Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over FISA Surveillance Documents 184
itwbennett (1594911) writes "In a victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is suing to make the DOJ release information about surveillance on U.S. citizens, a California judge on Friday ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review. The judge said the agency failed to justify keeping the documents secret and she will decide whether the documents, including one opinion and four orders by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), were improperly withheld from the public."
Papers to be "lost" in (Score:4, Insightful)
....3....2...1....GONE!
Hooray. (Score:2)
Now what if the judge gets the documents and indeed agrees that they should remain secret?
Re:Hooray. (Score:4, Informative)
Then she returns then and doesn't disclose their contents.
Of course she can use her new found knowlege to make decisions pertaining to the case that will seem arbitrary to the rest of us. But i think the chances of that here are slim.
Knock, Knock, Knock (Score:2)
Better summary: (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, what happened today was good, however calling it a victory is a bit premature.
Re: (Score:2)
5) The DOJ gives half a shit about any court orders. Or the rest of the country for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but the DoJ has to 1) actually comply with the order
The judge would have wide discretion in issuing sanctions for contempt of the discovery order. I personally doubt this is the sort of thing where a whole bunch of people progressively higher up the food chain would be willing to take up residence in a jail cell. We'll see.
2) The judge actually agree on merits
Agreed, though I'm encouraged that one of the reasons in the opinion [eff.org] for ordering the docs to be submitted to the court was the DoJ's prior shady practices in the case: "The evidence in the record shows that some documents, previously w
Time for the next betting pool (Score:4)
Why will the papers be unavailable? My 10 bucks are on "technical error and for some mysterious reasons they're nowhere to be found on backups".
Re: (Score:2)
State secrets privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Rename the projects and methods, hand the databases over to the GCHQ and Canada.
Do an exhaustive, in depth search in the US and find nothing?
Anything distracting around the world?
Re: (Score:2)
You can only take one of them, let others partake in the bet, too.
Re: (Score:2)
"He slipped on an icy patch."
"But he was decapitated!"
"It was a *very* icy patch."
If you don't hand over evidence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.
Re: (Score:3)
That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.
"You can't handle the truth!" That's the thinking by political insiders and goes a long way to explain why so-called "whistle-blowers" are dealt with so harshly.
Once the public sees the extent classified status is used to cover up government malfeasance rather than issues of national security they become informed voters, and then they might vote in their own self-interest.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's it, though it might be a component. I think it's more that they don't get to the top of the heap without forming the habit of competing by all available means. And if it's illegal, but they probably won't suffer consequences, they don't care that it's illegal.
I suspect that they *do* classify things to foster their prospects, but "their" in this case is personal rather than party. Groups that work together, of course, tend to have aligned goals AND be of the same political party, but
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, we believe it would be sensitive and damaging -- but we also believe it would be because they've breaking the law in many cases and bypassing any real oversight.
The assumption is the FISA court rubber stamps everything without actual regard for the law.
We don't trust them. We can't verify what they do. So we pretty much have to assume the worst.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How about your Social Security number? Can we post that on a web site? Maybe your purchase history, I don't feel that should be confidential. Any arrest history? Please post that so we can all enjoy your discomfit. Any gay marriage? That too should be public just in case you care to visit areas of the U.S. or the world that are not so enlightened.
DoD information? That should be made public so those well-meaning democratic Islamic fighters have the latest. They'd like bio-chem antidote information to
Re: (Score:2)
Your purchase history is known by every company you regularly purchase from (unless you always use unmarked cash). It is also known by your bank, and others those companies share it with.
Marriages are public record. Arrests are public record unless sealed by a judge.
Re: (Score:3)
*I* am not the government. Individual information only needs to be disclosed when the individual is acting on behalf of the government. That's what we're talking about here, Captain Overly Literal Interpretation.
A democracy only works if the system is transparent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Confidential information is information kept away from the people. In a democracy, the people are supposed to be in control of the government (you know, "government of the people", and all that).
So, when you keep information away from those who are in control, how can they make decisions based on that information?
I.e. should we have voted for those who wanted a war in Iraq? Without the real, classified, information on those weapons of mass destruction, none of us were capable of coming to a valid conclusion
Re: (Score:2)
When both sides are spewing propaganda, it's a matter of trust. Which both sides by definition do not really deserve.
