State Secrets Defense Rejected In Wiretapping Case 269
knifeyspooney writes in with an Ars Technica report that a federal judge has issued a strong rebuke to government lawyers attempting to invoke the "state secrets" defense to quash a lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping. This is not the high-profile case the EFF is bringing against the NSA; instead the case is being pursued by an Islamic charity that knows it had been wiretapped. "At times, a note of irritation crept into [Judge] Walker's even, judicial language. At one point, he described the government's argument as 'without merit,' and characterized another as 'circular.' He also seemed impatient with the Justice Department's refusal to provide any classified documents addressing Al Haramain's specific claims for review in chambers. 'It appears... that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act,' wrote Walker."
really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Till he gets fired. (Score:2)
.. or is he an elected judge?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judges should only have one master - the law - especially the People's Supreme Law known as the State and U.S. Constitutions.
Judges shouldn't be influenced by other considerations like fear of losing their job if they make the wrong decision. Their only role should be to read and enforce the Laws w/o arm-twisting from above or below.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law is not always right, and its not always just. (Segregation and the internment of Japanese was law, MLK said it is your duty to break unjust laws.) Just because it's THE LAW, doesn't mean it right.
That being said, it's merely wishful thinking judges master is the law. State Judges work for the state and have a vested interest in the state, Federal Judges, same thing.. worse yet.. they have a, secret language (legalese) and a little club (the bar). If someone in the club goes against the club they can
Re:really? (Score:5, Funny)
George W. Bush:
Great president?
Or greatest president?
Ok, I'll put you down for "great'.
Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You and the parent poster have both gone off the deep end, just at opposite ends. If you are certain that someone is "doing wrong", i.e. you have probable cause, they are forfeiting certain of their rights. The duty to protect them stops when they are a threat to other, innocent parties. You betray your absolutistism when you say, "The government has always been a more clear and present danger to the people than any real-world terrorist threat." Really? Always?
Then the parent poster has the audacity to say,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You and the parent poster have both gone off the deep end, just at opposite ends. If you are certain that someone is "doing wrong", i.e. you have probable cause, they are forfeiting certain of their rights.
And what rights would those be, homeslice? If the police have PC to arrest you and they put you in holding, you lose freedom of movement, but that isn't a constitutional right. An innocent person has all of their rights intact until they're proven guilty, and even then, in prison, they retain a semblance of most of them. As a matter of principle, a prosecutor can send you up the river with full and damning evidence and at no time are any of your legal protections forfeit. They were designed for people
Well? (Score:2)
It appears... that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act,' wrote Walker
Unless he's willing to put the attorneys in jail for failure to comply (and end up gitmo'd), there's not a lot that he can do.
I still have my fingers crossed, though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unless he's willing to put the attorneys in jail for failure to comply (and end up gitmo'd)
I'm really tired of seeing this crap. Has even one political dissident been sent to GITMO? Last I checked, and I've been to GITMO mind you, only enemy combatants detained overseas and their affiliates are in GITMO. Please stop all this nonsense about being "gitmo'd" for disagreeing with the government already.
Re:Well? (Score:5, Interesting)
Has even one political dissident been sent to GITMO?
How should we know? The DoD has never released an official complete list of names of those who are and who have been detained in GITMO, let alone a list of what they were detained for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, assuming politicians will abuse power is the exact same argument as assuming the existence of God. </sarcasm>
The entire concept of the US system of government (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc) is PREMISED on the assumption of politicians abusing power.
The FACT is, since 9/11, the US govt has been trying to assert the right to detain "enemy combatants" (which is vaguely defined) without legal recourse, or anyone even knowing about it. That is a cause of legitimate concern. "Gitmo'd" is just shorthand.
Re:Well? (Score:5, Insightful)
You wouldn't know if a US citizen was sent to gitmo.
First - the military controls what names appear on their lists. Who is to say they couldn't send a US citizen to gitmo and list them under the name of a wanted Moroccan?
Second - the Bush(jr) administration is an easy target for conjecture since they have a history of erosion of civil liberties and are one of the most secretive administrations about national security matters.
Third - perhaps you haven't heard of extraordinary rendition. There is nothing to say the federal government couldn't 'disappear' someone if they wanted to. If you need any evidence, look at the Maher Arar case where a Canadian was intercepted at JFK international, rendered to Syria by the CIA and tortured in Syria. If the US had sufficient cause, they could do this to an American. If its done in secret and can't even be challenged in a court of law, how do you know the "sufficient cause" bar hasn't been lowered?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900835_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]
The law must be reviewed, executed and challenged under the light of day or it will slowly erode our liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You checked at Guantanamo on just why each of the prisoners there was imprisoned?
