Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T

Posted by Zonk on Sat May 13, 2006 04:45 PM
from the stepping-into-the-fight dept.
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.

Related Stories

[+] DOJ To Claim National Security in NSA Case 337 comments
deblau writes "Wired is reporting that the federal government intends to invoke the rarely used 'State Secrets Privilege' in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action lawsuit against AT&T. The case alleges that the telecom collaborated with the NSA's secret spying on American citizens. The State Secrets Privilege lets the executive branch step into a civil lawsuit and have it dismissed if the case might reveal information that puts national security at risk."
[+] The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence 405 comments
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
[+] EFF Case Against AT&T To Go Forward 227 comments
Tyler Too writes "The NSA wiretap lawsuit filed by the EFF will apparently be moving forward. A federal judge has denied the government's request that the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T be dismissed. Among other things, the judge ruled that 'if the government has been truthful in its disclosures, divulging information on AT&T's role in the scandal should not cause any harm to national security.' The case will now move forward, pending a government appeal."
[+] Politics: DOJ Still Looks To Have Suit Against Verizon Tossed 79 comments
An anonymous reader writes "With Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell acknowledging that the 'private sector' had a hand in assisting the president's warrantless wiretapping initiative, the DOJ is ever more strenuously demanding that the suit against Verizon be dropped. 'The Justice Department attorneys argue McConnell's statements did nothing to change the fact that it hasn't ever confirmed any of the activities alleged by the class action plaintiffs--and has, in fact, denied the existence of any sort of "dragnet." The arguments made by the class action plaintiffs rest on nothing but "speculation," the attorneys wrote. In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

U.S. Government Intervenes in EFF vs. AT&T 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.
  • I for one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:48PM (#15326537)
    welcome our new, government-inconveniencing-case-dismissing overlords.
            • Re:What you meant to say was... (Score:4, Informative)

              by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Sunday May 14 2006, @06:12AM (#15328973) Journal
              And presidents have been impeached for less. Nixon only wiretapped a hotel.

              Nixon wasn't impeached.

              He resigned before the articles of impeachment were voted on. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, Johnson was impeached for dismissing a cabinet secretary against a law that was later held to be unconstitutional. No US president yet has been impeached and convicted.

              -jcr
              [ Parent ]
  • Duuuuh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:51PM (#15326553)
    Guess what, the feds want the judges to approve their snooping and silence anyone daring to oppose it.

    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)

      by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:00PM (#15326596)
      Guess what, the feds want the judges to approve their snooping and silence anyone daring to oppose it.

      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."
      [ Parent ]
      • The "in Soviet Russia" jokes have become obsolete. They're simply not funny anymore. "In Soviet Russia, the government monitors you", "In Soviet Russia, the products dictate the market", and so on.

        The whole fun of twisting subject and object in a sentence
        • by Skreems (598317) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:41PM (#15326758)
          That's not communism, my friend. That's authoritarianism, fascism, blind nationalism, and religion run amock and manipulated against the people. Communism's got nothing to do with it.
          [ Parent ]
          • Ok, maybe we can agree on it being the "real existing Communism".

            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.
            • by Skreems (598317) on Saturday May 13 2006, @06:47PM (#15327019)
              Right... I just don't think people should use the term Communism for that, though, since that's quite different from what its described as in literature and economics. I usually go with "Stalinism"... seems pretty descriptive to me, although basically the same mindset was present under Hitler, and under Mussolini, and under Mao... anyway, yes, we are in the process of quickly surrenduring to a similar thing here in the States.
              [ Parent ]
  • Ya, fair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikesd81 (518581) <mikesd@pt[ ]et ['d.n' in gap]> on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:52PM (#15326560) Homepage
    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."

    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:5, Insightful)

      by dnoyeb (547705) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:23PM (#15326687) Homepage Journal
      its odd that a state secret can be known/shared by a non-state organization that has no special security clearance AFAIK. And several of them...