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
You are suggesting that having any confidential information in a democracy is anti-democratic. That is clearly nonsense.
No, that's not it at all. Look, *nobody* is saying that the nuclear launch codes shouldn't be top secret information and not given out to the public, and *nobody* is saying that our nuclear bomb research (in depth) shouldn't be secret... but it's not a secret that there *are* launch codes and bomb secrets. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't have secret research for new military hardware, Lockheed Skunkworks type stuff, etc - we know it exists and much of it is "black budget" stuff, but there's a reason it's secret.
Nobody (I don't think) is saying the government shouldn't be able to *get a warrant* (with reasonable suspicions) to wiretap someone, track their cell location, and any number of other things. Even if the warrant is issued by a secret court on a person-by-person basis, there may well be reasons the warrant shouldn't be "public record". That being said, *everyone* should be against warrantless tracking/wiretapping of citizens of your country, not of select people but of *everyone* in bulk. If they can't come up with a reason for someone, much less *everyone*, to be a "suspect" and get a properly issued warrant from a judge for that person (or people) *by name*, then they shouldn't be doing it because it is illegal. They don't want the documents of even just what they are doing (in general, without any specific names/people) released - nobody is asking them where the 'taps' are for the internet cables, what the exact technology is they are using, etc... but when they can go in front of Congress and flat out *lie* about gathering information on everyone, there's an obvious problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but secret courts have repeatedly proven to be untrustworthy. Even non-secret courts that specialize tend to be owned by corrupt powers. Think of Texas and patents.
Re:OCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck off and die, apologist. After all the corruption we've seen revealed in the US military-industrial-espionage complex, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is nuclear launch codes. Everything else should be leaked, as it would pose no existential threat to the US, we are in no danger of invasion.
Even the death of a few agents in the field, the usual danger that scaremongers bring up, would be worth it if it struck a blow to the steady establishment of a police state.
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.
The CNWDI classification covers a great deal more than just "How do I read 'The Curve Of Binding Energy' and apply some fairly basic college level math to calculate neutron numbers for a given fissile material?"..
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.
Only for the most basic, wasteful, and physically large type weapons. If you want to build high yield weapons, efficient weapons, or compact weapons, there are engineering considerations based on practical experience. Would you willing hand over that experience in the form of test data and design plans? If so then I have another nomination for idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
What would the terrorists that are (apparently) lurking behind every corner want?
Yep. They wouldn't give a rats ass about efficiency if it is in the middle of New York City.
But it probably would have been done already if there were the terrorists everywhere. Oh and the boogey man under the bed isn't real either.
Principles are easier than practice (Score:2)
Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
Knowing how one works and actually being able to build a functioning one are hugely different things. Any second year physics student understands in principle how they work but that doesn't mean they have the expertise to build a functional one. (thank $diety) I understand in principle how the CPU in my PC was built. In principle it is pretty crude. But that doesn't mean I understand the technology required to actually produce a functional replica. Never underestimate the difficulty of actually creati
Re: (Score:3)
Or you can just not opt into pointless farting around with the exacting stuff, and make a gun-type fission weapon on the general principle of the Hiroshima weapon. The principle and the level of engineering required are both so dead simple foolproof that you can skip the proof testing.
A gun-type weapon will even work fine without an initiator if you pay enough attention to the combined bullet and target staying together for the fraction of a second necessary for spontaneous neutron emission to do the job.
It
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. You mention uranium and uranium can be used to make an uncomplicated bomb: essentially take a very strong pipe, place 1/2 of the uranium in one end of the pipe and the rest in the other end. Then place explosives behind the uranium blocks and seal the pipe.
This kind of weapon is primitive and not as efficient as the implosion type device but it works, is very simple to construct. Yes it is a bit more complicated than written above to reach a reliable state.
But even doing a implosion type device
Re: (Score:2)
You called him "apologist". I call him "Tory".
OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
All three branches of government along with the intelligence agencies have proven that they cannot be trusted to hide behind the shield of 'classified information'.
Our rights are rapidly vanishing and a police state is being erected. It has become a competition between each newly elected or appointed set of government to see how they can break more laws than the last guys. It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using government to find new ways to control you, spy on you, rob you and imprison you.
If ever there was a time to push for the 'classified information' curtain to be torn down, that time is now. Information is being kept secret not for national security reasons, but to make it harder to expose overreach and lawlessness by our own government.
Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)
The only upvote that really matters is the one at the ballot box. Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted--it would still be a marvelous statement if droves of citizens started voting third party.
Also, pardon my somewhat US-centric answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballot box? You mean that box where you may choose whether you want the one person from the party, the other person from the party or whether you vote for someone else, i.e. you don't care whether it's going to be the one or the other person from the party?
Third party voting is failing for the same reason consumer boycotts fail. It's near impossible to organize enough people to actually get something done unless you have lots and lots of money available. And then, you're more likely to be interested in supp
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. That's what I meant by "Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted..."
You should look up Lessig's project. Or just continue doing nothing while complaining that people are doing nothing.
Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)
Third-party voting fails only if you consider victory the only consideration. But it need not be so cut and dried.
Voting for a third-party is more than getting somebody else into office; it sends a message to the incumbent two parties. More than anything else, it says to them that their constituents are dissatisfied with their policies and are looking for alternatives. It is a warning that their position is directly in threat and that it is necessary for them to become more reactive to the the desires of the voters.
In any election, it is unlikely that a third-party candidate will win - but not impossible. Democrats and Republicans are well aware of this. If enough people start voting for third-parties, they will change their policies to better reflect the attitudes and wants of their constituents. A rise of a third-party terrifies them and they will change to prevent it.
Your third-party candidate may not win, but if his policies are taken up by the primary parties anyway, it is still an effective win for the electorate.
So if your conscience dictates it, vote third-party. It is one of the major ways we as voters can indicate our dissatisfaction with the current regime - and one of the few ways to which they actually listen - and is most definitely /not/ a wasted vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Third party voting is failing for the same reason
Because not enough people are doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what I said, just with more words. Sorry, been paid by the letter for too long it seems, verily I should start to understand the need to express my thoughts in a more terse and less lavish way, often it seems that the only thing I can accomplish by writing more is to fill more room without actually adding anything tangible to the point that is being discussed and that I try to support with my writing. Though I have to say that a precise expression of ideas does lead to a better understand
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what I said, just with more words. Sorry, been paid by the letter for too long it seems, verily [blah blah ramble ramble waste my time TL;DR sarcasm yaaaaay]
More accurately, you said, "It doesn't work because enough people don't do it, therefore enough people will never do it, so you shouldn't care, so just give up."
I like my way better. It's more constructive: "It doesn't work because enough people aren't doing it...but we can't control other people. We can only control our own vote, and if we're lucky maybe convince a couple other people to vote the same way."
Re: (Score:2)
A guy named "Opportunist" is arguing that it doesn't matter anyway? Next we'll have Nietzscheans arguing for romance.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end it's all about money. The poor ideologues end up living in mansions once they win and take control. The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.
This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling. I get why they want to have more money than they could ever spend, but at a certain point, it becomes self destructive to continue to accumulate wealth beyond even that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a limit to this. For reference, see Iran 1979.
The Iran in 1979 was a police state if there ever was one. Ubiquitous secret police, extreme suppression of dissenters, the fourth largest military on the planet (all thanks to us, btw).
And then the students hit the roads by the millions. Interviews with them later revealed that they well expected to die that day. And they were not the religious jihadist kind, that came later, they were simply fed up with the regime to the point where their stance towards the Shah was "you or me. At the end of this day, one of us is gone. Either is fine by me, but that's how it will be".
The military pretty much noticed that. What do you want to do? What are you going to do after the 30 bullets in your rifle are shot? Sure, your kill/death ratio will be 30:1.
The problem is: the 1 is you. And no respawn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Religious extremists were present in Iran the whole time. The Shah helped keep them in check. They were part of the revolution.
Even though I doubt it is really your bag, you should really look into the Soviet Union in the 30s, and maybe a few other times/places I could name. Compared to them the Shah was a piker. I think it likely that your assessment of the Shah and his regime isn't based so much on the actual scope of brutality but on the fact that he was allied with the US.
There is an old saying you
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if anything, the revolution of 79 in Iran is a showcase example of why rebellions don't accomplish anything. They just trade one asshole for another one.
Rarely it's a better one.
Re: (Score:2)
They then let the secret police, domestic security and intelligence service as the SAVAK contain the results of the coup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Over time trying to contain your own population does not work no matter the wealth, outside support or methods
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that those that joined in on the rebellion didn't know that. Many were honestly expecting things to get better, with a real democracy (wasn't that what they were promised by the western democracies in the first place?).
