NID Admits ATT/Verizon Help With Wiretaps 299
Unlikely_Hero writes "National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has confirmed in an interview with the El Paso Times that AT&T and Verizon have both been helping the Bush Administration conduct wiretaps. He also claims that only 100 Americans are under surveilance, that it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a telephone number and suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue."
Lawsuits? Aren't they forgetting... (Score:5, Funny)
Unless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think I hear the Secret Service calling you...
Re:Unless (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, fed up with [windows|USA] why not try [Linux|UK]?
...and I bet this is never nodded funny by the Americans ;-P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Unless (Score:4, Insightful)
No company should surrender private communications to the government without a warrant. And if they do, the public can sued them.
Re:Unless (Score:4, Informative)
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So if the Japanese had discussed the attack on Pearl Harbor amongst themselves but over AT&T phone lines, you're arguing that AT&T should have conspired with the Japanese to keep the attack secret? There's no kind of warrant that applies to foreign enemy powers. Warrants are for criminal prosecutions. Also warrants are issued by judges, and judges are constitutionally excluded from issues involving the waging of war.
You're taking the statement out of context. The OP was speaking in the context of the US Government AND the US Populace, not foreign ones. Here was the paragraph with that information:
It's not that the government shouldn't wiretap their own population. Of course, they should be able to. The FISA courts are secret so that they can get warrants to do this sort of thing. It's when the government doesn't bother getting the warrants that things get illegal.
Emphasis mine. It is generally accepted for the government to spy on foreign governments; the United States does it all the time [cnn.com] and other countries do it to the U.S. [commondreams.org] as well. Furthermore, your example is flawed as the Japanese would have never discussed Pearl Harbor over AT&T lines, unless communications were being
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, but you're begging the question: why are we there AT ALL? Seriously, why bother? Who cares if it's a mess and they want to kill each other?
Oh, right, the oil.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At one time the Ottoman empire stretched well into Europe, including Greece etc.
Re:Unless (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States-Iran_r
Yes. that's why we helped the Brits depose the democracy in Iran and set up the shah. The whole rationale was that the democratic government there wanted to boot out the British oil companies and run their natural resource exploitation locally on better terms for the locals. You know, a free market, not a demand-side imperial market. Small wonder that bit of hypocrisy (we claim to love democracy and to want to spread it, but topple it when the locals elect leaders that do stuff we don't like) earned us a dark place in the hearts of Iranians.
We've also done it in Latin America.
I love hearing interventionist conservatives claim we're spreading democracy and how that's such a good thing when our history is full of American interventionists toppling democracies. It's the elephant in the room that isn't spoken of: they'll blab platitudes about our noble objectives until those we're "helping" decide to do something we don't like. Then we find it more advantageous to throw them back into the tender mercies of despotism.
And for the record, I'm not a "lib" or "commie" or whatever loaded word you care to use because you disagree with me: I'm an independent with fiscally-conservative, anti-authoritarian, anti-interventionist, libertarian, and constitutionalist leanings.
Re: (Score:2)
But we had common enemies back then, and were therefore friends! Next you'll be telling me we shouldn't be arming Sunni insurgents (oops, I meant ex-insurgents) for their fight against Al-Quaeda!
Re:Unless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just about every other nation looks at the U.S. in a bad light these days because we're prudish, invasive, annoying, and hipocritical.
Hate to break it to you, champ, but it's been that ways since 1789. It ain't going to change anytime soon. We've liberated the French two times and they were selling Stinger missiles to Saddam during the arms embargo via the 'oil-for-food' program, promulgating the largest fraud in world history.
That's hypocritical demonstrated. Any volunteers for the others?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So that makes it OK? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I parse your response correctly, you appear to be acknowledging that the US has been prudish, invasive, annoying and hypocritical since 1789, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.
While there is an element of truth there, I'm not sure that is som
Re:Unless (Score:5, Insightful)
No you didn't. To begin with I do not think you (singular) served in both WWI and WWII, so stop bragging about "We".
In WWI the US had hardly a modern army to speak of. The US entered the war late and did little. It may be debated whether they tipped the balance, but it is a fact that Germany and Austria-Hungary were already at the brink of collapse in 1917. And anyway, Germany in WWI was just any nation at war, no better or worse than the other ones. They had not even started the war (Austria-Hungary did), so what's the point in talking of "liberation"? From what? In any case, the US sacrificed very little compared to the British, yet I don't hear the British whine so much about the French being ungrateful.