      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.
      [ Parent ]
        • Re:Ya, fair (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Vicks007 (833974) on Saturday May 13 2006, @08:11PM (#15327383)
          There are other ways to ensure the political compliance of the intelligence community. It's funny you should mention the CIA; in the wake of Porter Goss's resignation, Sidney Blumenthal wrote a piece for Spiegel Online that can be found at http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,415638,00.html [spiegel.de] which discussed the recent history of the agency. Rather than stacking it with loyalists, the current administration is attempting to gut the CIA and transfer the lion's share of its duties to the Pentagon. The current culture of the U.S. armed forces is much more amenable to the administration's agenda than CIA could ever be, and whatever civics training that its personnel have matters little in face of their adherence to the chain of command.

          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.
          [ Parent ]
      • Re:Ya, fair (Score:3, Insightful)

        polls smolls. Here is my short rant on polls. They are very flawed. Telephone polls especially. Those without landlines don't get polled. They need to start sending people door to door in various regions. This will be flawed too, but I believe that t
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:55PM (#15326573) Journal
    the carpet, that will be exactly when the citizens of the US will know that big brother is watching, and Mr. Orwell was right. Its time for all US citizens (and now EU citizens) to make such matters of privacy a voter issue. Ask your current representatives how they stand on such issues, ask all prospective candidates, and then vote with your privacy in mind on the upcoming, and every subsequent election.

    If you are not sure how to find out some of that information, go to eff.org
  • The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BalanceOfJudgement (962905) on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:59PM (#15326588) Homepage
    Only a dictatorship would take steps to prevent anyone from knowing if their rights were being violated.

    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.
    • Only a dictatorship would take steps to prevent anyone from knowing if their rights were being violated.

      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 th
      • Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)

        by whathappenedtomonday (581634) <reason1@oleco. n e t> on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:27PM (#15326699) Journal
        I feel an urge to repost this.

        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

        [ Parent ]
        • Anatomy Of Your Enemy (Score:4, Informative)

          by Shawn is an Asshole (845769) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:27PM (#15327836)
          This is the lyrics to Anti-Flag's "Anatomy Of Your Enemy" which was on their 2002 release "Mobilize" (btw, pick up the recently released "For Blood and Empire", awesome cd...):

          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!!!
          [ Parent ]
            • by James Lewis (641198) on Sunday May 14 2006, @01:49PM (#15330395)
              You're missing an important point. No matter how much you agree with what the poster said, the fact was that the information was presented in a misleading way that made the source appear more authoritive and unbiased than it really is. The article was written by someone with no credentials in the area he was writing about, for a magazine that is clearly a leftist publication. If the information is as "valid" as you believe it to be, why would someone find it necessary to falsify the information regarding its source?

              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.

              [ Parent ]
        • Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 13 2006, @06:09PM (#15326864)
          I don't think any Saturday Night Live skit is as repetitious and hackneyed as people who call out Godwin's Law. OMG LOL I POINTED OUT THAT SOMEONE USED HITLER IN A COMPARISON ON THE INTERNET. Shut up, nobody cares, and I hope -more- people use Hitler as a comparison to Bush because it's entirely appropriate, despite what all the conservative right-wing fuckwit crybabies -- such as yourself -- say.
          [ Parent ]
          • MOD PARENT THE FUCK UP (Score:5, Insightful)

            All these months of emotional repression are leaking out, and I for one don't care to constrain myself. This Godwin's Law horseshit is straight out of Orwell - and please let's start trying to smear me as a paranoid hippie of some sort, because after all, who the fuck uses cautionary novels for support? (well, besides the Bible Thumpers, but I'd say Orwell remains relevant to our times)

            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
            [ Parent ]
            • Godwin's Law (Score:5, Insightful)

              by nephridium (928664) on Sunday May 14 2006, @03:53AM (#15328685)
              "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."

              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 ;)

              [ Parent ]
        • Re:The actions of a dictatorship (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GaryPatterson (852699) on Sunday May 14 2006, @07:25AM (#15329121)
          The post is about fascism and Hitler should be mentioned during that post. Godwin's law is irrelevant when it comes to political discussion, as an extreme side of politics actually included Hitler, the Third Reich, Mussolini and others.

