Bush Demands Amnesty for Spying Telecoms 420
The Bush administration and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are poised to square off in front of a San Francisco federal judge Tuesday to litigate the constitutionality of legislation immunizing the nation's telecoms from lawsuits accusing them of helping the government spy on Americans without warrants. "'The legislation is an attempt to give the president the authority to terminate claims that the president has violated the people's Fourth Amendment rights,' the EFF's [Cindy] Cohn says. 'You can't do that.'"
If Bush wants it... (Score:4, Insightful)
...why doesn't he just issue a blanket pardon?
My guess: he doesn't want to take responsibility for getting the telcos off the hook.
This isn't a criminal case. (Score:5, Insightful)
... why doesn't [Bush] just issue a blanket pardon?
Perhaps because pardons apply to criminal cases (government vs. person-to-be-punished-for-wrongdoing) while these are civil cases (wronged people demanding damages be paid by those who wronged them). I think the pardon power only applies to the former.
Re:This isn't a criminal case. (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that he did (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly that kind of case in point... this last Presidential administration -- and Congress, too -- have done quite a few things lately that they probably can't do... legally. The fact that they did do them has no bearing on the law.
No (Score:3, Funny)
A law is in effect until it is repealed or invalidated. Failure to repeal or invalidate it does not mean that it is legal! It could be grossly unconstitutional, and unless and until someone successfully challenges it, it will remain in effect.
Historically, however, such laws have not lasted. Sooner or later, they have tended to be invalidated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...why doesn't he just issue a blanket pardon?
Maybe because a pardon could be seen as admitting something illegal happened. Bush has always seemed hellbent on elevating the executive branch. Early on I assumed it was because it meant more power for him, but even now he's just out to vindicate another terrible republican president who said "...when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not in this case. The telecoms already had amnesty if they were presented with a lawful order. Bush classified those orders and the telecoms can't present them. Now keep in mind, when I say lawful order, I don't mean a legally sound one, I mean if they presented the documentation to the telecoms that the law required, they would have an affirmative defense.
If you read the immunity law, you will find that all it does is use a secrete court to discover if the government presented their orders. If they did, th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the issue is that these are Executive Orders issued under National Security directives, so they are not public records. By exposing secret wiretapping, a judge could ask for the (probably illegal) executive order that allowed it and that, according to the Bush administration, would be a national security risk.
In some respects, if true, this is as illegal as Watergate, but because it was issued as an EO and EOs are by definition law, a judge needs to review and strike down the order a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just so we are on the same pages here. FISA already allow the government to issue papers prescribing and allowing wire taps. So that in and of itself is not in violation of any laws. Who it
Re:If Bush wants it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And how could it be wrong? It saved us from the ter
Re:If Bush wants it... (Score:4, Insightful)
And Bush et al would much prefer there is no further investigation at all.
Because:
1) I am SURE none of those telcos would have participated in this activity without complete and total assurances from the Bush administration...which these companies will produce if they think for a second they will be convicted.
2) It seems quite likely that any convictions will occur during the Obama administration - which almost certainly won't pardon the telcos. Why would Obama put his neck out, for things which didn't even occur during his administration?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nixon was pardoned before any crime was charged formally. They didn't even impeach him. So it doesn't look like there has to be a conviction for a pardon to happen.
Current law and the law at the time of the TSP was that if a telecom was presented with a warrant or legal document
What could... (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can!
Just have Poppy buy you into office so that the people that have the strings attached to important parts of your body can pull what they want, when the want.
Seriously, we have just witnessed the greatest bald-faced rape of the Constitution since ... forever. The thing (or the most recent thing) that turns my stomach is that there is a very good chance they will get away with it.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hoover and the Red scare?
What we did to the Japanese under Roosevelt after Perl Harbor?
Hell, what we did to the Germans during the first WW
This isn't the first time we (Americans) looked and saw the enemy in every corner and it won't be the last.
People that say Bush is the worst we ever had have no sense of history
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Funny)
Perl Harbor
Only on Slashdot?
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I never get tired of that one clip they always show in History Channel documentaries where that battleship explodes into a huge burst of ampersands and dollar signs.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Bush has a strong case for worst ever based on the combination of his catastrophes.