In WWII, most of the work to win the war was done by the Soviets. On any reasonable scale (soldiers dead, enemy soldiers killed, land lost, land gained, overall number of dead, ...), the Soviet Union sacrificed much more than the US, even counting in the Pacific theatre where only the US were active. The eastern front saw the two most bloody battles in human history at the same time (Leningrad and Stalingrad), each three times larger than the one in third place (battle of Wuhan). Had the US stayed out, France would have been liberated by the USSR instead of the USA, or it would simply have risen up and taken back sovereignty when Berlin would eventually have fallen to the Red Army.
So cut the "we saved the world"-crap. The reason the US emerged as a superpower after WWII was that they had gone through two world wars without a single enemy soldier on their terrain, and had entered only when the outcome was almost guaranteed. Just like Switzerland, the US found out that not having armies marching through your country is beneficial to the economy.
According to Transparency International, the most corrupt politician ever was Suharto, dictator of Indonesia. Do I have to tell you who installed the guy, let him carry genocidal policies including but not limited to the invasion of East Timor?
I don't "hate America", I think people (Americans, French, Congolese, Tikopians) who refuse to hear criticism of their own country, stick by the motto "good or bad it's my country", or trust the government (any government) are stupid and a threat to democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unless (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately, even we Americans eventually wise-up. Bush is the most hated president in America since I've been alive (early 60's). I don't bother running bushshitlist.org anymore, because even the National Enquirer now publicizes the stupidity of many of this administrations actions. I've found that Americans fall into several groups, and we have very little mobility between them. The 'religious right' is hard-core in the Bush camp, making up 18% of Americans, and the majority of Bush's remaining meager support. Both Democrats and Republicans split about 20% of Americans that I call "glass eaters": smart people who would rather eat glass than criticize a president from their own party. There are also plenty of stupid people in every country, and we Americans are no exception. You gotta love Brittney Spear's support of Bush, for example. You also gotta love the stupidity of the Dixie Chicks attacking Bush. The dumber of us let actors and performers affect our opinions, and we tend to elect them to high offices. Then, there's a minority of Americans who can make up their own minds, and have at one point supported a Republican or a Democrat, based on their performance. This last category is the largest group, but unfortunately the others tend to outvote us.
All that said, America is still the world's greatest country, in my not so humble opinion. We've just got some clean-up work to do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Unless (Score:5, Insightful)
Without an explicit acceptance of what your country ended up doing wrong, there is little hope of avoiding a repeat of the exact same thing in some other context. How are you, as a nation, going to educate your children so that they don't fall for the exact same trap when some tragedy strikes their country when THEY are the electorate? How is it possible to do this when every single time someone brings up a criticism, some weasel pops out of the waxwork to distract attention towards irrelevant actions by others? How is your personal apology going to combat that?
Your attitude seems to be one of putting things behind you and moving on.. which is understandable considering the embarassing trauma I'm sure you are suffering from.. but this is the wrong reaction to have. At the very least, your country owes it to the millions of people whose lives were ruined in part because of its actions, to examine what went wrong, reconcile with it, and put in place measures to avoid it. And don't for a second let yourself think that this expectation is somehow limited to just America. Every country has that obligation. Some may live up to that obligation, and others may not, but whether or not some other country holds itself up to a high standard shouldn't be a basis for excusing your own. It may seem to many that America receives an unfair amount of attention on this front.. but for christ's sake.. you're the most powerful nation in the world. Your influence affects EVERYBODY.. so OF COURSE people are going to scrutinize your actions more than the actions of others. You should welcome that, and rise to the challenge, and not run up a tree like a flayed cat.
Also, don't take this as me personally addressing you. I am speaking towards general tendencies I identify in your country's population, in your media, in your national social identity.