Dick Cheney, is that you?
Re:Well? (Score:5, Informative)
only enemy combatants detained overseas and their affiliates are in GITMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner) [wikipedia.org] They did try to send an American citizen, not in the military, arrested in the US, to Gitmo. He was held as an "enemy combatant" for 3.5 years before civil liberties groups got him a trial. I'm not saying I'm sad he is in jail (he was later found guilty), and I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be hard to believe there was at least one US citizen that they arrested in the US and sent to Gitmo without anyone noticing.
As it is, even with the press aware of this guy's situation, he sat in jail for 3.5 years without being charged with a crime. A US citizen, arrested in the US by the US government. That doesn't creep you out at all?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it does "creep" me out.
As Thomas Jefferson observed, "Citizens should not fear their government, but instead the government should fear the citizens, to hold it accountable." Or maybe it was James Madison. Or John Adams? I don't know; it was one of those highly intelligent guys from the Age of Enlightenment. They knew quite well that government could not be trusted, and had witnessed citizens randomly disappearing into prisons without trial.
It's a shame that in just two hundred years we've come full
Re:Well? (Score:5, Insightful)
The government doesn't fear the people because the people are all idiots. They vote based on what the government will "give" them. The only thing they fear is losing their government checks.
So, until this changes, or people get smart enough to ... you know ... stop voting based upon who is going to give them the most, (or alternatively taking from others more "rich"), it isn't going to change.
I don't fear wiretaps, I fear idiot constituents who are willing to screw me over to feel better about themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The persons who refused to obey that law should be charged with Constitutional treason.
You might want to actually read the Constitution and see how it defines treason before you go suggesting that refusing to obey a law constitutes treason.....
Once precedent has been set to deny one American citizen his rights
That precedent wasn't set. His case eventually wound it's way through the court system and the Government had to try him or let him go. He choose to accept a plea-bargain. Seems like it worked just fine in this case, albeit at the glacial pace of the judicial branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramein [wikipedia.org]
If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.
I can't see why the government should be able to avoid the audit requirements we've set down in law (both for criminal investigation, and separately for intelligence) regarding those wiretaps.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.
Yeah? Well if the Feds had gone to the trouble to show a judge why they wanted to tap them, then they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? Wikipedia is infallible. It's not like just anyone can go and edit it.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Funny)
Fed 2: "Aren't they that outfit who collects used clothing for inner-city youths?"
Fed 1: "Yeah, but you know. Their names sounds terroristy, plus how else are we going to justify our budget to the intelligence committee?
Fed 2: "Crap. Well, go make a Wikipedia page about them. Make it real scary. Lotsa bad guys, and make the UN hate 'em too. And put 'Al Qaeda' in there too, for good measure."
Fed 1: "Man, if the boss finds out about this..."
Fed 2: "Chill out, man. We're omnipotent. We'll just tell CNN and Fox News to stay quiet and everybody will forget about it as the next news cycle rolls around."
Fed 1: "Good plan, chief. What could possibly go wrong?"
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the point of going to a third party with the evidence and asking if it would be alright to setup a wiretap... If a Judge only saw speculation from a Wiki, they'd likely turn it down. However, if the feds presented images, documents of action, and other incriminating evidence then I believe they'd be allowed to tap to gain more evidence or accomplices.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if all the information they had about them was that lonely wikipedia page? I dont think the judge would consider it as evidence...
Too true, lol. Personally I've always maintained that their failure to seek warrants was ipso facto proof that they didn't have any decent evidence. Why would you take the risk of circumventing the law when the FISA court is ready and willing to retro-actively rubber stamp your warrant, unless you know you don't have enough to satisfy even the rubber stamper?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was more a case of "we don't need no stinking warrants anymore". An institutional mindset assuming that "we're at war" automatically removes all constitutional protections; not unexpected if you look back in history at the suspension of habeas corpus during the civil war, or the mass detention of natural born (but of foreign origin) citizens during WW II.
I definitely see that, the whole philosophy of our executive branch for the last eight years has been "We're the good guys, so whatever we do is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't go all "24" on someone just because. Show your cards to a judge, then do whatever is necessary. It's about time some judge bitchsmacked them with the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can't go all "24" on someone just because.