Sure, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon each had a hand in a mismanaged war. John Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR each violated civil liberties to stop alleged enemies of the state. Many presidents have overseen the causes of recessions and other economic maladies. How many have been through all 3? (I can't think of any.) How many have polled approval ratings in the low 20s? (Nixon and Harding since polling began almost 90 years ago.) It's pretty easy to objectively put Bush in the bottom 3 presidents now, without judging the extent of the current economic troubles.
If the predictions that this is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression are at all accurate (and macro-economic predictions are often self-fulfilling for psychological reasons), and the many ethical allegations against Bush prove true, Bush would have a strong case as the worst president ever, on relatively objective grounds as far as the matter goes.
That is to say nothing of how far he has departed from the philosophies and policies he and his party campaigned on.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
In short: Fuck him.
Fuck everyone involved.
The immunity needs to be nullified, and nullified now. It's a blatant violation of the constitution. If a bunch of telecom execs and secretive politicians aren't in jail getting gang raped before this is all over, then we might as well just pull the constitution out of its glass case, grab every copy of it and the bill of rights, toss them in pile and toss in a lit match.
Yes, I really think it's that bad, and fuck anyone that says otherwise. They obviously don't understand (or worse, simply don't care) what's at stake if the precedent of violating the Bill of Rights with absolutely no consequences manages to stand.
Fuck them all. Take their immunity away and fuck them all like the money-grubbing, self-serving whores that they are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The execs did as ordered by the politicians.
I'd wouldn't mind if Bush was gangraped in prison over his presidency and his crimes to mankind and western civilization. However, the execs only did as they were ordered to do. Is punishing people for failing to stand up against the law a good policy? In a democracy (or republic with general elections), the right thing to do is to expose the laws and the politicians and then hope the public will care when they vote in the next election.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that as civilians we were subject to any "orders" other than a proper court order, and even then we have the ability to disregard that court order, but at the expense of punishment. Doing whatever someone with a badge says is exactly how you go from democracy to totalitarianism.
Re:Presidential rankings discussed on Wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, don't count Bush out yet -- he's still got a good two months to make it happen!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
What context? That we have can lapse into complete paranoia from time to time? That blind nationalism can blind of more important matters of ethics and morality? That we enjoy dehumanizing people different than us?
I like the US, but I have a hard time identifying the rational of those who sit around saying we can't do any wrong, or that we are "the best country on earth". Nationalism is a proven evil, no good has ever come of it. We are just another country in the world, and someday we will be gone, just like all states. America is an arbitrary thing, a mere concept, and not worth forsaking human dignity and rights over, as they are far more important than a mere symbol.
We've made mistakes, and we refuse to learn from them. How many of the Japanese locked in camps, and deprived of their rights, were a serious threat to America? How many people in Guantanamo are a threat? Was Iraq really a threat to us? Was McCarthyism really a good thing?
We can do evil, and thus we have to be vigilant. Bush is proof of this. We let him get away with far too much in the name of faceless (and largely baseless) fear. Just like all of the things mentioned.
But then again I'd rather the terrorists "win" than compromise any individual rights, or any standard we profess to believe in.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point he was making was that if you give up your rights then you might as well have let the terrorists win. The belief that the only way to beat terrorism is to become like them is one of the most worrying things I see in people and their governments.
The expression 'Live free or die trying' springs to mind: Probably the easiest way to defeat the terrorists is to create armed militias, to lock up anyone who looks at a US flag funny, to subject every citizen to searches at every available opportunity to imprison without fair trial anyone and everyone who has the most tenuous of links to anyone tenuously linked to the perpetration terror. Finally it would be necessary to destroy the peoples and the homelands of peoples who would seek to harm us. I've heard statements like that last sentence before, care to guess where from? The choice we have is either to become like them, or to stand bold, proud and defiant in front of our freedoms.
