DOJ Accidentally Gives Lawyer Wiretap Transcript 319
good soldier svejk writes "'It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls. You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.' That is what happened to Washington D.C. attorney Wendell Belew. His lawsuit takes on special significance given today's Sixth Circuit Court ruling that surveillance victims can only sue the DOJ if they can prove they were affected."
Standing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Standing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Standing (Score:5, Funny)
What version of RSS did Jefferson use again? I know Franklin was much more into ATOM.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem today is that there are so many simple-minded "progressives" who are incapable of even TRYING to see the other side of an issue. The close-mindedness of the left is killing healthy debate in our country. Nevermind that this case has nothing to do with "domestic surveilance"... let's skip that inconvenience and jump straight to calls for impeachment and unfounded self-comparisons to founding fathers!
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm wondering if there is an actual switch here or if it is just reasons of opportunity? OF course adopting a position only for political gain is trustworthy too right?
Two groups (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it breaks down into four groups on the "left": (a) those who were "saying don't push your morals on me" 10 years ago, (b) those who claim to have the moral high ground now, (c) those who are in both (a) and (b), but have no problem because it's two separate issues (bedroom vs. habeas corpus, etc.), and (d) hypocrites. I think you'll find that many politicians fall into that last group.
An important point is that members in group (a) are not necessarily in group (b) and vice-versa.
Re:Standing (Score:5, Insightful)
You're both mostly right. In U.S. politics today, all too many so-called progressives AND so-called conservatives are totalitarian statists. The difference is that the "progressives" want a single central committee to hold absolute national power, while the "conservatives" want an oligarchy.
That is a lucid description of the current American left. Once they decide something is not good ("supportable"), they kick the whole thing to the curb. It does not matter if there are complicated psychological, economic, and logistical issues that are difficult to analyze and almost impossible to identify except in retrospect. These are the people who put a poison (methy tertiary-butyl ether) with a half-life of many years into California groundwater on a vast scale, in exchange for minor reduction of atmospheric toxins with a half-life of weeks. Snap judgements, boundless idealism, and inflexible thinking simply don't make for effective public service.
You have also, incidentally, given a damn good description of the Bush 43 administration, who by historical standards are fringe radical hyper-leftists. No conservative would invade a barbarian land, with a woefully underfunded and understaffed army, and expect instant civilization.
Because to a mainstream politician, "discredited" means "I do not like it and I have a slick 12 page white paper that says it is wrong."
Because calm persistence is good at demolishing "fake but true" discreditations, and also for getting screaming toddlers in adult bodies to show their true colors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I assume you are referring to Iraq and/or Afghanistan. There are several misconceptions here.
First, neither the occupation of Afghanistan or of Iraq had anything to do with creating "instant civilization", except as useful pol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. The invasion was designed to spread liberty and democracy, as shown by the administration's statements before and during the invasion, by their utter shock at the widespread looting when they disbanded the Iraqi army, and by their continuing surprise at the armed resistance they met.
Amusingly, things would have been better if Iraq had been a Halliburton sock puppet. Texas oil men do
Re: (Score:2)
What's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq hardly seems the dictionary definition of "winning wars". Last time I checked, winning a war meant defeating the opposing
Re: (Score:2)
If not the Brittish (and they're not) who IS occcupying the US today?
In today's world there is no need for forced occupation. In today's world the "occupation" is made by the same private group of money grubbing weasels whose families and friends have held the US Federal Government $73 million dollars in debt since 1776 (Google "history US federal debt", Wikipedia has a rather concise entry on it). The debt has only gone up since then.
Must be nice to have an entire nation as perpetual tenants--and be able to write the terms for repayment such that the debt is never expung
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good lord. One of those! The fact of the matter is that Alexander Hamilton paid off the Federal Debt, no matter what nutcases have edited Wikipedia on that topic.
Paine was a religious fruitcake, and more... (Score:4, Interesting)
By far, leftists support a totalitarian government more. New laws required by the left to support its causes, from supposed civil rights and workers rights, to the environment, have made the government by definition more totalitarian than any conservative administration. On a whole, if you look at all the deregulation Bush has done, versus the few laws he's added, you would find that the USA is now MORE free under Bush than before. Just start with tax cuts and the relegalization of so-called "assault" weapons, and already, you've made millions of people more free. The moral of the story, just because your totalitarian government has been in favor of your causes does not make it any less totalitarian.