That's a great turn of phrase. I'm sure Jack Bauer would get a kick out of it.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramein [wikipedia.org]
If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.
Then they should get a warrant, even a bullshit retroactive FISA warrant.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I specially like the "circular" argument.
Arrest terrorists because they work for an ONG, then close down the organization because for sure they are a bunch of terrorists. After all, all those terrorists worked for them no?
And then, yup... they are true terrorists see... they worked for a true terrorist organization...
Interesting argumentation.
Re:Is this the "charity" in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is, "How exactly did the charity KNOW they were wiretapped?" Sounds fishy to me.
Because the government told them that they were.
Why not get a warrant in the first place? Maybe there wasn't time.
If they didn't have time to spend two hours going to the courthouse and getting a judge to look at some papers, then we would have seen a whole lot more stuff blown up by now....
Maybe some of our judges can't be trusted.
Maybe some of our politicians can't be trusted. Maybe the DHS can't be trusted. You can "maybe" till you're blue in the face, but it's purely speculation. Maybe the sun will go nova tomorrow, and all this will be moot. It's a ridiculous argument, but it's theoretically possible. You're wanting to give up your freedoms to that theoretical possibility?
Maybe the evidence came from a source that had to remain anonymous. I'd guess the last "maybe".
And maybe that source is threatened now because of judicial interference in something they should stay out of.
You mean judicial interference in something they are legally required to be involved in?
Ever heard of sealed evidence? That's what they do when there's something that's so sensitive it can't go into general court files. The judge looks at it, decides the case based on it, then it gets locked in a vault. Nobody else has to see it. Nobody else can see it.
I'm sure if there was a source who's life was threatened, or something similar, if their anonymity was lost, then the evidence could be sealed.
As it is, these bureaucrats/politicians/DHS agents are no better than the schoolyard bully who beats kids up because he's "sure" that they had something to do with the snowball that got thrown at him.
Its good to see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its good to see checks and balances, checking and balancing.
Just the fact that things are being reviewed does the constitution good.
Re:Its good to see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the scarier things about the Cheney philosophy to governing was that he knew the judiciary was so slow. In a presidential term of four years, scandals at the very beginning just might work their way through by the end of the first term. Sometimes faster as in Watergate, but usually slower.
The executive also has the huge luxury of using tax dollars and the federal bureaucracy to lean on their political opponents. If they decide to do X, all it takes is an executive order and it's done. To overturn the decision, barring an act of congress, opponents have to undertake the lengthy and expensive litigation. And Cheney chose to litigate EVERYthing, using the entire weight of the federal bureaucracy, stonewalling at every turn, whereas the opponents would be forced to pick and choose court battles.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we need more judges, then. I don't think a few years could be considered a "speedy" trial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NYCL isn't a lawyer, he's a hero :)
(one of mine anyway)
National Insecurity (Score:5, Insightful)
The Justice Department has repeatedly sought to block the suit by invoking national security concerns.
I really don't feel secure from so much government secrecy, seems like it's their argument to everything for the past few years.
It's like saying Windows is secure because it's running secret proprietary code under the hood.
Re:National Insecurity (Score:5, Funny)
No, don't you see?!? Terrorists are a forgetful bunch. If the courts order the feds to turn over their wiretaps, the terrorists are going to read the conversations they've had and will enact their dastardly, forgotten plans!
"Oh man! I totally forgot Osama wanted me to blow up that bridge! Thank you, NSA, for reminding me!"
It is essential for national security that we not release the tapes so the terrorists aren't reminded! We have to keep their plans secret from them! /joke
Re:National Insecurity (Score:5, Insightful)
Releasing the tapes gives the org (an alleged terrorist org) the opportunity to review their own security apparatus and make changes where applicable. Such as: If a conversation from a certain number released certain information at a certain point in time, it would allow the org to do several things:
1) Remove the communication device from service. (ie: get replacement hardware that has not been compromised.)
Bad for the US as intel is now harder to come by.
2) Determine if the person using said comm device is a traitor to their cause and kill them.
Bad for the US as intel is now harder to come by.
3) Use alternative means to deliver communiques.
Bad for the US as intel is now harder to come by.
See a theme anywhere in there?
I'm not saying the US did everything by the book - it should have. I'm just pointing out that 'reminding' terrorists isn't on the agenda or even part of the problem.
Any "terrorists" that dumb will be caught anyway. (Score:2)
Probably when they send their terrorist training film in to be made into a DVD.