People talk of giving their lives for their country, and that is what you must be willing to do, not on the front lines of a war, but in your own homes, at work and in your daily lives. You must be willing to accept that there will always be someone who hates you irrationally and will seek to kill you, and you have to accept that in order to enjoy freedom. You are competing against people who have a fanatical belief in what they are doing, and who will willingly give their lives for the cause. We too must believe in our freedoms above all else, and must be willing to give our lives for the cause of their preservation.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or it might just mean your country withdraws troops from some of the regimes it supports. Which "terrorists" are you referring to? You seem to have fallen prey to the US governments rhetoric that they are some united, implaccable world-wide organisation? Are you talking about Hamas in Palestine, who want their own state? Are you talking about Al Quaeda who wanted US troops out of Saudi where they protect a powerful, oppressive monarchy of all things? Are you talking about some of the Indian groups that want Muslims dead or out of the country? Are you talking about resistance fighters in Iraq who want Sunni control / Shia control / independent Kurdish lands / US troops out of the country? Which and who are you talking about? I would like to know which "terrorist" group you think has plans to invade and occupy the USA, please?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just have Poppy buy you into office...
"Poppy" seems to have stopped talking to "junior" some time ago. He may be regretting his decision to "buy" GWB into office...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, Dad did 'buy' his seat in the big house, though not with cash, with influence, which Dad has been buying, selling, and trading since the 50s or 60s. The guy is a 33rd degree Freemason and sharper than most brand new razor blades.
The son however, is not quite as sharp as most bowling balls, and thus promptly alienated Dad and refused to listen to any of Dad's brilliant instruction.
Re:You can't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
ok, now flame away about how I have no idea what I am talking about.
yeah, and others mentioned, that whole Red Scare / McCarthyism was pretty nasty.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
think Lincoln raped our constitution pretty hard with regard to interpretation the voluntary nature of statehood, state sovereignty, 9th & 10th amendments,
Besides the disaster your interpretation would have created, it's not born out in the Constitution, since Amendments 10 and 9 refer to powers not enumerated in the Constitution, but the power to dispose of US territory is given to Congress in Article 4.
I am not trying to justify slavery, just that had there been any other means to that end would have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree -- he and FDR were the worst presidents with regards to federalism/states' rights.
Re: (Score:2)
How?
The tense is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually he did that. You can't say that "You can't do that", because he did that. The Bush Administration is asking for retrospective immunity - that's a lot worse than asking for permission to do it.
The rest of the world is watching this one closely as well - it's not just the US that's interested in the outcome of this incident.
GrpA
Re: (Score:2)
retroactive
Re:The tense is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The tense is wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly, the Bush admin is reported to be tracking American journalists' phonecalls, in an effort to catch leakers from his own team.
Government Begins Tracking Phone Calls of Journalists [democracynow.org]
That was back in May '06. Fuck knows if this is technically legal, given all the executive orders and constitutionally dodgey laws this decade...
But the First Amendment seems to want to apply here.
"Aging constitutional amendment seeks job. Superpowers include: protecting freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion, occasionally acting as governmental grievance liaison."
"Work history: 1791-2001 United States, job title: First Amendment. Fired for insubordination, by leader of Republican party."
Last seen along I-495, holding sign: "Will work for freedom, liberty and democracy."
Re:The tense is wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
In all fairness, the immunity was injected into a security bill. The president elect and many dems voted to remove that from the bill in a separate vote, but the repubs lined up to keep it in. Apparently our national security is paramount to the republican agenda, unless you're talking about putting the legal spotlight on their rich buddies in the telco. And that's a fair analysis.
Let's Get Serious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's Get Serious (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let's Get Serious (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't kid yourself. Nerds are good with technology, not politics. These people are as good at bending laws and manipulating courts as the average slashdotter is at recompiling his kernel. Just as the average politician's political expertise doesn't help them at all in the world of technology, our technological expertise doesn't help us at all in their world.
Re:Let's Get Serious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let's Get Serious (Score:5, Funny)
I understand that there are all kinds of open source projects out there, and some better than others. But based on my personal experience with some of the more prominent ones, I seriously believe a government run by open source types would be as terrible as what we have now. The following thoughts are based just on those projects.
It would respond to complaints about the government with comments like "Go build your own government! Ours is done right! Anybody who is not a constitutional lawyer is an idiot who just doesn't know enough about government!"
