U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T 463
An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is reporting that the US government has 'filed a motion on Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.' More from the article: " In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses ... A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker." You may recall a few weeks ago when the DOJ asked the judge to dismiss the case. They've now taken the next step required to quash this legal action.
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What you meant to say was... (Score:3, Interesting)
And if true, any reference to 911 in justifying these measures must be a lie.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
When you can't sue anyone and everyone who has done or is doing anything you don't like, the terrorists have won.
Re:Lawsuits (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, they may wish for the government to act on some biblical principles, including not killing and not stealing, and they may want greater national security, but your claims are ridiculous.
What you are saying is very similar to "liberals hate America" except that that is true in some, but not most, cases.
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
You're delusional if you think the Democratic National Congress has any interest in 'the people.' They serve the same master as the Republicans - power.
And by the way, I didn't say I see it as a game. I said the politicians are playing a game. I also strongly implied (and am now directly stating) that you are a willing pawn.
So far as suspecting I live in a fantasy world - how would you know anything about me? You've ignored the t
Re:Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)
Imgaine the scandal if there were only two ketchups? Americans would riot if there were only two ketchups.
Two parties limits the debate to adversarial themes. How do we screw our opponents? (better for country is *so* not a part of the debate.)
Good luck to the Dems. (I guess.) I know they will be just corrupt in 8 years.
-b
Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
What about the other two? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway I doubt they'll get their motion. While congressmen can be bought off and Supreme Court justices can be replaced, I see no reason why a normal civil court judge would roll over and abdicate his authority just because the executive branch is whining that they don't want oversight by other branches of government.
Re:What about the other two? (Score:2)
judges can be impeached (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about the other two? (Score:2)
respect due coordinate branches of government... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about the other two? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be so sure. What the government is doing is not something that the Bush administration just came up with. It is doctrine with long-standing in Anglo-American law called the State Secrets Doctrine and it has been successfully invoked in the past, including the very recent past. Only a year ago it was successfully invoked to terminate the whistleblower retaliation lawsuit by Sibel Edmonds [rcfp.org], the former translator for the FBI who revealed incompetance and security breaches. The way it is supposed to work is that the head of the relevant agency (by law the only person who can invoke the doctrine) certifies to the court that continuation of the case would require the disclosure of information damaging to national security. The courts give great deference to such certification.
Even an advocate of open government such as myself can see reasons for having such a doctrine. Suppose that a deep cover agent of the US, who is providing critical intelligence about a hostile foreign power, cheats somebody in a business transaction. The person cheated sues. It could easily be the case that the information disclosed in the course of the suit would make the agent look suspicious. In a case like this, there would be a legitimate reason for the government to want to put a stop to the lawsuit. (One would of course expect the government to assume the financial burden for its action and compensate the injured party, but that's a different issue.)
The problem is that the doctrine relies on the truthfulness of the certification that national security would be damaged if the suit were to proceed. It assumes that he or she is telling the truth in claiming that the damage would really be to national security rather than embaressment to government officials or disclosure of their criminal activities. It also assumes that there isn't a workaround, e.g. limitations on certain evidence, requirement that evidence be seen only by attorneys with security clearance, in camera review of evidence by the judge, so that the only way to prevent the damage is putting an end to the lawsuit.
Unfortunately, it isn't safe to assume that agency heads will certify truthfully. That is particularly true of this administration. I say that not just on grounds of the unusually high levels of dishonesty and and self-serving hallucination in this administration but because we have strong reasons to believe that they have repeatedly lied about security issues. There are the bald-faced lie that the US does not countenance torture, the lies about the reasons for invading Iraq, and the laughable rationalization for warrantless surveillance. They have repeatedly made the bizarre claim that the disclosure of warrantless surveillance itself damaged national security. How could that POSSIBLY be? It told nobody anything about the US's surveillance capabilities, how it is done, or who is targetted. The only thing that was disclosed was that they are not getting warrants. As far as I can see, the only way in which this could lead to a security problem would be if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had a leak, so that terrorist organizations were falsely assumin that they knew when they were under surveillance. The Bush administration hasn't come up with any explanation for how this disclosure could have security implications - they just yammer about it loudly and hope that nobody will notice what a crock this is.
I hope that the EFF and other plaintiffs in these suits will be able to persuade the courts to require an offer of proof from the government. Unfortunately, I am concerned that they will not succeed in this, due to the dangerous and undemocratic, but established tradition of deference the government in such cases.