I know that because many who fought in that rebellion fled the country when they found out that they had been betrayed and that they just traded a police state for a theocracy. Which is pretty much the same shit just with more praying.
But it IS easy to motivate people to overth
Re: (Score:2)
You still need people willing to shoot. Can you rely on the US military to shoot US people? The US government is not a military junta where military would be used to something like that, the military still thinks they're protecting these people.
Re: (Score:2)
You still need people willing to shoot. Can you rely on the US military to shoot US people? The US government is not a military junta where military would be used to something like that, the military still thinks they're protecting these people.
On the other hand, you need people willing to die. The US is pretty short on those as well.
Re: (Score:2)
But it would also create fewer rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. The rich people would simply change.
Re: (Score:2)
So the poor people WOULD improve their chances of advancing by killing rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
So then, where would those other people that become the rich come from?
Re: (Score:2)
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Even if you don't go in for that religious stuff, some of us have noticed that really rich people only tend to care less about their money when they're getting older and considering how they're going to be remembered.
"They'll simply change" is never so cut and dried. Change is hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: OCA (Score:2)
Think of it like nuclear fusion. Once you get critical mass it is a self-sustaining reaction. Einstein is credited with once calling compound interest the most powerful force. Once you get past the hump of earning more than you spend, short of a catastrophe you're just going to get richer. It is the nature of capitalism. Marx and Engals knew this.
The trick is getting to that point. Most people don't make it because when they make more they immediately spend more.
It isn't baffling one you realise it is the n
Re: (Score:2)
In the end it's all about money.
Don't be ridiculous, it is about power. Power over other people, power to do what you will. Wealth may or not follow power.
The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.
The ruthless ones realize that starving people die [youtube.com], sometimes by the millions.
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed. They are not spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars, and they are not out generating propaganda so that they can send the rich kids off to die in a war for profit.
Sure, there are people in every society that will take advantage of others for gain. We are supposed to have laws protecting us universally from that happening, yet today if you are rich you can take billions and walk but if you are poor and sell a joint you are doing 1-5 years.
So yeah, the ideologies are always going to be around. Those ideologies have been around since our earliest political writings (read Plato's "The Republic"). This is why we (you included) should be fighting to clean up the corruption, end the monopolization of media, and break up the financial cartels.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society.
Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants; if we include video games, we'd all be stealing card at gunpoint, and if we included TV in general, we'd have massive comedy in the streets every Thursday night, followed by cartoon moralizing Saturday afternoon. It's anyone's guess what would happen after each Ellen Degeneris show; perhaps we'd also all go down to Orchard Supply Hardware, buy tiki torches, and vote someon
Mod parent down (Score:2)
In 1983, the US Army Institute for Professional Development considered TV and Radio to be the second and third most effective means of propaganda [psywarrior.com] after face-to-face interaction. (Nowadays internet and social media would probably be high on the list too.)
What did you check to determine that TV is a "piss-poor way to attempt to shape society"? Did you look at yourself and go "I don't feel like I've had my opinions or feelings manipulated by TV, so it clearly doesn't work"? Many (most) people don't think they
Re: (Score:2)
People from all philosophies, religions, and creeds can become mass murderers if you give the philosophy enough time. Citing one particular person (Stalin) as an example why the entire philosophy is evil is rather shaky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people cannot even define Marxism. They think it means "Whatever I don't like." So even if you're right, they still don't know what it means. Same with socialism.
Also, No True Marxist would do such a thing. Just like No True 1 + 1 equals 2.
Really is a shame... like I hear everyone talking about evil "communist" countries... without any clue that there really has never *been* a truly "communist" country. 99.9% of the people I hear tossing around "communism", "Marxism", and the like have never actually read Marx or done any reading on the subject, they're just blindly parroting what they hear in the media. Like calling Obama a "socialist" and "left liberal", when he's really "right of center" (the Republicans being "far right" and there reall
Re:OCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time I read one of these posts I think to myself "Wow. This guy is so out of touch with reality....", finally glancing over the poster's username and letting out a sigh of relief, "oh, it's just cold fjord".
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to point out the facts I get wrong, if any, or make an argument. Till then you aren't really proving your views are in touch with "reality," just that you have a supply of snark. That post you made is a waste.