People who want to report potholes, or suggest an amendment to the constitution, would have to check their clocks. Everybody whose name starts with A through K has to file their complaint in the morning, K through P in the afternoon, and the rest have to file their complaint in the evening. Because good user experience is second to efficiency and having the complaints partially sorted as they're filed will make the database sorting algorithm run faster.
It would have a stupid name. Probably something like UNITED, which is an acronym in which the U stands for "united".
NASA would get more than 70% of all federal funding. The N would stand for NASA. Eventually it would be replaced with another organization that is exactly the same, except it's called GNASA. And even though it's NASA, the N stands for "Not NASA". Nobody really knows what the ASA stands for. Probably the same thing the NITED stands for.
The national anthem would be forked into two songs because we'd never agree on whether it should say "O'er the land of the free (as in speech)" or "O'er the land of the free (as in beer)". The pledge of allegience would be the most forked project in the history of the earth.
Boundary lines would be drawn so that every state has exactly the same number of citizens, so they make a nice Beowulf cluster.
The military would be the drones from Star Wars. The guy who set them up insists we should not complain about their horrible inaccuracy because they're still in beta.
The drones would be running android, which is actually working pretty well but none of the drones have bluetooth capability.
Some guy will come up with the best amendment to the constitution in years but he'll get locked up for killing his wife, so we won't use it.
The Chewbacca defense will actually work.
And if it were run by Slashdotters, censorship would be guaranteed by the constitution. Because censorship is basically what moderation is. You take the comments you like and make them more prominent, while taking comments you don't like and making them disappear. So whoever was in power in the beginning will crush anybody who introduces new ideas, resulting in old-boy network groupthink. I'm pretty sure that 24 hours from the time of this post, either it will be at +5 Funny, or only people browsing at -1 will see it.
Haven't we gone over this before? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't someone need to be harmed in order to sue? And in order to prove you were harmed, you'd need to have access to state secrets, which can't happen in the new America. Therefore, no harm, no standing to sue, no case.
I don't think you can sue for a general affront to the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The GP is correct. You need standing [wikipedia.org] in order to bring a consitutional issue to court.
Re:Haven't we gone over this before? (Score:5, Interesting)
The courts could quite literally make a judgement ruling that violation of the 4th amendment itself is not a tort and there is no harm unless specific action is taken on information obtained without cause. The effect of such a ruling would be tremendous.
They even hacked Obama! (Score:3, Interesting)
The telecoms involved should be seriously fried for their eager collaboration with unconstitutional, Orwellian no-probable-cause surveillance. I am pleased to know that they overstepped themselves to the point of hacking Obama's old flip-phone account.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2335143,00.asp
They deserve to have an incoming President on their hands who knows how untrustworthy they can be.
Vote with your dollars: go over to Credo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You do know it was a few dipshits working for Verizon who have now been fired, right?
What would John McClane do? (Score:5, Funny)
He'd catch the terrorists first, worry about paperwork and suspensions afterwards.
I think that's a lesson for all you Fourth Amendment Nazis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He'd catch the terrorists first, worry about paperwork and suspensions afterwards.
And yet FISA already let the government do that.
Re:What would John McClane do? (Score:5, Insightful)
And as long as he filed his paperwork no later than 72 hours after starting surveillance, there would be no problem under FISA. This "we need every power imaginable with no oversight or you're a pot smoking terrorist loving liberal commie bastard" false dichotomy has just got to stop. FISA was more than enough as it was and this new legislation is a power grab, plain and simple.
Not just Bush's fight (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama voted for it too you know.
If he were really against it as some of the more delusion supporters claim, then he would issue a statement at this time supporting making it unconstitutional. Expect no statement.
Re:Not just Bush's fight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama voted for an amendment to strip the immunity provision. IIRC, he also voted against an early version of the Protect America Act that included the immunity provision. When they couldn't strip the immunity and Bush had let months go by refusing to vote on any version not including immunity, only then did he vote for the bill containing the immunity. He stated something to the effect that he opposed the immunity but felt that other portions of the bill continuing/clarifying certain surveillance power
Government secrets AKA covering their asses (Score:5, Insightful)
The administration also says the immunity is warranted because the lawsuits threaten to expose government secrets.