Re:What about the other two? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because the government has a legitimate reason (from its POV) to want something, doesn't mean it can legitimately have it.
There's no power under the Constitution to quash lawsuits based on vague claims of "national security". Yes, there is a longstanding tradition of allowing it; that doesn't make it right or legal (understanding the Constitution as "law of the land" to have priority over misbegotten case law).
Parent is WRONG!! Mod him down! (Score:5, Insightful)
See Amendment X:It is The People that have unenumerated Rights.
See Amendment IX:
Re:What about the other two? (Score:5, Informative)
Here in Canada, in a case like this, the judge has the power to require the state to disclose the information to HIM, so he can rule on the validity of the secret status of whatever the hell it is.
It's implied in your post that that's not the case in the states - is that true?
Re:What about the other two? (Score:2)
Duuuuh! (Score:5, Insightful)
In a free country, the judges would give the government the proverbial finger and go ahead with the case. Let's see how it turns up in the US.
Re:Duuuuh! (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that the judges aren't even being asked to approve it. The Executive branch is just going ahead and doing it because they're afraid the Judicial branch might say "No."
Re:Duuuuh! (Score:3, Insightful)
They become more and more interchangeable (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole fun of twisting subject and object in a sentence around and placing "in Soviet Russia" in front of it is simply not funny anymore. It's true. It's where we're heading. Communism won. Slightly differently than we feared, but the result is the same.
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:3, Interesting)
After all, what went down in eastern Europe was quite far from the ideas of Marx either.
What we got to know as "Communism" was actually what you described. And authoritarian, fascist regime. Without religion, though. Well, kinda. God was replaced with Stalin.
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They become more and more interchangeable (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberalism is the idea of individual liberty. Modern American liberalism is not the same thing. It is a left wing ideology that supports less social regulation and more economic regulation.
Liberalism in the true sense is the same as libertarianism and is generally considered more right wing, but is really neither.
Conservatism supports
Re:Duuuuh! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an assumption, and it's not one I think is valid. If the government has the ability to determine who anyone called, you can be sure they're eventually going to use that information for reasons other than the purpose they originally gave f
Ya, fair (Score:5, Insightful)
If I interpre this right...they want the case dismissed because it will discose state secrets? So it's okay to violate civil liberties and then get away with it because to defend it would hinder state security? Well what about my security? Hell what about my RIGHTS? Next to make a phone call you'll have to requisition phone time giving information like: number you're calling, receiving party, topic conversation.
Re:Ya, fair (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ya, fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully this will be laughed out of court like so many others.
Just highlights the fact that the fight for freedom never ends. the CIA would act like the KGB if they could. Same with any other government entity.
Re:Ya, fair (Score:3)
and no, im not a US citizen...
Re:Ya, fair (Score:3, Interesting)
However, can't court records be sealed for cases like this?
"Just highlights the fact that the fight for freedom never ends. the CIA wou
Re:Ya, fair (Score:5, Interesting)
In reality, the administration has very nearly accomplished the objective you allude to, i.e. the elimination of whatever respect for the rights of Americans that the intelligence community still has. They have simply been more clever about it. The Spiegel article makes clear that these actions are very serious; I can only hope that the backlash you speak of will actually become manifest.
Tranferring Intel Analysis from civilian to (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ya, fair (Score:3, Insightful)
If the case is dismissed or otherwise rolled under (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are not sure how to find out some of that information, go to eff.org
Re:If the case is dismissed or otherwise rolled un (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If the case is dismissed or otherwise rolled un (Score:3, Informative)
The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Interesting)
If Mr. Bush is so sure of his assertion that nobody's rights are being trampled and that all of his Executive Orders approving these actions are legal, then he shouldn't be afraid for these actions to face the rule of law.
But then, the administration knows full well that none of this will stand up to a legal challenge.
You are witnessing the actions of a dictatorial administration consumed with the belief in its own superiority and its own place above the law. Bush believes that as President, he can do anything he wants without regard to the law; he believes himself to be invinceable.
Unfortunately, as Congress and the courts stand now, he's right.
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you had any doubts before writing this?