Re:OCA (Score:4, Insightful)
That post he just made is quite useful to to the crowd of people that may not be familiar with you and your particular flavor of bias.
He knows you. And 5 slashot moderators know you and are willing to spend points to bump this up.
His post was, in short, insightful.
But hey, some people need more help than others,
Feel free to point out the facts I get wrong
CAN DO!
Your overall argument is that the rich aren't all that powerful and the poor have plenty of power. That the poor can get together and give their money to political organizations that run this town.
And that'd be nice, if it were true. But the fact of the matter is that the rich ARE powerful, very powerful, to the point that
Fact: The gini coefficient [wikipedia.org] in the USA is rising. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is shrinking.
Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.
Not when they're homeless poor people. The crazy guy ranting on the corner WILL always be there and no, there's no real need to go guard against him. If anything we need to guard against the people trying to censor him.
The guy is harmless, at least on a political scale. He has zero hope of swaying the masses. If he somehow managed to gather a crowd and/or become a cult leader, and people started to listen to him, he'd probably no longer be a poor homeless person. He'd transform into a radio host, a televangelist, a full-blown-locked-in-a-compound cult leader, or worse, a CEO.
When did "the rich" develop a monopoly on TV and radio stations?
Since their inceptions? Only the rich could afford to step into those industries. They were serious money ordeals back in the day. But hey, now anyone with a phone can shoot video. Look at all of those mom&pop TV channels watched by millions! Oh, wait, no, that's Youtube and the Internet.
Well radio broadcasters are cheap! Look at all the... oh wait, the barrier to entry for commercial radio stations is really high just to keep competition out. Well there's always HAM... which is specifically barred from making money from it.
So this one is wrong. You're presuming there was a time that the rich didn't have a monopoly on it. And that isn't true.
Are you confusing "the rich" with corporations?
And this might be the basis of why your worldview is so fucked.
YES. The rich and powerful run the corporations. Literally. The job is titled "CEO". Their boss is supposed to be the shareholders, but it's effectively the board, which is composed of a handful of rich people who are CEOs of their own corporations which have the original CEO on THEIR board.
Is there some group or segment of the population that you think doesn't have at least some radio stations catering to it?
And this here is some fantastic spin. Here let me point it out for you.
"catering to".
There is some rich individual, running a corporation that controls a chunk of spectrum that caters to rednecks. They pay lip-service to the cultural background of the redneck, play the right music, and run ads that hit the mark, but it is wholly controlled, steered, and profited by soulless corporate goons that don't know the difference between a banjo and a guitar. If you think that a corporation that SELLS to a group is the same thing as the group being politically empowered, then you are monstrously fucked up.
Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?
Bush. Rumsfeld. Cheney. They spent billions of (someone else's) dollars to destabilize the middle east. The sectarian violence in Iraq during the US occupation killed 100's of thousands.
Arguably
Re: (Score:2)
Does the ACLU have a minimum income requirement for membership? What about the NRA? The AARP? The Teamsters? The NEA?
That is absolutely absurd. Are you really implying that a donor is now the policy makers out giving speeches? Are you further trying to imply that the purpose of all of those groups is nefarious at heart? Are you further trying to imply that those groups get active time on TV and Radio shows outside of being slandered by teleprompter reading actors and actresses?
Those are rhetorical questions, and yes you are implying all of those things. All of them are idiocy at heart and a further attempt to try and
Re:OCA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
John Steinbeck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OCA (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that you are grossly and intentionally ignoring how and why documents have been classified historically by the US Government and its agencies. This is not something new, unfortunately the abuse goes back at least to the 1960s. COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird are just two examples where systems were abused for political gain and oppression. Those two are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but the easiest to find information about.
That said, this judge could agree with the Government that there is a secret to be kept. Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting. The judge may release portions of the documents they feel safe, or the whole, or none.
The false claim being made by government agencies and FISA courts is that they can't reveal _anything_ for security reasons. Even when discussing terrorist activity this can be easily displayed with redacted information. You are either falling for the gag, or trying to proliferate it. Either way, shame on you.
More and more people are waking up to the level of corruption we currently have in the USA. Quite frankly, not everyone in politics is on the side of the "insiders" trying to pull all the strings. Pressure is mounting for change and to clean up the corruption, citizens must keep this up until it's actually resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not for anyone to be disgusted by the low regard in which the people hold ALL the branches of the government. It is for everyone to be disgusted at the actual problem, which is that the entire apparatus is riddled with corruption and arrgogant, contemptuous scheming and violation of the public interest.
