White House Says Phone Wiretaps Will Resume For Now 262
austinhook brings us news that the U.S. government has resumed wiretapping with the help of telecommunications companies. The companies are said to have "understandable misgivings" over the unresolved issue of retroactive immunity for their participation in past wiretapping. Spy agencies have claimed that the expiration of the old legislation has caused them to miss important information. The bill that would grant the immunity passed in the Senate, but not in the House.
How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
Darwinian M&M duels (Score:3, Funny)
I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the bl
Re:Darwinian M&M duels (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, I corrected that for you. Bush, like anyone else still afraid of "terrorists", is a huge pussy.
Re:News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way. His attorney general when he first announced the program has left the post in disgrace. Congress refused to pass an act providing retroactive immunity to the telcos who first participated in program. The ACLU and EFF have filed lawsuits because of the wiretapping program. People across the county have spoken out against the program. And still he announces that the warrantless wiretapping has resumed. Sounds pretty brazen to me.
On the one hand, I want to believe that he is doing it with the best of intentions but is just to stupid to realize the long-term implications of such a thing. On the other hand, I am very, very afraid that he knows exactly what he is doing. In either case, this program is a (tm) Bad Thing and needs to end, permanently.
Re:News at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like any lawsuit can do anything to him. He's got immunity. And it's not like he cares what people speak out against.
Courage requires risking something. Bush's merely an obstinate simpleton, something a coward can easily be. As long as he doesn't risk getting smacked in the face about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Informative)
Assume they recorded a conversation that was important, and part of that conversation was let's talk every Thursday. Or they said we're putting everything in place, we'll contact you shortly with the time.
Yah, that would be true if the current wiretaps were to expire when the legislation expired. But the law was written to specifically say they didn't. Any existing wiretaps expire when they were originally set to expire.
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is the White House line and its a lie. Existing authorizations continue to be in force for a year. That takes us past the next inauguration.
The only case where the administration could not conduct a warantless tap is if there was an entirely new terrorist organization to emerge in the next twelve months. And they could still get a wiretap, they just have to get a warrant.
The issue here is not providing immunity to the telcos, it is providing immunity to the Administration. They want to be able to shred all the evidence of their criminal activities before a Democrat takes over. And they are willing to hold the security of the country hostage till they get their way.
Up till now it has been sufficient for the Bushies to cry National Security and the Democrats would run frightened to hide. Now they have accidentally called the Administration's bluff they have discovered the consequences of standing up to Bully Bush - absolutely nothing. Bush's approval ratings dropped by ten points to 19%. The wiretap issue was gone after a single media cycle.
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're wrong, something quite significant has come out of this: Bush has proved himself wrong. The gov't has been, and still is, saying that without this warrantless wiretapping, we are no longer safe. By calling their bluff, they forced Bush to say that he would veto the bill if it didn't include telecom immunity. In effect, and in his on words, he has put the well-being of the telcos over the safety of the American public! If this wiretapping is so instrumental to our safety, why would he threaten a veto, or in this case, let the legislation expire?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How do they know? (Score:5, Interesting)
He means that Bush's argument goes something like this:
1. The warrantless wiretapping program is essential for our national security.
2. We must not let it expire and we must enhance its regulation or else the country will be unsafe.
3. Oh and by the way, we could use retro-active immunity for the telcos in order to ensure their cooperation.
His focus when speaking to the American people has been on #1 and #2, in essence playing the "fear card".
By threatening to veto a bill that provides #1 and prevents #2 (his primary argument), just because it does not contain #3 (an auxiliary argument), he is conveying the message that retro-active immunity is more important than national security itself.
Now, you can argue -- as you you seem to do in your comment -- that it is Bush's opinion that retro-active immunity is essential for national security, and that may very well be the case. However, whether it is more important than having the program in the first place is debatable, and understood by many to be an indefensible position; and at the very least gives the appearance of a strawman to the first two arguments I mentioned.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about a coverup for administration crimes, nothing else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's still BS, because even if a new terrorist organization emerged, they could still use existing FISA to begin wiretaps immediately, and just get a retroactive FISA warrant within 72 hours. This whole fiasco is a recursive nest of lies, deceit, and illegality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it'd undermine their power grab (aka the warrantless wiretapping program(s)) by showing that warrants get the job done. Isn't it great how, every time someone tries to force the Bush Administration to follow the law, which is more than sufficient to get the job done, there is screams of "you're making us vulnerable to the terrorists"? Bush can't let the man behind the curtain show his face (that the law works, and p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's never been about getting a warrant, or conducting the wiretapping, or any legitimate purpose. It's always about immunizing the telecoms so that the lawsuits can't proceed to discovery phase -- which is just a way of saying, it was about immunizing the administration from its misdeeds.
