We were also warned about maintaining public credit and the dangers of political parties, but obviously we ignored those warnings too.
  • by DMiax (915735) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @02:20AM (#30234318)

    Go research the New Deal and how many people the gov't employed in the 30's to ease the depression,

    None of which actually worked. The economy didn't really recover until the US entered WW2, pulling millions of men out of the job market and putting them in uniform. The post-war boom owed more to the fact that the rest of the world laid in ruins while the US infrastructure and economy was virtually untouched.

    Wealth indices like GDP, inflation rates and unemployment turned for the better in 1933. What do you mean for "economy did not really recover"? Is is an intentionally vague assertion so that no one can prove you wrong? In what sense entering WW2 has "fixed the economy"?

    I am not arguing that war did not help, just that things were already going better and the economy would have recovered anyway. Also notice that the war helped by increasing demand for military wares, paid by the government, so you can see it fits nicely the "New Deal" spirit.

  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @04:53AM (#30234900)

    Second you prove the case because it says the geneva convention does not recognize terrorist organizations from being protected by ANY RIGHTS.

    Wow. You apparently believe the world will end in 2012 because the Mayan calendar ends there too.
    Never mind that the reason the calendar doesn't say anything about 2013 is the same reason the modern 2009 calendar doesn't say anything about 2010.

    In other words - the geneva convention does NOT say 'terrorist have no rights' it just says they don't get POW rights, which means they get the default set of rights which is that of civilians.

  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by mpe (36238) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @09:38AM (#30236396)
    How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?

    Also any information obtained by torture is evidence only of what the people carrying out the torture wanted to hear. In terms of what that person may or may not have done it's utterly meaningless. If spouting fiction is required to stop the torture then the person being tortured *will* spout whatever fiction those doing the torture will accept.
  • Re:I am shocked! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hubbell (850646) <{brianhubbellii} {at} {live.com}> on Thursday November 26, 2009 @10:12AM (#30236644)
    The desire for the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government which was overstepping it's bounds was THE reason for support of the 2nd amendment, everything else was just fluff. They had just finished fighting a war for their independence from just such a government and knew that the people NEEDED that ability to keep checks on their government when the time came again for such an event.

"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near

Working...