I see you say "corporate kleptocracy", as if, charging money for a good is a form of theft. Hey, I have news for you. If you do not want a good, then do not buy it. No one is stealing from you. If someone is charging more for the good than you want, you STILL do not have to buy it. The reality is that those who would replace private property with public property are really talking about a return to feudalism by any other name, with the same catastrophic economic results.
That comment is so stunningly stupid that I feel obliged to repeat it here, just to give readers some idea of the quality of your "facts", in case they ever encounter another of your posts.
Hey, I just go by historical facts, unlike you.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html [gpoaccess.gov] Table 1.1, shows that the US government ran a surplus from the inception the Constitution in 1789 up until around 1849.
Finally, I would think that some of the founding fathers would find their way right on the bombastic world of today's talk radio. I quote Patrick Henry:
"Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Re: (Score:2)
Ha hah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
TFA:
And here's to hoping he doesn't mysteriously "commit suicide." From 1500 meters.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he did, wouldn't you?
I certainly would!
He filed the lawsuit with one, since they took the first one away.
Here's to small favors and quick thinking. I have become increasingly worried that the state secrets doctrine would leave a gaping hole in our system of Judicial Constitutional Review, as so long as a domestic surveillance program is a state secret it would be awfully hard to get standing to see the inside of a courtroom on the issue.
And here's to hoping he doesn't mysteriously "comm
Re: (Score:2)
But sadly, burning down the US equivalent of the Reichstag WOULD make sense at this point. After all, they could blame it on the "terrorists".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think GP's point was more that it would be politically expedient for there to be a disaster such that citizens would rally round the flag, as the effect is popularly known. His additional point was that he wouldn't put it past this government to place such an event in motion, cynically exploiting people by generating a disaster and then redirecting attention towards it. That a tactic was used by Fascists does not mean it can only be used by Fascists. The USS Maine was a similar sort of incident, as was
Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
Who does that sound like ?
Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Informative)
Democracy is one of the tools we use to preserve freedom. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best we've found so far.
Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Informative)
still a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't entirely clear that the US is still a democracy - at least not in the sense of free and fair elections.
exit polls [wikipedia.org] are routinely used by international election monitors to determine whether elections have been rigged.
The last presidential election had disparities between the exit polls which are
at the least, unusual. [wikipedia.org]
Certainly, people get to vote - but it isn't clear that those votes are counted.
That's even before you get pernicious issues like gerymandering or campaign finance.
Re:still a democracy? (Score:4, Informative)
This came after reports of Union workers and others intimidating people who weren't or didn't claim to vote a certain way. It was a small and relatively isolated problem but gained national attention for a week or two. One of the laws about how close campaining can be to the voting places were directly related to this incident. But ever since then, I only tell people who I voted for in casual conversations. If you ask me for whatever reasons, I won't give you the truth out of spite. It isn't anyone's business but mine and who I decide to inform.
I'm sure I am not the only person doing this. It might be more republicans then democrats doing it but no one wants to be seen as the person who voted for a different or third party and cost their guy the election. No one wants to be harassed outside the voting booth because they voted for someone else where everyone going in can get the picture to vote a certain way. No one wants to put up with the shit that comes form two party systems that have their these parties working the polls.
If that means the exit polls are off, so be it. But I don't think it is an automatic assumption of foul play outside maybe what I just mentioned. It is entirely possible that people don't vote for the candidate you want them or think they will because of some other affiliation and it is entirely possible that they don't want you to know who they voted for. That is why the voting is done by secrete ballot. It makes no sense to have someone ask how you voted when you are free to hide your vote and cast it for anyone outside of pressure from other people. You will note that it is a one sided ordeal where they claim the voted aren't being counted correctly. I say this supports my reasons.
Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
I know this is completely against everything that everyone loves to believe but, the truth of the matter is, the plug could've been pulled on the Third Reich at any time by the forefathers of the very same people who fund the world organizations that pull 90-year old men out of their modest middle class homes in the Midwest and ship them off to prison.