Resuming wiretaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Which just goes to show you that they never had any intention to stop wiretapping, just to throw a big tantrum over it and then go back to spying on Americans the good old fashioned way, illegally.
AG agrees wiretaps are illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Glen Greenwald has been on this beat for a long time now. Read more about Mukasy's recent admissionhere [salon.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Seriously moderators, if you have a bad reaction reading something here today on Slashdot, it's probably just due to your cognitive dissonance, and for your own safety, it would be best to leave before your head explodes.
Remember, it's for your own safety, we're here to protect you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone, not just Americans, deserve basic human rights. You may think you can put a label on someone (EG "terrorist") and then they somehow become less human, so you can do whatever you damn well please.
What if, say, Japan or France or some other foreign nation decided that we were a "terrorist threat," and decided to begin wire tapping conversations going from America to Japan or France? Or originating in those countries? Wouldn't that ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People just don't have the basic moral character that we like to think they have. Rattle them a little bit and suddenly they'll gladly sign off on tortureing someone to death if it could hypothetically lower the risk of an unspecified something happening to any American at any point in the future
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And since you seem so confused, the Constitution is all about inalienable human rights, not inalienable American rights.
So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.
If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?
Also, "
Re:Resuming wiretaps (Score:4, Insightful)
So does that make the CIA an illegal organization then? I mean, it's their job to spy on foreign countries.
That's a strawman. Firstly because it's the NSA that's conducting surveillance, not the CIA. Secondly because I said the Constitution requires a warrant to conduct a search, not that spying is illegal. Having judicial oversight is the designated balance between the government not being able to perform its duties to defend the country and the government growing into an oppressive tyranny. I have no problem with legal intelligence gathering. The rules are spelled out, and there's a process that allows for changing them.
If the Constitution applies to ALL people of the earth, shouldn't we be invading all these other countries and removing their current, illegal governments? Shouldn't these people be voting in elections and sending the winners to Washington to serve in Congress? Shouldn't we be taxing their populations? Shouldn't we be using our military to guarantee these rights to the peoples of the world?
We have been using our military to "spread democracy" for 60 years, and the CIA to overthrow democracy and install dictators, and then often have to send in the military to remove them. It's why so many people around the world hate us. If an oppressed group of people need and seek outside help, then I have no problem with international forces coming to the rescue. We just need to follow our Constitution by declaring war with a clear and well-defined goal and follow the Geneva Conventions.
Also, "inalienable human rights" was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Tell me how I'm the confused one again?
You're confused because you inferred a quotation where the was none, notice the lack of such notation in my original post. The discussion is regarding the legality of certain government actions. The Declaration of Independence says why we needed a new government. The Constitution defines that government, in such a way as to honor those inalienable human rights. So any discussion of what the government can and can't do must therefore refer to the Constitution.
Re:Resuming wiretaps (Score:5, Informative)
So it's perfectly OK for the government to wiretap someone's phone, if they get a warrant. However, this raises three concerns: first, if they get a tip, they need to act immediately, and getting a warrant from a judge normally takes time. Second, it may be difficult to explain to a judge who hasn't dealt with matters of national security before why the government really should be wiretapping this person's phone. Finally, warrants are normally a matter of public record, and we wouldn't want terrorists to know which phones we're wiretapping!
So, Congress addressed these concerns by passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It establishes a secret court that can issue warrants without making them public; the judges have a ridiculously high security clearance and have training and experience dealing with matters of national security, and the warrants issued by the FISA court are retroactive for 72 hours - so the government can start eavesdropping immediately, then file the paperwork a couple days later and everything is OK. As it turns out, the FISA court is little more than a rubber stamp (apparently out of thousands of warrant applications, they've only ever rejected five). But this allows the government to comply with the Constitutional requirements laid out in the fourth amendment.