          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.
          [ Parent ]
  • Text of Government's motion. (Score:5, Informative)

    by coolhelperguy (698466) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:04PM (#15326614)
    Text of motion: Government's Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment [eff.org] [PDF, 1.8M]

    EFF's page on the case: http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ [eff.org]
  • Time to make these voting issues (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pbailey (225135) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:07PM (#15326623)
    I'm not an American, so this is just my $0.02, but to those of you that are, your government seems to be taking away more and more of your civil liberties. America is supposed to be the land of the free, etc. etc. I think it is time that American government representatives were reminded of this - specially with elections coming up. They will do anything to remain in power. If you all tell them you are not going to put up with this kind of BS, then maybe they will stand up for you.

    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!
  • Fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton (230700) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:11PM (#15326642)
    When the judicial system is being asked by an agency to not permit itself to look into a subject, you know there is something VERY wrong with this government's actions.

    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?

  • The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ecorona (953223) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:26PM (#15326697)
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. People died for these rights. Human beings had to say goodbye to their girlfriends, wives, parents, and children forever in order to go die a likely horribly painful death. They did this because they believed there was some value in these rights. They sacrificed themselves so that the majority of us would, in privlige, enjoy the benefits of their sacrifice. Today, in this day and age and by not caring, we as a people are telling those TRUE patriots "You can take your sacrifice and shove it up your ass." Ironically, liberty and freedom are being attacked by the same people claiming to be inspired by it.
    • Re:The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jeffrey Baker (6191) on Saturday May 13 2006, @06:10PM (#15326865)
      It should be noted that Mr. Hayden, Bush's nominee to lead the CIA (after the hasty departure of the felonious Mr. Goss and his #3-in-command Mr. Foggo), recently stated in a press conference that the words "probable cause" do not appear in the 4th Amendment.
      [ Parent ]
        • Re:The 4th Ammendment (Score:5, Informative)

          by Jeffrey Baker (6191) on Saturday May 13 2006, @06:37PM (#15326972)
          There's room for debate about what Hayden beleives, but if you were to ask me, I would say that, if a person cannot identify "probable cause" as the key concept of the 4th Amendment, that person is unqualified for any executive branch office.

          --

          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.
          [ Parent ]
  • Won't Matter if They Do Dismiss It (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:46PM (#15326777)

    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.

  • STASItastic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:47PM (#15326785) Homepage Journal
    Bush is nominating Hayden to direct the CIA. Even though Hayden broke the law by spying on us, saying the 4th Amendment doesn't require probable cause [editorandpublisher.com]. It does.

    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)

    by guisar (69737) on Saturday May 13 2006, @08:16PM (#15327402) Homepage
    Donate $50 to the EFF.

    Today.
  • Impeachment dilemma (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wonkavader (605434) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:20AM (#15328185)
    There are a number of reasons why people aren't talking impeachment, these days, but the most obvious one is: "President Cheney"

    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:Lawsuits (Score:4, Funny)

        by Al Dimond (792444) on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:57PM (#15326580) Journal
        Err... the problem is that if the terrorists have won by banning all women they're pretty much going to lose by default some 60 years down the road or so.
        [ Parent ]
                    • Re:Lawsuits (Score:5, Insightful)

                      by Bobzibub (20561) on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:00PM (#15327759)
                      You folks need more official political parties.
                      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
                      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)

        Or as we in the US say: "only an insecure weenie would bother debunking a simple colloquialism being used in a humorous manner in a Slashdot post to put some weird points on an imaginary international scoreboard in a game that no one in the US is even inte
    • Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Saturday May 13 2006, @04:59PM (#15326593) Homepage
      Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?

      No. If there were good and legitimate reasons, they would have simply obtained warrants.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:03PM (#15326611)
      Just curious, but has anyone thought that our own government might not be the bad guys here?

      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.
      [ Parent ]
        • Re:Might be some good here? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:16PM (#15326668)
          I agree that Republicanism is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But we still have to make trade offs for security.

          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.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Might be some good here? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Kythe (4779) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:34PM (#15326729)
          But there does need to be some avenue for the government to actually have a functioning intelligence system. Warrents are for criminal prosecution. This is about foreign intelligence.

          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.
          [ Parent ]
        • 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 w

    • That's not the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kythe (4779) on Saturday May 13 2006, @05:07PM (#15326624)
      Anyone think that maybe there might be good and legitimate reasons for this system?

      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 pr