Profit margin wasn't any different then than it is now. The people who died under the oppression of the Third Reich were sold out, not by the Nazi party, but by their own upper class.
Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Cold Warriors weren't stupid. They were seeking heavily guarded secrets about the machinations of a superpower. The stakes were, officially, the fate of freedom itself, not a building here or there. The best and the brightest. Those who never succeeded against an intelligent adversary were fired, or for the real spying, killed. But tell me that someone who 'fails to catch a terrorist plot' by attempting to find suspicious brown people is going to face any real accountability, ever. This war needs no victory, because defeat is impossible. It wouldn't really matter if the Directorate was increasingly brazen in deciding who to assassinate(which we do, officially, do now), because even on an agency level, they really can't lose face until 2009, no matter how often they fail. There will always be targets, and so there will always be work, and so they will always be heroes defending our safety. This is the culture of the War on Terror.
We the nation kidnap people around the world and torture them,
And then WE THE PEOPLE find out about it, through these monsters' incompetence - resulting in a medium-sized PR war between those that believe in human rights and those who don't, that's eventually lost because Mat Lauer needs an exclusive next week, no matter how much NBC News has to suck up to the administration. Then, the fact that we kidnap and torture people becomes passe, becomes something that people occasionally bitch about, but essentially accept.
What makes you think a domestic assassination would be any different?
I say this as someone normally allergic to tinhattery: Never put anything past these people. They will always surprise you with yet another step towards totalitarian fascism, something unthinkable yesterday, which will be mildly distasteful tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Funny)
Watch, you'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
He would be breaking a court order. That is not the same as breaking the law.
Since the actions of Cheney and Bush in ordering warantless wiretaps are criminal the courts should not afford them the protection of state secrets.
It appears that they have copies of the papers in Saudi Arabia, beyond the power of the US courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, contempt of court was a crime, as was possessing (much less REPRODUCING) classified documents without proper clearance. But, as you say, since copies have reached far beyond the point of recovery, it would be extremely hard to argue they are in any sense still secret.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Brazil the movie (Score:5, Informative)
How many Iraqis has Lula killed? (Score:2)
Oh? How many Iraqis has Lula killed? Zero.
Lula has a long way to go to be as corrupt as the Bush administration.
Re: (Score:2)
You have that the wrong way round. First you bad mouth the country, they you invade them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really cared about your Slashdotistani brethren, you'd have pasted in the linked data, rather than try to lure them into some infidel trap!
Seriously, if you care about Gilliam as an artist, why not go buy a copy? We need to keep that guy supplied with camera lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
While I generally agree, let's be serious: Terry Gilliam will never in the conceivable future be lacking for camera lenses or budgets to staff and run them. It's kind of like saying "Don't pirate Minority Report, because Stephen Spielberg's future career depends on your purchases!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thankyou (Score:5, Insightful)
Ordered to forget? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ordered to forget? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ordered to forget? (Score:4, Funny)
Mr.Burns: Precisely.
Re: (Score:2)
It would explain the British cooperation with recent US politics.
Old News? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Old News? (Score:5, Informative)
Wendell Belew, a lawyer who represented a now banned Ashland, Oregon Muslim charity, says the government accidentally provided him with proof his conversations were eavesdropped on without a warrant. His case has a hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August. The government wants his, and all the other cases, thrown out, arguing they endanger national security.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/appeals-
forgetting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well there was a copy, but now they've filed it with the court:
Laugh, but respond adequately. (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory: If you have nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So this guy was a lawyer for a man (and his organization) that was officially suspected of being a terrorist organization at the time. He knew that. He accepted that, and was working to get them delisted as a terrorist organization. That's not evil, perhaps even laudable, but a reasonable person might conclude that performing such an act might just get you looked at by the government...
This is not some innocent bystander - this is exactly w
Re:Obligatory: If you have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's just that pesky human rights stuff again and in the post 9-11 era we can't afford to be respecting human rights.
An anti-corruption person in the DOJ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it was not an accident, but someone in government who wants to help stop the corruption.