The problem is that the Bush administration is ignoring the law and wiretapping people's phones without getting warrants from the FISA court.
You mentioned that these calls have at least one party overseas. Even if you interpret "the people" to include only US citizens on American soil, if only one party is overseas, you're still eavesdropping on a conversation involving an American, so it's still illegal regardless of who they're talking to (if you don't have a warrant).
Also, how do you know the conversations the government is wiretapping all involve foreigners? Sure, that's why President Bush says he wants the power to wiretap without a warrant, but with no oversight whatsoever, all we have is his word, which most of us don't hold in high esteem at the moment.
Does this clear things up?
Well that answers the immunity question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Impeachment (Score:4, Insightful)
I beg to disagree, Impeachment is as important now as it ever was, and should be pursued (IMHO) even after the present administration has left office.
Why? Because the basic purpose of impeachment is not political theater, throwing the bums out, or any of the other nonsense that is commonly cited. Impeachment is about investigating plausible claims of wrong doing by high ranking officials and if the claims are true meting out appropriate consequences. We are in a very risky point in our history, but not because of the offenses against our constitution presently being perpetrated, but rather because of the precedent we setting by ignoring them. The third amendment
is interesting in that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the present administration hasn't been plausibly accused of violating. And yet we do nothing.
So turn the question around: if we aren't going to impeach now, when would we? And what sort of message does that send to future administrations, of either party?
--MarkusQ
Re:Well that answers the immunity question... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Obama is elected - "I haven't had enough time in four years to change anything, so elect me again".
At the next congressional elections - "We haven't had enough time with a Democrat as President, so elect us again".
(Note, this post is not a message against Obama, or for any other candidate. Just pointing out details regarding a candidate who everyone thinks will change things, but who is simply another politician, and an individual person, up against the whole of the political machine).
I call B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiiiiiiight. If you can't illegally wiretap, how could you possibly know what you missed? Besides, there is a perfectly good FISA court still around; you can even wiretap and get a warrant 72 hours later.
Fear mongering sucks. We're a better nation than this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the age of "Enemy of the State" is upon us, I believe they have been doing it for a very long time! But that is just me and from what I hear.
It is not just the US either, it is UK too http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/29/interception_communications_commissioner/ [theregister.co.uk] although they keep getting "wrong numbers" ahem! Bet it is those 0898 numbers
psychic warriors (Score:2)
Given the reports of the value of the intelligence before the Iraq war, and the continuing reports of bad intelligence about other areas, it may not be unreasonable to assume that most of the intelligence gathering by the CIA is indeed being run by psychic agents. The satellite they just shot down - it contained a very highly instrumented dowsing rod.
Sounds almost like a comedy film plot - go into the CIA and see women with crystal balls (probably wearing trench coats), levitating tables, windowless ro
Re:I call B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I call B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the issue, I think, is the paperwork. For instance, each application must be personally approved by the Attorney General (can you imagine poor Mr. Gonzales having to review and sign hundreds or thousands of such applications at a time?).
The surveillance carried out in support of the "war on terror" is orders of magnitude greater than was contemplated when the FISA court was created. So Bush & Co. simply decided to ignore the problem and proceed without bothering to get warrants from the FISA court.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it actually changes anything, mind you. Same agenda, different face.
Re:I call B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
So I hate to see the Republican Fear Marketing slogan War on Terror used. It is really like the 1984 war with the Northeast (if I remember right). That continuous war that keeps the population under martial law and rallied around the flag. For what, for accumlation of power.
So the War against Terror is just like the War against Poverty or the War against Aids. Its not a war, its a slogan, lets not forget that. It should not invoke war powers for the Executive branch. Actually it did not, the war powers were granted to go to war against Iraq because they were claimed (falsely and brazenly and seemingly with full knowledge of that falsness) have weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Elise Plame Wilson was outed as a CIA agent because that lie was being exposed by her husband.
Lets not forget the War on Terror is just a marketing slogan and get on with the business of cleaning up the mess in Iraq and the mess in Afganistan.