This was why immunity should NOT be warranted! And before you start screaming national security, exactly what kind of information that could be brought out in a civil case which would damage national security? Methods? Competent terrorists aren't going to be caught by dragnet style filtering anyway unless its technical prowess is far beyond what most experts agree is currently possible.
This is either protecting corporate cronies, protecting themselves, or most likely both.
Time to talk to your local ACLU chapter (Score:2)
If you have not considered getting involved with ACLU, then now it is the perfect time. There is much more at stake here than just a law. From the article:
SAN FRANCISCO - The Bush administration on Tuesday will try to convince a federal judge to let stand a law granting retroactive legal immunity to the nation's telecoms, which are accused of transmitting Americans' private communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.
This is retoractive! First of all, it means that the companies canno
You have no constitutional right to privacy (Score:2, Funny)
The 'right' to privacy is a right made by the USSC and though we have a long standing tradition of following laws made on the bench there is nothing that the court can do to enforce its own laws.
If we want to live in a society free of totalitarian style thought policing and information scanning then we need more than simple rulings against warrantless wiretaps. What we must have
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
9th Amendment Too (Score:5, Informative)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 4th specifies the groundwork for it, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it exists.
Also, the wiretaps can be a violation of the 1st as well, because they could chill protected speech.
I'd say one good definition of "epic fail" (as they love to say on Digg) is to have an argument beaten, crunched, and steam-rollered by three Bill of Rights amendments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"No where in the constitution is there an express 'right to privacy', this is a fact, if you disagree try reading the document."
That is indeed a fact. On the other hand, if you *understand* the constitution (as opposed to just skimming over the words while moving your lips), you know that the founders understood that rights are inherent, that no one can take them away, and that it would be impossible to enumerate this infinite number of rights. They revisited this idea in the ninth amendment after listing s
Obama will fix it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, he already voted for FISA, so I guess he won't. Damn.
Nixon (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly gun nut (Score:3, Insightful)
You're full of shit. If you really were protecting freedom you'd have done something by now. Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. Ed Howdershelt
We are not as nutty as the anti-gun "nuts" like to label us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I mean, the NRA has NEVER endorsed or opposed a political candidate. And even if they did, it's not like their members would be swayed to vote for them. Nope, never happened. Not. Ever.
Oh wait, except always and forever. Other than "always" and "forever" it never happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit. They only support candidates who are pro-gun. They aren't pushing forward any political agenda other then gun ownership. The NRA could give a rats ass about political freedoms outside of this. This should be apparent in their wide spread support for our current administration. If they were so liberty oriented then they would have been campaigning against Republicans quite some time ago.
You are right about the NRA (Score:3, Interesting)
The NRA is a single-issue organization. It was created to be a single-issue organization. And it concentrates (as it was designed to do) on that single issue.
You seem to be blaming them for that. Why? They are not "Republican lobbyists" or anything like that. I think you have your people mixed up.
You are making a big mistake if you confuse the NRA with the people who support the NRA. There is a vast difference.
Of course t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So which box are you on? (Score:5, Informative)
You probably should actually look at the candidates that they endorse. NRA support for Democratic candidates is not a rare thing by any stretch of the imagination, provided the candidate's positions are consistent with the NRA's stance. As a matter of fact, they endorsed the Democratic candidate for the state House in my district.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The NRA works to defend the 2nd Amendment; the ACLU works to defend the other nine (in the Bill of Rights). I see nothing wrong with this, except that the ACLU ought to care about #2 too.
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:4, Insightful)
A bit off topic, but you both have valid points.
So called "gun nuts" often couldn't care less about the erosion of many other freedoms including those involving free speech and unlawful search and seizure, and many actually think that the war on drugs is a good thing, etc.
On the flipside, the so called, "hippy liberals" want all the freedom in the world when it doesn't involve guns.
What needs to happen is both types of people need to get together(over a budweiser and some granola perhaps?) and realize that it's EVERYONE who is having their freedoms taken away.
A society works best when it's citizens have as many freedoms as possible, in my humble opinion of course. What we need is cooperation and education, not fear mongering from either side.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure most "gun nuts" are all about private property. Also pretty sure most of them have that "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" sign every 15 feet around their property.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush has violated more freedoms than any president before and you gun nuts have done absolutely nothing. I call your bluff!