Quite frankly, with the way the constitution is being used as toilet paper, and the imperialistic ways the US is behaving with abroad, I really think the United States is quite comparable to 1933 Gernamy. This has been going on for a very long time, since the end of WW2 in fact, but I think it's now that we're seeing America turn into a full-blown dictatorshi
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other t
Rather Misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please keep your FUD to yourself -14 pts are va (Score:4, Interesting)
To take aim more directly at the points, I would ask you to look up the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on facsism. There are similarties like those shown in the 14 points. However, many of th 14 points have stretched those similarities quite a long way. Many of the 14 points are simply ways in which governments of all types have tried to gain power. Some of the more definining characteristics of facism are discussed in the wikipedia article:
"Fascism in many ways seems to have clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it it can be seen as opposing democratic capitalist economics along with Marxism. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes (and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict), replacing it instead with two more nebulous struggles: conflict between races and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideas of strength and power as means of legitimacy, a might makes right that glorified war as an end in itself and determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideas reason or rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge." I'm curious to see if you find that paragraph to describe the current administration.
Anatomy Of Your Enemy (Score:4, Informative)
10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see their tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.
First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.
Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing!
Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them
with all disseminated information.
Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information.
Therefore all for-profit media becomes state-run.
Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
[Chorus:]
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.
Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.
Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.
Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."
Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.
Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
and then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.
[Chorus (repeat)]
We are not countries. We are not nations. We are not religions.
We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition. We are not killers.
We will NOT be tools.
Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being!!!
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:3, Informative)
One further one just struck me recently, both Hitler and Bush want to reshape the world according to a masterplan, with their nation as the leading agent and example of change. Isn't that the real reason the US went into Iraq? Some sort of reverse domino effect, spreading democracy throughout t
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:2)
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Informative)
MOD PARENT THE FUCK UP (Score:5, Insightful)
Laughing at people who compare things to Hitler is ignoring a very large question that you (and in this case I am referring to the Grandparent and those of his mindset) should (if you weren't so educated fucking stupid) be asking yourself/yourselves: Why is this person so upset?
If we can't cite Hitler, we can't learn from our mistakes. If we can't learn from our mistakes, there's no point in making mistakes. If there's no point in making mistakes, then we should live in constant fear of making a mistake. If we should live in constant fear of making a mistake, we should all wipe ourselves out, because mistakes are inevitable, whether they be supporting facists or making a spelling error on Slashdot.
I am sick and tired. I can TASTE the contempt I have for people like you in my TEETH. "I'm content to be stupid, I enjoy being a parrot, and I can be happy with making little sacrifices - I'm not a bad person. Why can't everyone else be just like me?"
I... there's just so much contempt within me that I find it almost impossible to coherantly express how I feel. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Stalin was able to remain in power. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Hitler was able to commit crimes against humanity. It's thanks to moron idiots like you that Bush and the fascists in office can feel free to trample all over every basic human dignity and liberty alike, because you will accept, and even defend, this practice. Not because you actually relate to it - though it gives you a goofy rise, much like how civilized people get a goofy rise out of watching Sonny Chiba movies - but because you are a crippled creature, willing to surpress your basic, ingrained notion of Right, and Wrong, and Fair. Whether through phony intellectualization or simple contempt for whoever's hurt your feelings (which you allow to spread over to the rest of humanity because epic destruction is so awesome), you become a creature of contempt. And even if you were touched by these idiotic policies which your contemptable straw man voodoo rhetoric supports - you know, say your brother got shot to death in Iraq, your father was imprisoned for talking with an old college bud of his and joking about killing the President, and your mother was stalked and raped after trying to rally people in support of your father - you would still sooner claim it the fault of liberalism, misunderstanding, dirty Islamic towelheads who have no right to anything, violent videogames, or God's Will - rather than simply admit that you are wrong, that you have been wrong, that your desire for a cheap rise, a moment of feeling Intellectually Gifted, and/or your simple crass thoughtlessness - whatever it is - is to blame.
The problem isn't that people feel, or think, that Bush is like an American Hitler. The problem is inside you, and inside anybody who would laugh off a comparision without actually giving it some thought, just because they read on Somethingawful/Fark/The "New" MAD Magazine/your satire source of choice that it's apparently "ridiculous" to say such things. Because "OOOOH HITLER, LOL! OMG, WTF, BBQ??? get it??? (insert heavy handed dose of "we're saying this is funny, in an unfunny way, because we think we actually ARE funny in some way, and therefore right - irony" here)", or something.
I have yet to actually read anywhere a coherant and sober reason for why it's a fallacy to compare things to Hitler or the Nazis. Maybe it's because Moderate folk (who can be just as emotionally overwraught as diehard Liberal or Conservative - leaning folk) can't stand t
Godwin's Law (Score:5, Insightful)
The point with Godwin's Law is that the mention of Hitler/Nazis is very often too emotionalizing to continue the discussion in a constructive way, thus it diminishes the probability of resolving the debate in a good way.