Terrists exist, there are terrorist who are targeting the US and other countries as well, but giving up our Constitutional rights and protections isn't the way to go. The Executive has lead us into improsonment with no charges, lack of due process, torture, rendition, wiretapping,
Marketing slogans should be reserved for those selling soap.
Re:I call B.S. (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently we are not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're a better nation than this.
I think it has been proven time and time again, that, in fact, we are not.
We like to think we are, we congratulate ourselves for being it, and maybe once upon a time we were. But our morals and ethics have faced the biggest test they have had in a long time, if not ever, and we failed. Pretty spectacularly.
I think the fact that we were debating if "waterboarding" constituted torture, on C-SPAN, clearly indicates that ethics, morals, and justice are just so much rhetori
Re:I call B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that rather than address the issue on the merits, you chose instead to make an ad hominem attack on all reporters, say they are unintelligent and shouldn't be trusted, and project an air of arrogance and disdain to further deflect any disagreement.
You seem to be willfully diverting the question from the merits of the administration's remarks to an untruthful characterization of the reporting, a typical tactic of administration apologists. So let's summarize:
1) The administration says something
2) It gets accurately reported
3) You call reporters unintelligent, an ad hominem attack on the messenger,
without actually showing they did anything wrong
4) You assume an air of arrogance and disdain to deflect any questioning of your unjustified statements
5) In the end you have contributed nothing to the discussion of what actually happened
Maybe next time you can actually address the issue rather than mischaracterizing its reporting? What's actually a bit sad is that your comment was modded +3 insightful for making that little bit of flamebait.
I just don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
What does Bush want, other than to spy on everyone with no supervision whatsoever?
Oh, yeah, he wants us to not sue Verizon, AT&T, whoever. Well, sorry guys, you had a responsibility, as citizens of the USA, to tell the government no. I mean, WTF, corporations run this country anyway...
Re:I just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you believe that the court has been infiltrated somehow by "the terrorists", there's only one logical reason for this: both the court and the public would be outraged if the real reason for the surveillance became known.
Or it's like the **AA & the DMCA: FISA was a good idea at the time, but now the government has realized how much extra work it is to comply with the law & they're desperate to get around it.
However, the fact that the telecoms are having "understandable misgivings" after the collapse of the immunity bill tells us all we need to know about how their corporate lawyers view the situation. If we're lucky, the truth will get declassified in 25 years, but I doubt it.
Re:I just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the previous rubber-stamp system left a paper-trail (albeit one they could claim was "classified for reasons of national security") as to who they were spying on and why, and thus had some amount of accountability, no matter how tiny.
The new system does not.
If there's anything this administration hates, it's accountability.
Re:I just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
You get a warrant when you want to spy on SOMEONE. You don't get a warrant when you want to capture all inbound and outbound (from the country) telephone traffic and put it through your NSA analyzer supercomputer thingymajig looking for suspicious activity. You see, for something like this to work, you need a very large sample of data to compare to. You will never be given a warrant for little Felipe who wants to call mommy back in Italy to talk about spaghetti recipes. But you need that data as a base line.
Yeah, and we have a process for that... (Score:2)
All this administration needed to do was demonstrate that was warranted and it could have had Congress modify the law on a vote. Maybe it's ok if we do that. Maybe it's possible to do in an accountable way?
Just doing it, with no accountability, is the core problem.
That's a law violation and a crime against the people. That debt needs to be paid.
Hope Dodd is up for another stand or two, because they are not gonna yield on this one.
Parent does get it (Score:2)
Now he says that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, what a brilliant idea! Too bad Bush didn't suggest that BEFORE authorizing an illegal program and goading the telecom companies into going along with it. Had he done so he wouldn't need to get retroactive immunity for them.
I think everybody understands that in the height of an emergency tough decisions have to be made, but the next priority should have been to move for revision to the FISA legislation [wikipedia.org], not keep the thing secret for several years and then try to bail out the organizations involved once people found out the law was being broken. Don't like constraints of the FISA law? Conform to it, revise the legislation, or break the law and face the legal consequences. There is no other option for a person holding office who has sworn an oath to uphold the law. Well, there isn't supposed to be.