Now, I'm not sure abut your claim about America being the world's "greatest country", but I'd agree that your country has a many qualities that others could learn from, and that you have great potential.. for both good and bad. Your history is full of examples of both, and pointing out the bad does not detract from the good. Likewise, pointing out the good does not excuse the bad (and neither does pointing out the bad in others), and does not excuse the need for an honest self-appraisal amongst your citizens on the role their country plays in the world. This is one area where your people have been far too lax.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I haven't known many Canadians to be such condescending pricks, on such a direct personal level, congratulations on your uniqueness. Last time I checked, you crazy kids up there got sidelined and gave a big steaming pile of power to a pro-military, anti-socialist group of politicos, so get off your high horse, you're heading the way of the USA now, especially with good ol' Russia trying to claim swaths of the artic shelf for oil. Canadian military buildup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Downsize DC (Score:2)
what do you do about searching without a warrant (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:what do you do about searching without a warran (Score:5, Informative)
I'm stealing this from training I went to at LISA [sage.org] last year: you tell the LEO (law enforcement officer) politely, but firmly, that as company policy you're happy to help, but all such requests must be directed to the legal department.
The legal dep't will look at it and decide what to do, and then you do it. They know their job, you know yours; they don't make decisions about storage capacity or OS support, and you and I don't make decisions about constitutionality or legality. And if/when you've got the information they're looking for, you pass it back to the lawyers and they hand it over to the LEO.
This covers your ass, your company's ass, and the LEO's ass (assuming you or your friends aren't being socially engineered). Any LEO should be happy to talk to the lawyers.
Now, all that said...I realize that this leaves out questions of conscience. If Mark Klein [wired.com] hadn't had spilled the beans, we'd have been a lot longer finding out about this problem. But as a rule, I think those situations are rare; most law enforcement stuff is <handwave>your garden variety stuff -- robbery, fraud, yadda yadda</handwave> (sorry, no citation to back that up) -- and the odds of being involved in something truly offensive is pretty slim. I hope it stays that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fsck that. Someone comes to me from law enforcement or from anywhere in the federal government asking me for copies of e-mails, my first response is going to be "Warrant?".
What are they going to do? Put me in jail for exercising our Constitutional rights? Bring it on! Hope you have fun with the media circus and the ACLU breathing down your necks.
No... Gitmo isn't a jail. It's a detention center for "terrists" and they'd probably say that you were "supporting terrists" and have you made an unperson
Due Process.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it perfect? No, probably not. But it's what we have setup now and short-cutting due process isn't the answer to finding a better way.
Re:Due Process.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I nuts or has tinfoil really become necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
When did we the people give permission to a company (ANY company), the right to spy on us? IANAL but my god everything I do know about law treats a corporate entity as a person when it comes to political speech, etc... How can one person legally spy on another? Short answer: They CAN'T!!
This is NOT about due process at all, this is about constitutionally protected RIGHTS! Where is the outrage? How can we be sitting here on
Re: (Score:2)
My guess.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My guess.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So 200 hours could mean that someone entered something onto a screen in a computer system in five minutes and it was done. But they go back and count the time it takes to maintain the system, the techs to actually do the work, the approval process with multiple people, etc etc.
Or it could mean that from the time the process started, it takes 8 days for the wiretap to be in place.
Either way, I think this is a number used to create an impression rather than to convey any meaningful information.
Um, wha? (Score:5, Interesting)
They might be claiming it takes 200 hours to get that level of evidence but that is very misleading. It took less than 14 hours for the FBI investigators persuing Zacarias Moussaoui to apply for his FISA warrant.
Re:Um, wha? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the admission that they have to spend an additional 200 hours gathering evidence is a clear admission of wrongdoing on their part. Our Constitution provides security against arbitrary searches and seizures; if it takes 200 additional hours to gather enough evidence to form a mere suspicion of wrongdoing, then the initial justification for the wiretap must be fairly flimsy.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, to me this whole interview/release of information was done as damage control; it reeks of it. I think the entire purpose of the interview was to get that one line out there, about how it's "less than 100 people" - but since we know that they are recording and data mining ALL communications, I think that is bullshit
Still using that tired, sad old line? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. It seems reasonable that shadowy international criminal figures assume that their conversations are being monitored. Presumably they know that they're targets of one of the world's most technologically advanced intelligence agencies. That's not even counting the fact that most recent incidents of terrorism [wikipedia.org] have been homegrown, and as likely to be about abortion [cnn.com] or good ol' anti-government paranoia [wkrn.com] as they are about U.S. support for Israel. [cnn.com] If it's taking you 200 hours to get a warrant, Mike, then perhaps the government could find some wasted money [wikipedia.org] that might be better spent fixing our overburdened legal system.
