US Supreme Court Says Wiretapping Immunity Will Stand 203
wiredmikey writes "The U.S. Supreme Court said this week it will let stand an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by privacy advocates. The top U.S. court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the NSA monitor its customers' phone calls and Internet traffic. Plaintiffs argue that the law allows the executive branch to conduct 'warrantless and suspicionless domestic surveillance' without fear of review by the courts and at the sole discretion of the attorney general. The Obama administration has argued to keep the immunity law in place, saying it would imperil national security to end such cooperation between the intelligence agencies and telecom companies. The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate case later this month in which civil liberties' group are suing NSA officials for authorizing unconstitutional wiretapping."
"Justce is blind." (Score:3, Insightful)
SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."
Wonderful little police state you got there.
Re: (Score:2)
Pick a card, any card [thinkexist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."
Wonderful little police state you got there.
But..But..But..It's for the children.
Re:SCOTUS (Score:4, Interesting)
The supreme court is like having the referees of a game be an employee of one team. Most trials that go to the supreme court are individuals vs the government. And which side do you think the court sides with?
I think we need a rule change. Make it like a criminal trial. In order for the government to win they need to get all 9 votes. One no and the government loses.
Re: (Score:2)
It will hit the courts again in perhaps a slightly different form. But we will prevail on maintaining our privacy!
Re: (Score:2)
And that the government has the exact opposite view.
Re:SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's bad when either break the law. However, I consider it a lot more egregious when the government breaks the law because they are the ones who made the law and enforce it. I'm not fond of a do as I say not as I do mentality.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But did he even cheat? I'm not disputing that he had sex with women other than his wife. I'm saying I think it possible, even likely Hillary knew about it and either didn't care, or didn't care that much. If she was okay with it, then who the hell cares?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a pile of flaming bull dung!!! PEOPLE wake the fsck up. One side takes any stupid thing guaranteed to make the other side feel more righteous, or justified, or closer to their warm and fuzzy Gawd. And uses it as a wedge, a distraction from any freaking thing that actually matters!!! Abortion, Animal Rights, Gay Marriage... its all a bunch of smoke and mirrors designed to hide the fact that your representatives don't. They are bought and sold to the highest bidder. On a planet with 7,000,000,000 homo
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the difference that it made was the chief law enforcement officer of the land ended up lieing in court when asked a question that was only able to be asked because of a law he championed and signed into law allowing women claiming sexual harassment and discrimination to use refere
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer is informative but does not really answer the original question, let me reformulate it for you: why should anyone wonder about who Bill Clinton had sex with in the first place, it's his problem, not the people's.
The fact that Bill Clinton lied when this story was investigated is a different matter: the point is, this story should never have been investigated to start with.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I thought I answered that in my other statement..Bill Clinton signed a law in 1993-1994 that allowed a plaintiff in a lawsuit to bring in evidence that would show a pattern of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment outside her specific claim. Do to this law, he was asked questi
Re: (Score:3)
Protesting is inherently public. As you protest, if you break more and more laws, you get less and less support, because everyone's watching you descend into madness.
Much of what the government does is behind closed doors. If they were to continue and break more and greater laws up to and including constitutional mandates, it's still happening in private, and each act has to be reported to get the same loss of confidence and support. The government breaking its own laws ought to be viewed with the same "
Re: (Score:2)
Great post... would have been timely in... oh, 1984. We live in the fall out of the explosion you describe. Of course things haven't gotten bad yet. But I hear a mighty gurgling sound, and I fear the big flush is coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't believe in holding the government to the highest standards, PLEASE do not vote.
Re: (Score:3)
VOTE? Are you sleeping? The Wall Street Journal was 2 days away from reporting that after buying Florida's ballots and recounting, that Gore had won by a Substantial Margin, when 9/11 made them decide that news wasn't the best thing for the country at that time. The Republican Party is putting Jim Crow laws in a dozen states hoping to ensure victory by keeping Democratic voters from getting to the poll
The whole system stinks to high heaven. Voting is no longer an effective means for keeping this government
Re:SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
And therein lies the problem. The US government derives its power from its people. Well, it's supposed to anyway. To quote the film entitled "V For Vendetta":
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
While a radical viewpoint, it is in essence what the "founding fathers" intended in writing the Constitution of the United States of America: the government exists solely for its people, but it would not exist without their consent. The government is supposed to be limited by its people. Sadly, this has not been the case. Laws are passed that grant power to the government with too few of its people ever knowing about it until it is already done. And as long as it isn't unconstitutional, the Supreme Court technically does not need to say that it should not be passed. In other words, it works to the benefit of the government, not the benefit of its people. I love this police state...erm...country (NOT).
Re:SCOTUS (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir are mistaken. You're correct in your statement that the purpose of the government is to serve "The People". Your mistake is presuming you are one of "Those People". "The People" in question have the wealth and power to pay for this government which protects their interests with incredible force and velocity. You may have at one time been one of "The People", but that time has pretty much passed and the only way I can see fit now to drag this festering dung heap back to something even vaguely resembling the intent of the founding fathers, would be to;
/p
1. Eliminate both offending parties and their minions.
2. Eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank.
3. Tell the monied interests of England and its hegemony to eat feces and die.
4. Separate Corporation and State.
5. Reenact Glass-Steagall.
6. Enforce the separation of Church and State.
7. Reconstitute government checks and balances.
8. Prune the Executive Branch right back to the President's eyebrows.
9. Take the profit motive out of government, and teach our children why its important that they do a hitch as a representative.