All three of your points depend upon the terrorists being so stupid that they're discussing their plans on a phone system, in the clear, which is tapped.
The government isn't at any risk from losing "intel" on those cases.
Intelligent terrorists (the kind that could actually carry out an attack) would be using encryption and anonymous email accounts.
Re:Any "terrorists" that dumb will be caught anywa (Score:2)
Those are details though, you're missing his point about strategy. Regardless of the technology used, knowing which sections of your communications have been compromised lets you immediately fix those leaks and furthermore make some inferences about what methods your opponent is using. If
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
that when the Allies broke the enigma code in WWII they didn't act on all the advance warning they had of German attacks because it would be too obvious that the German commmunications had been intercepted
You are indeed correct. And even when they acted on the advance warning they had to take precautions. Example: During the campaign in Africa we used our code breaking abilities to locate German supply convoys. Before attacking them the Allies would arrange for a scout plane to "discover" the convoy in question. The Germans took the bait and assumed they were located via aerial reconnaissance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just pointing out that 'reminding' terrorists isn't on the agenda or even part of the problem.
woosh. And here I thought I was being silly putting "/joke" at the end of my post.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, maybe HE is joking now, in which case you would be a hypocrite!
Re:National Insecurity (Score:5, Funny)
You know... it's always disturbing to me when my jokes get modded insightful, or when my serious posts get modded funny.
Re:National Insecurity (Score:5, Funny)
Was that meant to be sad world-weariness or wry irony? You need to be clearer! I don't know whether to mis-moderate you Funny or Insightful!
I believe you meant "misundermoderate."
Re: (Score:2)
I read the other day at discovery channel of all places, of how feasible it would be for terrorists to use infected blood-sucking insects to attack non-muslim populations.
When will we stop dreaming this stuff up? Eventually the report discredited it as a viable infection method, but still, why GIVE THEM IDEAS? Of course, because the possibility is non-zero, we need to spend millions on preparedness and additional studies...
Re: (Score:3)
Past few years ? It's the oldest trick in the book. Do whatever you want, classify the evidence and protect it by claiming that releasing the information poses risks to national security. By the time the documents finally are declassified you'll be long dead so who cares.
A 1990 episode of Star Trek TNG titled "The Hunted" touched on this issue.
Picard: "A matter of internal security: the age-old cry of the oppressor.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the Bush era, such tricks were infrequent. Throughout the Bush era, they were the primary government operating principle.
Prior to Bush Jr, they peaked during the Reagan/Bush era. Prior to that, they peaked during the Nixon era.
See a pattern?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes I see a pattern.
Denial of Democrats. Ye willfully ignore the wiretapping & nonlegal tactics that Clinton, Carter, and LBJ had performed during their administrations. Also Truman and FDR liked to ignore the law. FDR even went so far as to threaten the U.S. Supreme Court since they kept declaring his laws "unconstitutional".
Talk about subversion of the People's Supreme Law! "The Constitution and the Supreme Court be damned." - FDR
whos next (Score:5, Funny)
Re:whos next (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
... so first we have a president whose second name is Hussein, and now Muslims are bringing freedom to America?
Re:Ok, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Funny)
I welcome Muslims to America, especially if they bring shawarmas and hashish.
Re:Ok, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
P.S.
Proposed Amendment (the XXVIII)
Any Person, regardless of rank or position, found by a State Supreme Court, State Legislature, or the Supreme Court of the United States to be committing acts in violation of this Constitution shall be charged with treason, with appropriate penalties as determined by the Congress.
*
* example: illegal wiretaps or searches without a judge's warrant
* all of the persons who committed that act would be charged
Why this proposed amendment? Because I'm tired of seeing government officials violate the Constitution and "get off" without any kind of consequences. There needs to be a deterrent, with corresponding fear of punishment, otherwise these bozos will just continue breaking Constitutional law again-and-again as if it didn't exist.
Re:Ok, let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
... so first we have a president whose second name is Hussein, and now Muslims are bringing freedom to America?
Oh, you're going all 1984 on us are you?
Well, let me tell you something, I won't fall for it! I've been educated by the boxes! The folks who yell on there tell me that War is Peace and brings Freedom. They tell me that wiretapping American citizens and violating their Fourth Amendment rights is to keep us free! They also say that Civil Liberties are for pinko Liberals who hate America and if you do nothing wrong then you have nothing worry about! Freedom of Speech is OK as long is doesn't criticize America
Remember folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office. There's a very good reason for limiting the power of government: malchiks and nitwits frequently find their way into office.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember folks... (Score:5, Insightful)
I trust Obama with those powers a hell of a lot more than I trust Bush with them.