The reason for this is that just by mentioning words such as "Hitler" or "Nazi" you are stirring up images and irrational thoughts that everyone of us is confronted with when learning about that part of history. We connect these words with visions of extreme atrocities against other humans, but also with simple anti-nazi propaganda that we have been fed with since WWII.
A very simple example to reflect this: if I were to say "Hitler did many good things." the first thought that will go through most people's minds would be that I am a nazi with all the characteristics associated with one (racist, anti-semitic, authoritarian etc.). Thing is, that I'd consider myself as quite the opposite of a nazi, yet I would stand by that sentence above because it is true (as true as "Hitler was not a good man."). Yet due to the reasons mentioned above most people will react irrationally to my statement and any possibility for rational discussion will be buried.
This is why mentioning Hitler as a comparison to augment a rational debate will only work with certain (educated) people, but usually not if your peers are your average Joe Doe - yes, even here on Slashdot, though at least here fortunately the demographics seem to be scewed a bit towards the 'rational debaters'. Apparently the moderation system improves the SNR as well ;)
Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Hitler was just a guy. He was no more 'evil' than most people to begin with, but through cunning and manipulation he managed to gain unfettered power to do what he wanted. Over time, that power changed him, and his baser side emerged.
People who believe Hitler was a monster and started evil completely and utterly miss the actual point - he was a man like so many others, but who became so thoroughly corrupted by power that any act was reasonable to him. Anyone can become like that given the right circumstances, and that's why we have checks and balances in our world. You or I could do anything he did if we were put through a set of circumstances particular to us.
Invoke irrelevant political correctness if you like, but remember that Hitler started as a simple man, like anyone you see around you, like you or I.
What an enlightened system (Score:2)
Re:What an enlightened system (Score:2)
This anarchist says: anyone who gives it some thought will recognise that law is separate from government, and that law came first. Government wants to control the courts in order t
Text of Government's motion. (Score:5, Informative)
EFF's page on the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ [eff.org]
Time to make these voting issues (Score:4, Insightful)
If everyone is silent, one day it will be too late. Speak up in unison to keep rights you have fought for over the past 200+ years. You know what they say - use em or lose em!
Good Luck!
Re:Time to make these voting issues (Score:3, Insightful)
For all of you on the fence about Bush's committment to defeating those terorists:
What happened to all those terror alerts once the 2004 election was over?
Watergate (Score:2)
Fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if this were really the most effective way of rooting out terrorist actions, the fact that they seem to feel they have to shield themselves from judicial inquiry breaks the accountability of such a system. Are judges and juries too dangerous for our security network now? Are constitutional protections now too restrictive for our intellgence needs?
Do we really need an unnacountable set of parasites feeding on our basic rights in order to protect us from an invisible set of enemies now? If so, does the debate about if we need these things need to be outside public consideration?
Re:Fuck. (Score:2)
Should have thought of that before breaking law... (Score:2)
The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Informative)
--
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General.
Re:The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Informative)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha
Last I knew.. (Score:2)
last I knew, when the police collected evidence illegally, and knowingly, the evidence was thrown out. Too bad the courts will probably let it slide for the sake of our great nation, and it's apathetic people.
Checks and Balances (Score:2, Insightful)
This motion to dismiss the case goes against the very idea of having checks and balances, and if anything the motion itself is unconstitutional. I hope we (the American public) do not allow for this to occur. I hope this issue continues to gain media coverage, because it has the makings to be a very hot political issue.
Won't Matter if They Do Dismiss It (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the US is attacking Iran in the next one to five months - before the fall elections.
Two aircraft carriers are moving through the Pacific to join a third already in the Gulf as we speak.
The US is running Kurdish and Iranian dissident groups on incursions into Iran, to stimulate Iranian incursions into Iraq. The Turks are severely upset, having massed 250,000 troops on the Turkey side of the Iraq border.
Once the Iran war launches, it will "bomb" all other concerns off the front pages - including the Republican bribery scandals, the CIA agent leaking, the wreck of the US intelligence services by Bush, etc., ad nauseum.
The end result of the attacks on Iran will be a ten-year guerrilla war two to four times as big and damaging to the US as Vietnam.
By this time in 2008, even Karl Rove will be demanding Bush's impeachment - oh, wait, Karl's being indicted this week (he told the President so last week and AG Gonzales went into the courthouse Friday to hear the indictment.)
So forget the spying on US citizens.
By the way, the Narus company that builds the hardware referenced in the EFF case is run by an "Israeli immigrant" (read: Mossad) - and one of the the directors is a former NSA guy.