Every time the courts point out that the Constitution might have some bearing on this administration's actions, the "dead Americans" flag gets waved. Nothing new here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, so because potential terrorists know their conversations are monitored, we shouldn't bother monitoring them? that's a pretty weak argument. Yes, terrorists and their funders/enablers etc code their conversations [counterterrorismblog.org], but the codes can be cracked. Conspirators and criminals still need to communicate, and it would hurt, not help, an investigation to not monitor them.
During
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my argument at all, so I don't see why it's relevant.
Where, exactly, did I say that we should not be monitoring potential terrorists? There is already a mechanism for doing so (that doesn't fall afoul of the Constitution). We should be using that, and if it's taking Mike McConnell's people too long to do their jobs, then maybe it's time for competent
"Dead Americans" is a Lie. (Score:2, Interesting)
Members of the FISA think Bush has done more harm than good [cbsnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I hadn't considered the figure as man-hours. If the guy needs more staff, isn't it his job to get them? I'm sure Congress would have an easier time authorizing more hiring then trashing the Fourth Amendment.
Of course, that assumes they find it difficult to do so in the first place. Oh well.
Yeah, I'd suggest they cooperate, too... (Score:2)
Trustworthy (Score:2)
Immunity?! (Score:2)
He also ... suggests that companies like AT&T and Verizon that "cooperate" with the Administration should be granted immunity from the lawsuits they currently face regarding the issue.
Yes, of course. Putting big business above the law is a tried and tested way to ensure their continued complian^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgood behaviour and respect for the law.
(My current sig feels particularly appropriate today.)
Separation of Powers (Score:2, Insightful)
This is insane. Besides the fact that no sane individual would come to that conclusion, no one but the legislature has the legitimate power to make that decision. The administration has sworn a duty to d
Re: (Score:2)
The concern isn't really about whether or not they're allowed to spy on foreigners. We're all pretty happy
The unanswered question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same series of question and I have yet to get a reply from any Bush supporters (even when there are Bush supporters replying to the topic). The question is: Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities? What if the administration was run by Hillary Clinton? Would you trust her to use it properly and not abuse it.
Even if you ignore any current abuses of the system (as I'm sure Bush supporters do) and assume that Bush just has our best interests at heart, you can't say the same about the next administration. Or the one after that. To give any branch of government unchecked power is extremely dangerous. It's not a matter of *will* it be abused, but *when will* it be abused. That's why the Constitution set up 3 houses of power (Congress, President, Courts) and gave them the ability to check each other's power. (e.g. Congress can make a law, President can veto it, Congress can override the veto, Courts can strike it down, Congress can pass it as a Constitutional Amendment.) Unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping is unconstitutional and the only way it's being pushed forward is through major FUD. (Americans *WILL DIE* if you don't let us do whatever we want to do!!!!)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. I don't like what Bush has done -- but I would not trust anyone, including myself, with that kind of power. I've got my political heroes, but I'd be just as nervous about giving them this ability.
But Americans WILL indeed die (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. While I may fundamentally disagree with Hillary Clinton (along with most of the other Democratic contenders), I do believe that she had good intentions and wants the best for the country. I don't think she would abuse it, just as I don't think that the Bush administrati
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, I hope so... seriously.
Millions of Americans have died over the last 300+ years defending the liberties and freedoms that make this country great. I certainly hope more people will put their lives on the line to preserve it (and I don't mean the soldiers fighting in Iraq, who are just warm bodies being put into the oven over there to stoke the War Furnace).
The misunderstood issue... (Score:2)
- Monitoring for foreign communications does not require, should not require, and will never require, a warrant, which brings us to:
- Monitoring of foreign communications where both ends are outside of the United States, but where the passage of the traffic through equipment within the United States is incidental should not require a warrant;
- Monitoring of communications where the target of said monitoring is (reasonably* believed to be) outside of th
Re:The unanswered question... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem at hand with the FISA issue is that the wiretaps are being used on Americans, located in America. It is not the cases of purely foreign wiretaps that people have issue with, it is the unsupervised use of them against NON-foreigners that is the problem. And the fact that the administration knowingly and willingly sidestepped mandatory FISA regulations early on in the process? Are they to be left completely unaccountable for that? You seem like a reasonable person who accepts the rule of law, however you also seem to be turning a blind eye to the fact that the very laws and checks you are advocating and believe in have already been breached. Also, the justification for expansion of powers along the lines of "we've stopped/will stop lots of crimes but we can't tell you about any of them" is hardly an acceptable reason for a government supposedly of and for the people. Do you disagree that a system of checks and balances cannot properly function if one side is completely cloaked in secrecy?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jason posted Would you like the next administration to have unsupervised warrant-less wiretapping capabilities?
you responded Yes, the next administration should have "unsupervised" warrant-less wiretapping capabilities of our foreign adversaries.