...but I trust the guy who'll replace the guy who'll replace Obama a lot less with them. So let's start now to limit those powers while we have someone in office who might (I said might) be willing to voluntarily relinquish some power to restore balance.
Things are looking up for balance... (Score:2, Informative)
Let's first remember that Bush installed John Yoo in this office, author of the infamous "the President can torture anyone he wants" memo.
In contrast, Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana, has been an extremely harsh and very outspoken critic of the expansion of executive power under Bush. Writing for Slate, she said:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They both give us a hundreds different brands of cereals to eat but only 2 political choices, how's that freedom?
The funny thing about that is that 50% of those brands of cereals tastes like sticks and twigs, but 100% of the political parties taste like sticks and twigs.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, you got it all wrong. 50% of the political parties taste like sticks and twigs. The other 50% taste like twigs and sticks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All US brand cereals that are sold in Sweden taste like sugercoated suger. Is that the other 50%?
Probably. It seems that the cereal for kids are all sugar-coated sugar. When I was a kid, though, I loved Grape-Nuts (which have neither grapes nor nuts) when I could get my parents to buy them (being "healthy", they were more expensive than frosted flakes, and came in a much smaller box). Now that I spend my own money, I buy the generic brand version.
Re:And I'd trust Bush more.,. (Score:4, Insightful)
No one should have the powers that Bush/Cheney seized or created. Not them, not Obama, (probably ;) not even me.
But if you can't tell the difference between how Republicans do wrong and how Democrats do wrong, you're not comparing Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush to Kennedy/Johnson/Carter/Clinton. You're saying something lazy and ignorant that equates extreme bad with merely not good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the people can limit the government. But it takes an informed people willing to get off their butts and stop it. Yeah it's difficult, maybe even impossible, but it's still worth attempting.
Re:Remember folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office.
Well I'm an Obama fan because his own and his chosen DoJ team's stances have been strongly at odds with the Bush DoJ's "creative" interpretation of the Constitution. So even though the guy I like is in office, I'll be hoping for and arguing
Re: (Score:2)
I am confident that the worst abuses of Bush's executive power will not be continued.
Right! Like the warrantless wiretaps, which Obama has done everything in his power to punish. Wait, what's that you say? He actually voted to help some of the perpetrators of that crime get away with it? Damn! Guess he's not really trying to help us out after all.
As The Who so insightfully said in 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Re:Remember folks... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right! Like the warrantless wiretaps, which Obama has done everything in his power to punish. Wait, what's that you say? He actually voted to help some of the perpetrators of that crime get away with it? Damn! Guess he's not really trying to help us out after all.
As The Who so insightfully said in 1971: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
He threatened to filibuster, but couldn't get enough support from other dems, he voted for the amendment to remove the telecom immunity, but it failed, and finally when it was obvious that the bill was going to pass with the immunity provision intact, he voted for it to deny his opponents "Obama opposes fighting terror" ammunition. There was lots of other things in that bill, you see, and a tough election coming up. Unfortunate, as he said himself at the time, but it may have helped him get into a position where he can stack the DoJ with lawyers who vocally oppose expanding executive power, I think that's a net win.
So Bush and his lawyers actively supported the policy, Obama fought it but gave in to political reality. If that's your level of distinction, where that makes them "the same", well, there's no help for you. Go support whatever fringe candidate who you feel embraces all your ideals, will never get elected, and even if elected would never enact any useful policy due to an inability to compromise. I'll take practical, useful change that can actually gets done, thanks.
Not that I'm completely without unrealistic ideals... I still hold out hope than an Obama DoJ could go after the telcos since after all the bill only protected them from civil liability. I won't be holding my breath though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Obama's announcement of Dawn Johnsen to run the Office of Legal Counsel [salon.com] (OLC, the office from which John Yoo "legalized" torture) is the best encouragement so far that Obama is reforming the uncurbed powers Bush/Cheney took for the White House. Also Leon Panetta for CIA and Eric Holder for Attorney General. I'd most prefer to see Joe Biden make his #1 job removing all the extra powers from his VP office, but I don't have such high hopes for Biden. Which is why Bush/Cheney's powergrabs were so dangerous: the
Re:Consider the litigant (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it has more to do with standing. These people know that they had been wiretapped (apparently the feds accidentally gave them a copy of the call logs, lol). The EFF doesn't know who has been wiretapped, I'm not sure they have direct proof that anybody has been, so their case is much more difficult.