This is the most historically ignorant thing I've read in awhile. Bush is way, way down on that list. Wilson goes at the top. Above Bush we'd find FDR, Jackson, Nixon, LBJ... and probably a few others I don't know about.
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I write this not because I agree with Lincoln's policies; but because I think the "free pass" characterization is seriously questionable. In a number of respects, the civil war was a uniquely threatening conflict and, if they apply anywhere, the place in American history where such powers would apply.
Re:Silly gun nut (Score:4, Informative)
No. We've criticized Bush for suspension of habeas corpus during peace time. Congress has not declared war since 1941. The constitution specifically states:
During Lincoln's time there was an official, declared war. The nation was routinely being invaded by confederate soldiers. Some may say the entire confederacy was a rebellion.
Also, the war had a clear enemy and ending point (as opposed to a 'war' on a concept) and the suspension was lifted after the war ended.
One Flaw In The Argument... (Score:2)
The one issue that the parent missed here is that a huge majority of the "gun nuts" absolutely LOVE Bush. They'll just say that ter'ists have no constitutional rights anyway and excuse away any violations.
But try to restrict the guns or their religion, and they WILL kill.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you really answer, think about all the stuff that you write in email to close friends, or in sms to loved ones, or over the phone. All that embarrassing stuff that isn't meant for any audience outside you and the receiving end. All THAT stuff becomes open.
I might be naive in my thinking, but why spend billions on listening to everyone's conversations when you could spend the same money to make their lives good. Happy content people don't go blowing themselves up or shoot random (or not so random) people by the bucketful. Happy content people lead happy content and productive lives. Eavesdropping on everyone won't make everyone happy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the very least, it means there are two sides to the "eavesdropping" question. It's a question for thoughtful discussion, not the sloganeering and bumper-sticker Constitutional Law pronouncements everyone has heard a thousand times.
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives. That's a benefit that has to be weighed against the costs. But most of the partisan discussions on this subject don't fairly acknowledge that benefit. Terrorism is real -- the terrorists have reminded us
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eavesdropping on terrorists could save hundreds or thousands of lives.
But the problem is that we don't know who they are. You need to listen to millions of conversations to have a chance of getting down to what you are interested in.
And lets face it, it's not like they aren't going to be talking in coded messages to one another. I am sure that "Hey Terrorist friend, that bomb you asked for is running a day late, but we will still get it down there and blow shit up good" might sound like "Hi Bob, I will be picking up the milk on the way home, but I am running a little late.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I do have a problem with is effectively taking off any and all controls about who does what and
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Those agents would be lying. FISA allowed for retroactive warrants to be issued 72 hours after the fact.
Innocent until... eaves-dropped-on? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record, I am neither in America or American.
Well said! (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell are you blathering about? We DO in fact know that the actions of the telcos (and the government people who setup / enabled it) were acting illegally. There is no reasonable question that this is true. Though, by our own rules, it will need to be proved in court... which is a different matter.
As for taking terrorism seriously, do you? As an individual, you are quite literally much more likely -- by orders of magnitude! -- to die in your bathtub than from a terrorist attack. So why aren't you advocating government cameras in everybody's bathroom? It would save so many lives! More than any "war on terrorism" has any chance of saving.
If you think that is a ridiculous example, then you are beginning to get the point. Because it is real.
Re:Interesting timing (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't we save lives and follow the law? What was so desperate that we couldn't change the laws during the 8+ years that this was going on?
This program was against the law and the constitution of the United States of America. Period. This is not in serious dispute, that's why the immunity deal was necessary. Immunity was granted to prevent this from ever going to trial and bringing out the facts of the case. If everything was above board, why not prove it in a court of law?
And you are right, there is little in my post about terrorism. It wasn't about terrorism. It was about our government and how they are trampling the laws and traditions of this country.
The choice is not breaking laws to catch terrorists or doing nothing and letting them kill Americans; that's a false dichotomy. We can, and have for many, many years, held to the rule of law and protected our citizens. We can continue to do so.