Bush Blows It (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush has his new Attorney General lying to back him up [dailykos.com], but they can't even keep their stories straight [washingtonpost.com]:
It's obvious that it's Bush's fault [salon.com] the PAA expired without extension:
The bottom line is that Bush's own Attorney General just admitted that he and Bush and the rest are repeatedly breaking the law:
What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?
Re:Bush Blows It (Score:5, Informative)
approximately 40 cases (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bush Blows It (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, what makes you say that Cheney's not the president right now? And who says he can't be impeached, on his own charges, or as siamese accomplice to Bush? In case you don't recall, Nixon's VP Agnew was forced to resign first under threat of impeachment (for tax fraud over bribery). Which showed that their gang was vulnerable, wh
Re: (Score:2)
That said, it could be harder to remove Cheney than Bush, because his crimes are more traditional stuffing the pockets of his friends, than outright lying to c
Re:Bush Blows It (Score:4, Insightful)
With which Democrats can abuse all those "Bush/Cheney" tyrannical powers without the Iraq War that gets you caught. But with the Iraq War that gets you paid.
Quite a racket. Which is why Americans should force them to impeach, or at least make it as costly as possible not to. Because Republicans will be in no position of any kind to offer the kind of "opposition party" these Democrats couldn't muster even the past 8 years with very solid minorities and blatant catastrophes.
The missing party, as usual. is the American people. And decent country would be out in the streets with pitchforks and torches by now, especially with economic collapse staring everyone in the face. Instead, we've got Slashdot and the Daily Kos. And President VP Cheney.
oblig (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Invasion of the US by the coalition of the willing. When you don't deal with your own, and other countries have to step in, it's a lot worse for you than if you'd done it yourself. Just a thought
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does it take to get impeached in this country? Will someome please blow Bush already, so we can finally get it over with?
Yes, that way we can get Dick Cheney put directly in charge as soon as possible. I wholeheartedly support this measure.
Re: (Score:2)
These sources are as "quaint" to Republicans as are the Geneva Conventions they've been torturing for years.
Corporate intrest (Score:3, Interesting)
~Dan
Re:Corporate intrest (Score:4, Interesting)
First, don't minimize the scope of the government of the largest and strongest nation coercing private enterprise to bend to its will and to do illegal acts. That goes WAY beyond the issues of private commerce between individuals and recordings-producers.
With that said; what the fux do you think DRM *is* except a way to "wiretap" the private individual (aka. customer). Without judicial review. Unilaterally.
Personally I think it's a violation of RICO and monopolistic to enforce law through technology when the issues of fair-use are not resolved by a court. That's another rant though.
They're playing to cover their own crimes (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a word for this: Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part? There is no promise that any democratic administration would stop this.
Why? Because it's fascism, or, as one of the guys who invented fascism (Mussolini) caled it: Corporatism.
The American Empire is dying and it's a sad thing to watch it act, as WS Burroughs said in 1984, as the single greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams. [youtube.com]
RS
It's a smokescreen - you're already wiretapped (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Much easier if you shipped the Brits to the USA to listen and then ask them if they heard anything interesting
BUT the main thing is, it looks like they've even stopped bothering to go through the proper motions. And that should worry the people in the USA (and people elsewher
Just by way of reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
We were not completely surprised by the 9-11 hijackers, the problem was we didn't act on what we did know. Even then we knew. We knew without the Patriot Act, we knew without wholesale spying on the American public, we knew without the Protect America Act. We knew and did nothing. So now the solution is to spy on Americans. Makes almost as much sense as being attacked by terrorists operating out of Afghanistan and responding by attacking Iraq.
Only a Republican would think it makes sense to fight terrorism by monitoring my 83 year old mom's phone calls.
And, just in case this dust up has interfered with the intelligence community's ability to monitor the activity of Americans, the bake sale has been postponed until next week because the lady running it broke her hip and mom change her hair appointment to 11 am this week because Marge's family is flying in from Montana. And dad still can't figure out why his pineapple plants keep dying in the front yard. Now you're up to date.
Re:Just by way of reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
subject lives in climate where pineapples can grow, similar to asian areas with high islamic radical populations. relatives in Montana which is known abode of militia groups. subject altering appearance at 11am.
action: subject to be reclassified as probable threat to national security.