P
Understandable Misunderstanding (Score:4, Insightful)
Every intel collector and analyst is trained from day one in the law, whether they be military or civilian. They can all quote the name and contents of the document that governs the ways the NSA and our government may designate intel targets both within and without our own borders. Anyone who collects on a target that has not been sanctioned from on-high, even if it is his or her own phone number, is on a fast track to prison.
The targets that are being monitored within our own borders are so because the trail from overseas led back here. Known terrorists, affiliates, fund raisers, materials providers, etc., made calls to people here in the USA, or people in the USA called them. The foreign phone would already be under surveillance, and of course the connection to the USA should raise questions for any sane law enforcement agency. The law provides for monitoring US citizens in this and other very narrowly-defined cases, though they must still be officially designated as targets, which is not a simple process. Even the warrantless taps only give a day or so of leeway, the government must prove in a hurry that they really need to be listening in or all data must be purged.
And perhaps the most important reason that you can go through your day without worrying if someone is listening in to you asking your Aunt Bea to bring her special blueberry pie to the family reunion is that analysts are Americans and have Aunt Bea's too, and they have the same expectation of privacy that you have. If they participate in a big-brother system that monitors our populace at a whim, then it's only a matter of time before that system grows and starts to eat its own.
The intel community is a very paranoid place - both about what others are doing, but incredibly more so about that activities of its own members.
Evidence of Abuse. (Score:2, Informative)
You are lost in specifics of legitimate business and have missed evidence of political abuse of process. The ties between corporate and government intelligence allow routine, unreasonable search. Government agents are also being used for political purposes though illegal wiretaping and other programs. You might have noticed the screening portion of Bush "crowd control" [slashdot.org], where political opposition is excluded from public events. Detailed records are being kept for innocent Americans, and we have dipped s [dailykos.com]
wHY ADMIT? (Score:5, Interesting)
The fundamental problem is that civil liberties are barely permit after-the-fact punishment of criminals. Many get off because their liberties were violated. That's OK, because the criminal justice system doesn't need to convict everyone, it just needs to act as a deterrent.
Using the criminal justice system to prevent wrongdoing [terrorism] is not what it was designed to do. Preventative vs investigative. Airtight vs failure-tolerant. It requires unusual actions and far greater intrusion into liberties (esp privacy). Some [frightened] people are willing to sacrifice others liberties (and perhaps their own). Others are not. A fundamental conflict between different people. Politicians can exploit this and choose whichever side they wish.
Personally, I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
Re: (Score:2)
You last sentence is the root of the whole issue:
Terrorism == trojan (Score:2)
I've come to think of terrorism as trojan exploiting a bug/feature in homo-sapiens wiring/OS:
For thousands of generations as gatherer-hunters, homo sapiens has been optimized in an information-impoverished environment. So we react quickly and strongly to news of any threat. Those that didn't, didn't survive.
Terrorism is a modern (~100 yrs) invention. It was not as effective in antiquity simply because far fewer people would hear of the fear-inspiring event. Electronica has c
A simple lesson needs to be taught (Score:5, Insightful)
Illegal surveillance of Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
Nixon pulled this when he was in office. Misusing the FBI and CIA to spy on Americans who did not agree with the Republican party.
I cannot say the Democrats are any better. Clinton used the IRS to harass those he hated as well.
I said it before
HEEEELLLLLLL NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough already with this "You so something bad for us and you're safe" bit.
Soap (check) -> Ballot (Check) -> Jury (Forbidden by Law) -> Ammo?
I'm not one to advocate for violence, but ya'know... when you have eliminated the impossible (or ineffective in this case) whatever remains...
this makes me mad
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Based on what damages? I'm just curious. If you found out that AT&T helped the NSA listen to your phone calls, would that cause you $1 mi
Re: (Score:2)
Purjury or Aid & comfort?.... (Score:2)
How sad some of you are (Score:2)
Yet we will sacrifice your rights and others to be protected from the slim chance of dying via terrorist but if anyone then wants to stop you from eating bad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amendment IV (Score:2)
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.