Here's how messed up the DoJ is: (Score:5, Insightful)
Justice department lawyers have argued that, even if the pair of lawyers were monitored, judging the president's authority to do so requires looking at the specific reasons why the duo were surveilled. And those facts would be national secrets that would tip off terrorists, so no court can ever rule on the program.
"This is not to say there is no forum to air the weighty matters at issue, which remains a matter of considerable public interest and debate, but that the resolution of these issues must be left to the political branches of government," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a brief on the case.
They may as well have just taken a copy of the Constitution, shat all over it, and filed that as their legal brief. It's like they're arguing that the entire third article of the Constitution does not apply to them.
Fatal flaw... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it makes no difference to the case whatsoever, why they were monitored. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of the reason for doing so.
You can't make this stuff up (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the hell is the FBI tapping lawyers phone calls? And how can they possibly turn a paper marked Top Secret over to someone without a clearance? Do they have classified document tracking, document receipting, materials accountability procedures?
May I suggest that it is long past time to consider turning law enforcement back to the state and local governments. Many of them may not be much good at it, but Americans can choose to live in places where they are. It's hard to get away from the FBI without emigrating. The US got by pretty well with minimal federal criminal laws and not a lot of federal law enforcement in the 19th Century and it may be time to think about trying that approach again.
It's tempting to blame this on the Bush administration -- which certainly has demonstrated rather remarkable incompetence at a wide variety of things. But my impression is that the FBI has a long, long record of doing stupid, ill-advised, and (especially under Hoover) outright illegal things. Exactly what are these folks actually doing for us? Could their valuble contributions (if any) be done by the states or by a vastly scaled back organization?
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we have an FBI to begin with is that organized crime doesn't respect state lines. It doesn't matter how "effective" your home state's law enforcement is when your new neighbor's many arrest warrants are in another state that's too inept to get the information out to the other 49.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, yeah ... If you will recall that national embarassment J Edgar Hoover denied for decades that organized crime existed. The FBI finally did take significant action against organized crime. But only after 60 unpleasant gentlemen were arrested at a raid on an underwold summit at Apalachin NY in 1957. That raid was conducted by New York state and local officials after they became curious what large numbers
Don't help groups with a history of violence. (Score:3, Informative)
It's unfortunate for those folks because of the actions a few. You will have similar problems if you donate money to other organizations that have a history of violence: Greenpeace, any anti abortion/pro-life (ha!) groups that have killed or bombed clinics, or anyone else. Also, I can tell you that I know for a fact that supporting any of those groups I've mentioned will in fact jeopardize a security clearance that you may want to get and I wouldn't all be surprised if in the near future, your standard background check for a corp job will be jeopardized too.
Anyway, you don't have to use violence and it's a good idea not to. Ghandi used economic war. The Dali Lama is using peaceful means. And by not using violence, you stand on such high moral ground that you get only positive recognition for your cause. If you violence, you'll just get pegged as a terrorist.
And I'm sure that someone will mention that the Tibetans will probably not get their country back. I will respond with, "Like the Chechnyans will?" Actually, out of all the displaced people in the World, the Tibetans have the best chance of getting their freedom back. (If Arafat wasn't such a poor strategist by using and encouraging terrorism, the Palestinians would probably have their own country by now.)
Re:Violence Works (Score:4, Informative)
Non-violence works by changing hearts. The aim of Ghandi's work was to get the British people to agree that their empire was wrong in principle. The aim of King's work was to get America to live up to its ideals. With these kinds of goals, taken together with the realization that voilence begets violence, non-violence turns our to be the best method. Your assertion that there was an implied threat in the mass movements is correct, but it was not that guns would be next, but that the economic threats could be carried out. Bus companies could not operate or textile factories would have no market. This link may help you: http://paceebene.org/pace/principles-of-creative-
--
Photons for peace: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that the left wing misses is that an economic threat IS a form of violence. What's the difference between burning someone's house down, versus causing an economy that causes a house to be foreclosed? Either way, you lose the house.