Re:Consider the litigant (Score:4, Insightful)
The cloud of suspicion, and the chilling effects that follow have affected everyone in the United States. We all have standing.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, Al-Haramain and both the EFF wiretapping cases (the class action against AT&T, and the new suit against the government) are currently before the same court and judge, Judge Vaughn Walker. All the cases are continuing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Consider the litigant (Score:4, Funny)
Yea, those Muslims keep getting preferential treatment these days. Damn them and their powerful lobby groups.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it just me, or does
"women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped"
sound like a conservative wishlist? I swear that Jerry Falwell was on my TV asking for these same things. Hmm..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would be even more funny if the right wing, who are doing a good job of making McCarthyism look tame, have the social progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.
Oh wait...the right wing has been doing that already. Go figure.
Re:IT would almost be funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be even funnier if we fight to maintain the checks and balances built into our system of government. Then Islam can spread to everyone who wishes to practice it and none of the things you describe will happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
every other country where superstition has taken the place of logic and education.
Fixed that for you! I'd be happy to edit your newsletter if you have a copy available; your website is surprisingly free of updates.
Re:IT would almost be funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
If any religion could do that in a modern progressive democratic state, the fundies in the States would have done it already. And in fact, in the case of the stuff about abortion, gays and women you mentioned, the religious right have already tried.
The reason they failed is that countries that have high standards of living, high literacy rates, free elections and judicial oversight of the government don't allow that shit.
Find me an example of such a country that does the stuff you mentioned. Go on, just one. Iran? Syria? Afghanistan? Come on, those are backwaters. Yeah, some of them may have wealth (oil wealth in the hands of the few for the most part), but that isn't a good barometer for civil liberty.
None of them have free elections, none of them have governments that are answerable to the courts. Nor have they ever in most cases, and in fact, the times in the past where they've been freer than in the present, were also times when the religious loonies were sidelined by the moderates (Iran is a good example of this).
It wouldn't matter if every single religious nutjob in the States changed from Christian to Muslim. They'd be the same assholes they are now, and they'd fail just as miserably to bring about the theocracy your post details. It's not the faith that matters, it's the environment in which it's practised.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
countries that have high standards of living, high literacy rates, free elections and judicial oversight of the government don't allow that
And those are the democratic underpinnings that seem to be under attack.
This article points out the struggle judicial oversight is having in the face of executive excesses. US election procedures are creaky, inconsistent, and prone to gaming. Literacy, particularly scientific literacy is often marginalized and disparaged here. I'm less worried about our falling standard
Re:IT would almost be funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
Find me an example of such a country that does the stuff you mentioned. Go on, just one. Iran? Syria? Afghanistan? Come on, those are backwaters. Yeah, some of them may have wealth (oil wealth in the hands of the few for the most part), but that isn't a good barometer for civil liberty.
Take that one step further - religion has nothing to do with it, being a "backwater country" is the common theme, not religion. For example Rwanda - 90+% christian [wikipedia.org] or to a lesser extent Sri Lanka - 85%+ Buddhist and Hindu [wikipedia.org] and Burma - 89% Buddhist [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.
Islam is not like a venereal disease or a knapweed. It does not simply "spread". People must choose it. I think it's pretty u8nlikley people like yourself, or liberals (whom you think your "protecting") or any other group of people will voluntarily choose what you describe any time soon.
More importantly is your desire to cede endless authority to the state. You are blindly destroying your own freedom and creating a tyranny here at home. This is the likes of something our forefathers fought against.
Don't bel
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My impression of your post is that it was tongue-in-cheek. I mean, I don't really think that you lay there at night worrying about this.
Anyway, for a militant form of any religion to spread in the United States, either people have to allow it to happen by adopting the culture, the Government has to recognize and integrate such religion within the institution, or there has to be a militant force that overthrows the government and military. I cannot fathom any of those happening in the United States.
Some will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I assume this wasn't all invented by Shampoo by any chance?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you bother to read the judge's logic as to how indefensible the claims of state secrets were? Or did you just dismiss the judge out of hand because you're a simple-minded brain-washed ex-military troll?
That need-to-know crap is just bullshit. Unless the agency in question can demonstrate the need for secrecy, then the documents in question should be made public. There needs to be an authority which can determine if there really are state secrets that shouldn't be expos