BAD SUMMARY? (Score:3, Informative)
"Law enforcement officials are targeting fewer than 100 people in the United States for secret court-approved wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, the top U.S. intelligence official said in an interview published yesterday."
Given the clever wordplay of the Bush administration, should we assume that there have been 100 wiretaps, or should we believe they're being clever with their words (again) and there are 100 wiretaps aimed at disrupting terrorist networks, but an unknown number of warrantless wiretaps for other purposes?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh c'mon (i know it's not your argument, but it's ridiculous). The govt detected Osama's activity way ahead of time, don't tell me they relied on wiretaps for all their intelligence. And yet, they let it happen all because of stupid paperwork. What the US needs is smart people in the agencies, not more paranoid wiretapping laws.
Besides - wiretapping hasn't stopped drug traffic and we know how heavy it is. Do they expect us to believe that by allowing wiretappin
Only 100 Americans? (Score:2)
AT&T and Verizon cooperate, eh? What if the terrorists use a different long distance network instead?
Not It! (Score:2)
Whew.... did I say that in time? I'd hate to be that 100.
Lawsuits (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the reason the current administration is so secretive, they feel that the American people wouldn't stand for some of the things they are doing if it was known.
They feel that they have to do it whatever way they are doing it to do it right.
Therefore, the American public doesn't need to know.
Although I don't agree, I have to say there is some merit to this idea. This is our fault, though, not the administrations. We, as a whole, have a lemming mentality. The group is easily manipulated by fear, and by spin. It's too much to ask for, I suppose, that the average American spend as much time thinking about personal rights and freedoms as they do on a new car purchase. Come to think of it, I don't want that either. I was looking for an example of something the average Joe would think on a lot before making a purchase, and the realization hit me that we, again as gross averages, buy cars, hire doctors, buy food.... All on impulse.... I'm so depressed....
My girlfriend just pointed out that we spend a lot of time thinking about Celebrity sex. I could use that as a comparison.... Now, I'm REALLY depressed...
Wait, there's an NID? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya...Stargate fucking rules
Sloppy Mistake or Sly Lie (Score:4, Funny)
There are many people inside the United States who are not Americans. The communications laws (IIRC from my work and play in the industry) use the broadly expansive category "US persons" which means anybody physically in the country.
There are green card holders and other legitimate workers, resident aliens of all kinds, and illegal aliens, just to name a few.
Other non-American inside the USA include students, tourists, and Democrats.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people confuse being asked to do something with being told to do something. For example, they CANNOT compel y
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you know for a fact that some dude is a terrorist, or deals with people you know for a fact is a terrorist. All go. But if you just think they are
More so, how do you want to be treated when you visit other countries? "do unto others as
Anyways, tourists in the states HAVE RIGHTs despite what the local population mig
Re: (Score:2)
The "we have to act all tough to defend our lives" is nonsense. You don't see Canada, or most of Europe randomly violating the rights of people, yet I don't even know the last time there was a terrorist attack in Canada, oh maybe the FLQ in the 60s/70s.
And yes, Canada has a "spy agency," but I have yet to read about them violating peoples rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that virtually everyone is not a target of government. My life for instance, probably has never popped up on any radars beyond some faceless name on an passenger manifest here or there. I'm not paranoid into thinking that some dude at the NSA is watching my every move. But imagine, I had a dissenting opinion. How
Re:100 americans denied due process (Score:5, Informative)
Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.
I find the concept that "They are not entitled to the same rights as citizens" a very common, and disturbing concept.
That being said, there are some very specific rights, that are explicitly awarded to citizens (see the 26th amendment), for example the right to vote. the fact that other rights don't explicitly state that they are for citizens, would very strongly imply that they are for all people in the country
You're claiming this is from experience? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.
how do you figure that? a quick grep of the US constitution doesn't find the word "citizen" in any relevant amendment. i do see many instances of the word "person" though, so i think they'd fit that definition, unless the courts have ruled that "person"=="citizen" and not "person"=="random human being in this country".
Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us.
i thought that the 9/11 guys were American citizens. or were they just here on legitimate visas? i forget and i can't find any info on it through the firewall and filtering here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)