In the case of nation
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that the foreclosure is also enforced at the point of a gun (or Taser, as the case may be), so it's ultimately the threat of violence that enforces law and order in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absurd. (Score:2)
What the hell is your definition of 'works'? If works is you kill some people, then yes, violence works. That's kinda the definition of violence. But if you definition of 'works' is 'effect a desired change', then both of your e
Re: (Score:2)
The "terrarists" have won (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever fuckhead bin laden's goal was, he has won. Your country might be safer from "terrarists" now, but it's also safer from opposition politicians, foreign students, dissenting opinions, real freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is also safe from a stable, debt free economy. Your government has got itself suckered into two wars it will not and cannot win (did anyone really think the Taliban would just roll over and die? They're winning in Afghanistan too), but from which it cannot afford to withdraw. Your government has seriously endangered relations with a Russia that has had enough of being the USA's bitch, and which is now starting to seriously raise the stakes (do you really think you can wobble about fighting two bush wars and take on Russia too?)
And you know who is really laughing? The Chinese. They must be having hysterics. Every time Dick "Dick" Cheney opens his mouth for a round of anti-China drivel, everyone just has a good laugh. What can your country do about the Chinese military build up which is sure to challenge the USA later in this century? Nothing, absolutely nothing. China is so big and such a huge army and population that the USA could never, even if the Chinese did not have nuclear weapons, which they do, win a conflict. On top of that the USA economy is so tied into the Chinese economy that doing anything against China would seriously damage the American economy (Have to cut down on the SUVs a bit, and the clothers and just about all else too). The USA can't even play the Indians, China's natural foes, out against the Chinese because the Indians don't trust the USA either, and they find it easier to do business with Russia when it come to arms, because the Russians don't try to tell them how to run their country.
In closing, there are many, big bad problems in this world, and the longer Dick and Blow stay in power, the worse things will get for you. This is not an admonition to vote Democract or Libertarian or whatever other party you Americans have dreamt up, but it is a thought that perhaps voting for someone who wasn't so out to ruin his own country might be a good idea.
Re:The "terrarists" have won (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know who is really laughing? The Chinese.
If you read the neo-con position papers over at http://www.newamericancentury.org/ [newamericancentury.org] you'll get the impression that the neo-cons have always expected China would dominate and overshadow the USA. My best understanding of their thinking is that they wanted to "get while the gettin' is good" and screw the future, since its already screwed anyway.
So, starting a few wars and vacuuming up our tax dollars (and China's own dollars through the US treasury bonds they keep buying) via companies like Bechtel, Haliburto
Re: (Score:2)
The country of my birth was a police state. Shit like this, state abuse of power with absolutely no recourse for the victims, was the order of the day. Your country has become a police state since 2001. The corrupt bastards running your place, who you clowns voted in again after one abuseive term, have managed to dismember the rule of law in your country pretty effectively, partly by rigging your supreme court, and partly by then exceding the powers accorded to the President time and time again, with no re
Re:The "terrarists" have won (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it was.
The media just chose to focus on Gore's sighs instead of Bush/Cheney's already impressive record of incompetence. Everyone who paid attention (i.e. looked beyond the headlines actually, y'know read about the politicians) recognized that Gore was the better candidate.
> And in 2004, there wasn't a genuine alternative.
Yes, there was.
Kerry was and is a competent, reasonable politician who makes decisions based on information gathering, discussion with advisors, and rational decision-making.
Bush makes decisions "with his gut" and the country's fate rests on how well his last meal agrees with him.
Riiiiight (Score:4, Funny)
Doesn't change a thing in the courts view... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, the court was using "Circular Logic" to drop the case. You can't sue because you can't prove you were harmed. You can't prove you were harmed because the documents you want are State Secrets and therefore can't be used. Of course, this is the kind of thing I would have expected to read in a Russian Court in the 1980's, no offense to our Comrades here.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Sixth Circuit "ruled that details about the program, including who was targeted, are state secrets" revealed the courts intentions of how they would be handling these cases.
Kind of makes me wonder if the judges that were removed were removed in preparation for these types of cases...
Only if they can prove.... (Score:5, Funny)
- Hello, my name is Damocles [wikipedia.org], and I want to sue the emperor, because he got this f***ing Sword hanging above my head!