Revolution 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush has agreed to pardon the telcos? (Score:2)
Resume? (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole issue of the US gov. spying on .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why such spying has resumed, or hasn't stopped, is because its an election year.
And that should be obvious.
Is this against the constitution of the united states? Absolutely, as it is an intent to invade privacy in order to deceive.
This is nothing new as even the "Declaration of Independence" identifies government abuse of its citizens, even being specific.
To All: When was the last time you read it?
Now what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what's worse, not having any input at all, or knowing that it won't be used in any decisions in the end anyway.
Re:Now what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that, this isn't just about wiretapping phones. It sets a very dangerous precedent through which the executive branch can bypass the legislative branch's powers and act illegally with no fear of repercussions.
The end of the Afghan war (Score:2, Interesting)
The war in the Afghanistan ended not by the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The true end of the war was on 9/11. It was the logical final of supporting and financing the religious fanatics around the world.
At the same time it was a wrongful attack on the civilian targets which forever changed t
How unpatriotic (Score:2)
This has to be a cover-up (Score:2)
The Bush administration has to be covering up something very embarrassing. Something worse than what we know about already. Otherwise it wouldn't be spending its remaining political capital on this issue.
If the Bush administration really had a national security case for this, they could make it in a classified briefing for the House and Senate intelligence committees with the people at the CIA, NSA and telcos directly involved testifying under oath. They haven't done that.
The Bush administration like
Re: (Score:3)
There's no mystery: the Bush administration began spying illegally on Americans soon after it came to power [nytimes.com], that is months *before* Sept. 11. Not only did the system fail to prevent the attack even though much information was already known about the hijackers, but it was initiated during a period when ter
Criminal charges (Score:3, Insightful)
That definitely wouldn't be Clinton (too much of an insider) and it wouldn't be McCain (he's shown he's a good boy after all), and Paul hasn't got a snowball's chance. I can only hope that Obama wouldn't pull a Ford and pardon Bush "so the country can move on".
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'll have to pin our hopes on the next President telling his AG to investigate and pursue criminal charges against those responsible in the Bush Administration and in Congress.
It'll never happen, no matter who the president winds up being. Any administration doesn't want to look back on the previous one, and realistically they only have so much political capital to spend. This administration has screwed things up so badly that it'd actually be a waste of political capital for a new President to p
Re:Criminal charges (Score:5, Insightful)
catch22 (Score:3, Insightful)
LAST TIME - Pay Attention (Score:5, Insightful)
It's wholesale data-mining.
Spying in the Death Star: The AT&T Whistle-Blower Tells His Story
Mark Klein = Patriot
Former AT&T technician
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/kleininterview [wired.com]
In room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco, California is a SPLITTER that duplicates ALL traffic and diverts it by the way of a proprietary black box to an unnamed acronymed agency.
Mark Klein called it a "Big Brother Machine".
It can't be more clear than that.
For all the folks that still don't get IT, good God!, go back to sleep, and or, quit posting drivel.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody should troll a terrorist attack, get caught, and then expose the whole mess of no fisa warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a combo Darwin "Peace Prize" Award sort of thing. You might even get a "Purple Heart"...
Spying is OK if accountable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a vast difference between "we must operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and the law" and "we should do nothing".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never seen anyone show such blatant disregard for the constitution. The fourth amendment. [wikipedia.org]
This is nothing like "requiring the police to get warrants for using radar guns to check if someone is speeding," because they're observing something in public. Listening to your private communications, without your knowledge, and without judicial review, is something entirely else. You expect that to be private. It would be no different if the NSA decided to open all of your mail and read it, without having th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we ignore this, not only will our next leaders continue it, but Bush will go unpunished.
He's by far the worst president the USA has ever had. Not just in what he's personally done, but in the lack of respect for law that he's instilled into the office and various three-letter-agencies.
If, on the other hand, he was stripped of power, even a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not to say nothing can or will be done. The Democrats have finally started making hay out of wreckage of the Bush administration--letting the surveillance bill lapse because it contained retroactive immunity for the telecoms is a good start. That allows lawsuits to proceed against them that, o