Anything more you want to know?
Better learn to welcome your new Bush overlord...cause he already knows if you don't approve.
Re:Won't Matter if They Do Dismiss It (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I've been a little behind on current events, so thanks for the info.
Yes people, it looks like we have another Iraq war on our hands. I'm very much in the minority here with my beliefs, but I'm 99.9% confident that both of these wars are economic ones because Iraq wanted to trade oil in Euros and not US dollars, Iran wants to do the same now (see http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html [energybulletin.net]), and Venezuela might b
STASItastic (Score:5, Interesting)
So Bush's government is derailing justice to protect his compiling vast complex databases [arstechnica.com] of our private communications. In the hands of Iran/Contra conspirators.
After Bush's Justice Department agreed to drop their in-house investigation [google.com] into Bush's NSA wiretap spying because Bush's NSA told them they didn't have security clearance, these lawsuits are the main obstacle to Bush spying on you as much as he can, taxpaid by you.
Next week, NSA whistleblower Chris Strom will reveal to the Senate how the NSA domestic spying goes even further [dailykos.com] than these latest exposures (despite Bush denial at every step). Probably spying on us with our satellites, which they scare us into paying for as part of that useless $BILLION Star Wars missile shield.
Feel safer?
How to fight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Today.
constitutional crisis (Score:3, Interesting)
In a strange way, Nixon's attempt to cover-up his administration's illegal activities involved an implicit acknowledgment of the rule of the law - he engaged in a cover-up because he knew what he had done was illegal. Bush and company don't try very hard to cover up their illegal activities, because they don't care to understand that what they have done violates the Constitution.
As the logic of this plays out, it is going to become apparent that *there must be a constitutional crisis* if we do not want to see the Fourth Amendment eviscerated. If the executive asserts powers it should not have, then either the legislative or the judicial branch, or the people directly, will have to bring the system back into balance. Otherwise we face a slide into tyranny. We cannot allow Bush's justifications of these unconstitutional acts to stand, because they provide precedents that are too threatening to our fundamental liberties. A constitutional crisis is inevitable - and essential - for the health of our democracy.
Impeachment dilemma (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect I know the answer to this already, but I'll ask it anyhow, just in case a legal person can respond and we'll learn something about it:
Can we begin impeachment proceedings on BOTH of them and try them as a pair, impeach or not, hang together or serve together?
The constitution doesn't begin to cover it, but what about legal lore? Can congress make that move?
Re:Impeachment dilemma (Score:3)
BZZZT! (Score:3, Informative)
The thirty-six current co-sponsors of H. Res 635 to create a Select Committee investigating the grounds for recommending President Bush's impeachment are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William
Re:BZZZT! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Entire case can be summarized in one expletive. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Then people will be able to search all these rubbish that goes on day to day by one convenient tag.
I did see this coming... But frankly am unhappy about it none the less. The funny thing is that this wouldn't reveal anything we don't already know.. All it would do is confirm facts and everyone who knows anything about politics and law should be aware that confirmed facts are a dangerous weapon.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. If there were good and legitimate reasons, they would have simply obtained warrants.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hi. Please see my comments in response to someone who brought up Smith v. Maryland in a different thread. [slashdot.org] In short Smith v. Maryland applied in 1979 but I do not think it applies in 2006, becuase the Smith v. Maryland suit is founded on the subjective question of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy"; however, privacy laws (and laws concerning exactly when the government must ask for a warrant before obtaining certain information)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, the idea of keeping the government in check by due process of law and constitutional guardrails is that, if it is bad, it doesn't do extreme damage, like turn into a dictatorship. When it's good, then of course it's hindered in its ability to serve citizens quickly and efficiently, but that's the price to pay.
Oh and yes, here's a hint: a good government is so rare you haven't seen one in your lifetime anywhere in the world.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:4, Insightful)
No we don't, that's my point: when you make tradeoffs, you open the door to tyranny. Dictatorships almost invariably start by some powerful ruler using some strikingly frightening event to declare that "special rules" must be enacted to fight whomever did the deed, and planting enough fear in people's minds so that they accept making the tradeoffs. Once that's done, they can use the special rules to enact some more special rules, etc..., until the country is a dictatorship.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:2, Insightful)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Informative)
I think this displays a serious misunderstanding about the law and the way our system works.