Re: (Score:2)
So I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say, but please explain what exactly gives a State judge the right to appoint themselves arbitor of Federally classified information? And even if they were granted acess, and then released what information they deemed to be "safe", how would that make them different than any other person who illegally releases classified information they believe the public should know about?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think an educated person could look at classified documents and make such a distinction? I'm not sure you are thinking very hard about this, or perhaps are over thinking things considerably.
Document contains agent X investigating terrorist Y and is tracking financial information for weapon purchases. Anyone looking at that would know the communication is legitimately classified, if anything is to be released redact Y, X, money amounts, and other pertinent data that would be useful to terrorists
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the level of corruption within the US administration, I dare say the damage by disclosing them cannot trump the damage done by keeping them secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OCA (Score:5, Interesting)
"A hidden world, growing beyond control (July 19, 2010) "
http://projects.washingtonpost... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends which version of the M-1 you are talking about. The carbine fires .30 Carbine, the Garand fires .30-06/7.62x63. The AR10 and M14 fire .308/7.62x51. Russians typically used 7.62x25 (aka .30 Tok), 7.62x39 and 7.62x54. There's LOTS of .30 cal rounds out there.
As far as 9mm goes there's a TON of different sizes. .357 Mag, .38 special, 9x17/.380ACP, 9x18 Makarov, 9x19 Luger, 9x23, etc, etc. To make matters even worse, some of them are even interchangeable to a degree. 9x18 pistols can fire .380ACP
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many military divisions has the judicial branch? (apologies to Stalin) And the same question can be applied to the legislative branch.
Enforcement is assigned to the executive branch.
So yes, judicial can determine who has gone off the rails where, and it can find them in violation, but it can't send the police to arrest them.
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
The executive branch has thought itself above the constitution since 1789
Fixed it for you.
(If you want to cut Washington a break you could say 1801. Jefferson thought the Louisiana purchase unconstitutional but did it anyway, perhaps the first "the ends justify the means" rationalization used by an American President. Then of course we have 1861 and Abe's questionable activities during the American Civil War)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Fact of the matter is, unless two branches gang-up on the third, it's not really, truly going to be illegal. Right now there aren't enough people in the legislative branch and the judicial branch to truly oppose the executive branch, especially in the post-2001 era when the executive branch was given latitude by both others.
Re: (Score:3)
This is nothing new. Andrew Jackson one refused to scoffed at a Supreme Court decision, saying in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/suprem... [pbs.org]
The Supreme Court has ALWAYS had to rely on the cooperation of the the other branches of government because they have no constitutional mandate to en
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has ALWAYS had to rely on the cooperation of the the other branches of government because they have no constitutional mandate to enforce their decisions. It is a clear part of the limitation of the powers of one of the branches of government.
And that's a good thing, considering they're installed for life. Give them enforcement powers, and they'd be kings.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge can order the executive to do something... just like they did with FDR and he said make me while congress openly considered packing the supream court when it ruled against the new deal legislation. Of course the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in order to head that off and make portion of the new deal appear constitutional.
So i guess we already have the road map for what happens if they ignore the court or congress.
Re: (Score:3)
The other option is legal Berlin wall 2.0 falls into place with color of law been used to stop open courts and protect a large amount of the domestic telco surveillance network and its deep gov connections.
The fun part is as cases move up to the highest courts - sooner or later within a generation some cases will have to be allowed or b
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that enforcement does not take orders from judicial. They are constitutionally in executive's pocket.
Better to ask what recourse do The People have? Only the one which no power on earth can take away from them. That recourse which makes the blood run cold in government and people alike. The recourse of rebellion. If the grievances run deep enough, the scum will not succeed in defeating the rebellion when it finally
It's gonna be a long war (Score:3, Interesting)
We may have won the battle, but the war is still yet to be won.
Re: (Score:2)
No no, it's the legislature that take away your rights. Obama just signs the bills.
Re: (Score:2)
A federal judge's order on Friday could force the U.S. government to reveal more information about its widespread collection of citizens' phone records.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the federal district court in Oakland, California, ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review.
Literally the first 2 paragraphs of the article.