- Sorry, sir, but unless you've been hurt by that sword, you cannot sue.
- WTF?
- I'm sorry, sir. Good bye.
Sigh - al Qaeda front group (Score:2)
We knew three years ago that this organization was an al Qaeda front group for laundering money in the US, so why does Wired keep calling it a "charity"? Put the name into Google for more information.
I'm not supporting warrantless wiretapping, but I'm not supporting al Qaeda, either.
Not Like Kafka (Score:5, Funny)
Phone log (Score:2)
all in the family (Score:3, Interesting)
From another POV, that of an American citizen, given all the insane mindset I have seen of the government since Bush got in office, I'm terrorized. Not by the fear of foreigners but buy The US government mindset. The disregard of science, factual evidence, applying double standards to crimes, the changing of laws and government structure that was originally put in place to prevent abuses by the government. But most of all, I'm terrorized by the fact that the waring mindset of the US government has stolen social security benefits (this going on for my whole life) and used them for war and yet with the largest military budget ever in mans history, hasn't put the money back, that they took from social security. And this is only the tip of the wrongs the US government has committed and is now committing against the very people that they are supposed to be representing. And that is terroristic.
With all this insane mindset of the US government, would it be of any surprise to find that they have been generating reasons to be attacked? I.E. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stoc
World Trade center, Pentagon, and probable White House: Statement being "Wrongful world stock market manipulation back by politically controlled military"
I do not condone killing innocent or even war, but know if you don't give another reason to harm you you are a great deal safer.
So why is not a part of the military budget going for fixing real world problems in a manner of removing reason to cause problems?
We do Know how to do it! http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a
Not doing it is supportive of Terrorism. A fraction of one percent of the 6 billion plus people of the world are in a position of starting a war. They are the terrorist and look how much the rest of us pay for their disease.
Forget? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. If it were me, I'd tell the FBI agents to their face that there is no way I'm forgetting anything and in fact I will happily assist any investigations into their actions with regard to its original dissemination.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you're part of the problem.
Sure there's no warrant, but if there were a warrant, it would jeopardize the secrecy of the tap and the effectiveness of our intelligence. And in this case, there was every reason to listen in. The program was properly applied to help find terrorists.
They could have applied for a warrant under FISA, which would not have jeopardized the secrecy of the tap at all; all it would have done is made sure there was some judicial oversight of it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Do you have any support for this somewhat unusual assertion? The FISA court has issued thousands and thousands of warrants, how many of those have been found out? And the wiretaps can be authorized by the DOJ in emergency situations, as long as within 72 hours they go to the FISA court.
You can't have it both ways. We either risk another huge terrorist attack on our soil or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which they'd have a much harder time doing if the government hadn't demanded that the "normal people" be unarmed sheep during commercial flights.
Re:Al-Haramain = Terrorists (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's worth noting... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as a legitimate warrant-less wiretap. Wiretaps require warrants... that's how the law is written. There is even a special, secret court that handles these things that has been completely bypassed. Even if you interpreted everything as loosely as possible, one end of the call originates or terminates on US soil and therefore offers the caller or callee a right to privacy (among other things).
"A time of war" also does not give the government special rights and privileges over the people. In the United States, the people control the government, not the other way around.
BTW, your international mail can legally be searched as well, as can cargo entering the country--in fact, many Bush administration critics harp on the fact that we don't search ENOUGH of other peoples belongings as they enter the country via harbors, etc.
Time for you to brush up on "implied consent" and "reasonable expectation of privacy." Comparing a cargo container to a phone call is also reaching quite a bit. Searching property entering or exiting the country is fundamentally different from listening in on phone calls without oversight. I'm surprised you can't see the difference.
I think that people pretending to see constitutional problems with this are either uneducated or are intentionally ignoring some obvious and fundamental aspects of it.
I think you've forgotten (or are conveniently ignoring) the reason the United States was formed in the first place. Look it up... you might be surprised.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you even read the Constitution? I'm not making this up, my friend: anyone who has taken elementary school classes on U.S. History and Government knows this stuff. Maybe you were absent that day?
And it requires a remarkable stretch of the imagination t
Re: (Score:3)