The warrants in question are obtained from a court that is explicitly designed to deal with foreign intelligence, called the "Foreign Intelligence Survellience Court". The law in question is called the "Foreign Intelligence Survellience Act" (FISA). They were set up expressly for the purpose of dealing with foreign intelligence issues and the wiretaps necessary to carry out intelligence gathering.
No objection has been put forth that the current law cannot deal with. The one thing that the law wouldn't allow for is abuse of the system. In other words, the fact that they're avoiding the law and the system strongly implies that it's being abused.
The FISA system has been in place for three decades, and has dealt with tens of thousands of wiretap requests quite successfully. And because the "foreign intelligence" apparatus can be abused to harm Americans, that system provides oversight and a check.
Seriously, the arguments you're making could just as easily be used to justify putting cameras and microphones in everyone's houses.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
What the fuck is Republicanism? Republican is a political party, and I can think of a lot of things that are better than the Neocon dream, a representative democracy with a weak executive branch being one of them.
This country would be a whole lot better if our electorate were informed.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:2)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:2)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:2)
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:2)
Then they should prepare some legislation detailing how to deal with it.
You mean like some sort of fireign intelligence surveillance act?
remember how quickly they put the PATRIOT ACT together...
A year or more, as I recall. They were just waiting for a chance to get it passed, and 9/11 was the perfect opportunity.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding? They can of course go abroad and use any illegal method they like to hunt for, trap, and kill Al Qaeda operatives and supporter
That's not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course! Good Lord, man, no one I know has any problem with going after terrorists.
The problem here isn't that the system can be used to nail the bad guys. The problem is that there is absolutely no oversight, and it violates the law. Worse, any attempts to apply oversight have been shut down. If the system isn't being abused, then what the hell is all that about?
Our system of government is predicated on the notion that power inevitably corrupts. This system involves a lot of people, and the idea that absolutely all of them are uncorruptable is absurd.
On this very site as we type, it's reported that the U.S. Government is in negotiations to obtain the same sort of private information from European countries. Quite likely, that sharing will go both ways. Furthermore, media companies are closer than you'd like to getting access to that data, too, in order to "fight piracy". Other companies can't be far behind. Are we to believe that everyone who will eventually have access to our private communications without oversight will be on the up-and-up?
It is the potential for abuse that is the problem. And the fact that this administration has actively resisted any attempt to apply checks and balances in order to prevent abuse is extremely troubling.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather, I take this approach.
Assertion: The government is not the bad guys
Conclusion: It is ok to violate our rights if it's for a good cause.
I would think that the above conclusion seems nonsensical. If we accept that the current administration's plans don't include Big Brother-like control over the American public (a proposal that to some, might seem unrealistic, but I am willing to accept it for the sake of argument), that still leaves the question of whether it is RIGHT to be carrying out these surveillance programs.
The ends almost NEVER justify the means; a superior stating of this adage is the following:
"It is never a question of whether the ends justify the means; the means make the end."
In this case, the means being used are possible encroachments on the civil rights of American citizens. Acceptance of that kind of program can only have one end: surveillance of American citizens themselves.
That is not a power I want my government to have, regardless of how "safe" it might make the country. I am not willing to give up my fundamental rights for the ethereal promise of safety.
The US government is and always was, accountable to the American people. The system of checks and balances was put in place so that the no single branch of government could have enough power to destroy the rights of American citizens; the belief was that if one branch acted improperly, at least one of the others could kick them back in line.
What President Bush is attempting to do is tantamount to suppression of the system of checks and balances put into place specifically to protect us from government abuse.
And I leave you with one final question:
If what Bush has approved is so upstanding and legal, why should he fear a legal challenge? I, for one, would like another branch of government besides President Bush to tell me that my freedoms are not being violated, not because I think President Bush is lying, but because that's what the other branches are there for in the first place. And a healthy dose of suspicion of the government is very necessary to a free democracy; that is the only way a society remains free.
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get wrath it's not for questioning the mindthink...I'm not even sure what that is. You might get flack for taking a gutless coward's stance toward civil liberties, which don't seem very important to people sticking up for an over-reaching administration empowered by a spineless Congress.
The bottom line this is useless for tracking down terrorists. All it takes is for one of the cutouts to be a coffee shop or ot
Re:Might be some good here? (Score:3, Interesting)
>taste the wrath of
Yes, there is a lot of "mindthink" on Slashdot. Most of us think with our minds. There are exceptions.
Re:only for national security? (Score:2)
Re:Worried? (Score:2)
Re:The is the largest government abuse (Score:2)
Re:The is the largest government abuse (Score:3, Insightful)