The choice is protecting our citizens while adhering to the rule of law or not. This government has chosen not to. If the laws were insufficient, they had the option of trying to change those laws. They chose not to. This is completely unacceptable in any society that wishes to be considered democratic and those responsible need to be held to account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
hopeless => suicidal killer
There are plenty unhappy people in America but no homegrown suicide bombers. What we don't have is a system that explicitly sets out to systematically oppress and render voiceless segments of the population - that is what's behind suicide bombers, because it takes away any value life has.
Then for the most part we get into a bullshit pissing contest of "your voice can't be heard because you're violent" and "we turn to violence because you won't let us be heard" to avoid anyone having to admit they're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering none of the attackers were American citizens or were on US soil, I think it's fair to say you're right: nobody infringed on their Constitutional rights. They had none.
But assuming for a minute that the attacks had taken place in the US, that the attackers had been American citizens, and that they were communicating with parties outside the country. Under FISA, their communications could still have been tapped just so long as the someone filed the paperwork for authorization sometime in the 72 ho
Re:Interesting timing (Score:5, Insightful)
Telescreens are now being installed in your house to make sure that you do not transmit terrorist information when using the aforementioned tool in your home.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
wait just one minute there.
using your logic lets go through a scenario.
Rape. I'm sure that no one has to say how terrible an experience that is. and it is almost always males attacking females.
we can stop rape completely. we just need to completely remove the genitalia of every single man. without the tools to commit the crime there will be no possibility of rape happening.
it will be completely stopped.
Is that worth it to you?
now i hear you saying, "that is completely different and barbaric". no it's not
Warrants (Score:3)
Interesting timing for this now that we've learned that the gunmen in Mumbai used Blackberries to communicate. I'm sure no one violated their rights by eavesdropping on their communications.
I believe this is where a warrant comes into play. You indicate there is a case for eaves dropping and if there is the judge gives you a warrant. Basically what a warrant gives you a sanctioned action for a specific circumstance, so that you aren't using your powers for things that otherwise affect the freedoms of your p
Re:Interesting timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure no one violated their rights by eavesdropping on their communications.
That's such an ignorant argument. They could have just as easily used walkie-talkies available at almost any department store, or spent some money and got some military grade communications for the cost of a few hand grenades. Or cell phones. Or satellite phones. Or wi-fi. Or broadband internet. You going to scan every frequency? Monitor every mode of communication? And it's not like they were sending detailed plans back and forth on their Blackberrys, it was tactical comm.
The type of wholesale spying the Bush administration is trying to promote and you seem to be trying to protect not only undermines the Constitution, it doesn't work. All the monitoring we have in place around the world didn't stop these yo-yo's. And it won't stop the next group. So what are you going to do then? Your philosophy is a failure. It's a false sense of security that provides no value in protection.
Combating terrorism by spying on Americans. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SF (Score:5, Informative)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal jurisdiction.
Please stop listening to the propaganda of televangelists. Seriously. The 9th circuit court is overturned less often than the average if you base it on the number of cases they hear... they just hear a lot more cases than most courts.
Re:SF (Score:5, Informative)
More than that, the 9th circuit has a tendency to take on cases that are a lot more interesting than the other courts when it comes to people's rights, etc. Challenges to civil rights violations and other constitutional challenges tend to occur in the 9th circuit because the people who are motivated to file those challenges tend to live within its jurisdiction more often than in any other circuit. Thus, because of how high-profile and constitutionally important their cases are, they tend to be heard much more often by the SCOTUS.
When viewed as a percentage of cases heard by the SCOTUS, their overturn rate is higher than the average (about 90% compared with about 75%), but at least in 2006 nowhere near as high as some other circuits (100% for the 3rd (NJ, DE, PA) and 5th circuits (LA, MS, TX)). Source: volokh.com [volokh.com]. The 5th, BTW, is probably the most conservative circuit court in the U.S.
So there.
Re:Sue the government, not the parties (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, yes, that's the desired effect. We don't want corporate co-conspirators helping the government do covert and unconstitutional things. The telecoms, like all big companies, have entire legal departments and no doubt numerous policies about these sorts of things, and they almost certainly had fair notice that what they were doing was at best fuzzy and most likely blatantly illegal. I've been all for suing their asses off since day 1, and even more so since their government cronies tried to cover them.
Call it a deterrent, call it vengeance, but I call it justice.