10. Bury the military industrial complex, it is a dead end and threatens the integrity of the future of the human race.
11. Pay whistle blowers and celebrate them as heroes.
Sorry if I missed anything, I realize this is at best a pipe dream, but a person can dream. We are quick running out of time to take back what is rightfully ours. I'm certain y'all have your own to-do lists. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal problem. I see this as a problem between a vanishingly small plutocracy and the rest of humanity. These are not wise people and they are making knee-jerk decisions that start with culling the herd. I'm not volunteering for a species wide down sizing thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on who you consider the founding fathers to be. If you include everyone that participated in the Continental Congress and all other activities required to forge a new government, I'd have to admit you're right. On the other hand, if by founding fathers, you mean those few men that were the architects of the American dream, and inside of which were inspired to see all men as equal with inalienable rights, then I could honestly say no you are mistaken. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, these were men of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Separation of church/state has always been about keeping either as an institution from controlling the other
Exactly, if churches weren't tax-exempt, the state couldn't influence the church by threatening to remove the tax-exempt status.
Sadly, many people take this to somehow mean that politicians can't be part of the church
Huh, that's funny. I must have missed all those atheist candidates...
(Also, they're facing the loss of their tax-exempt status not for preaching bigotry, but for preaching to their masses to vote for the guy that supports bigotry. Once they enter that political ring, they lose their tax-exempt status. Same goes for all non-profit [wikipedia.org])
...interesting. Hope it becomes an election issue. (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...
Re:...interesting. Hope it becomes an election iss (Score:5, Insightful)
They are queitly mumbled under the breath of canidates, and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Re:...interesting. Hope it becomes an election iss (Score:5, Insightful)
... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Or worse [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.
Or worse [wikipedia.org].
You do realize that was primarily a power struggle within one fascist political party, right?
It would be somewhere between utter fantasy and sheer lunacy to assert the United States is on the precipice of anything like that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This wiretaping rule is no problem to John Q. Public. As far as they're concerned this only affects people who are doing wong.
The only way to get the Obama Admin off of this is maybe make it a Tea Party issues - "Hey Teapartiers! That Socialist Obama has all these powers to spy on you God fearing Christians so he knows whose guns to take away!"
Really, I'm not joking. It WILL work!
No, it won't - I know, I spend a good portion of every day surrounded by that particular group of mental midgets, and lord know I've tried to convince them of such. See, those groups (ultra-right Tea Baggers, ultra-left Uber-Socialists) don't care what happens in the world, unless it's relayed to them by one of their self-appointed Minstries of Truth - in the case of RWNs, it's Newscorp and Rush Limbaugh; for the LWNs, you have Bill Maher and NBC.
The only way you'll get the nutjobs to actually listen to
Re:They're real to us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maher is a comedian. Kind of like Jon Stewart, except with less rigorous fact-checking. Their audiences know this.
Limbaugh is also a comedian. The difference is, neither he nor his audience know it.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
Maher is a comedian. Kind of like Jon Stewart, except with less rigorous fact-checking. Their audiences know this.
Stewart's audience, yes (mostly); Maher's I'm not so sure about, from listening to them talk...
I'm certain there's a better example of a lunatic fringe left-wing demagogue than Maher, but I couldn't think of any off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Limbaugh is also a comedian. The difference is, neither he nor his audience know it.
That isn't quite true. Limbaugh exposes progressive ideas to ridicule, and both he and his audience get it. It is the subjects of the ridicule that don't get it.
Don't forget about Limbaugh's tendency to lead his audience into believing some seriously whacked-out bullshit, for example that environmentalists planted a bomb on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in 2010. [ecopolitology.org]
Where I come from, junkies are not to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
NBC is not the channel for LWNs, MSDN is.
No it isn't, Democracy Now is. The fact that you didn't notice that shows just how skewed to the right all of the rest of them are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
maybe make it a Tea Party issues
Their handlers are salivating at the thought of getting those powers back.
For instance, the Texas Republican Party Platform document stated that they should make bill of rights cases un-appealable to the Supreme Court by using Congress's control over jurisdiction of courts to make violations of the Bill of Rights outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. (All that bullshit about "critical thinking skills" or whatever was a huge fucking snowjob and the liberals bought into
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, the Texas Republican Party Platform document stated that they should make bill of rights cases un-appealable to the Supreme Court by using Congress's control over jurisdiction of courts to make violations of the Bill of Rights outside of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. (All that bullshit about "critical thinking skills" or whatever was a huge fucking snowjob and the liberals bought into it hook line and stinker.)
I think your entire post is pure BS. Even if what you wrote about the Texas Republican Party was true, which I highly doubt, it doesn't write the platform document for the national Republican party, and it would take national level action, not state level action, to make that sort of change. I think you are trying to take in some rubes.
Re: (Score:3)
"Remedies to Activist Judiciary" [tfn.org], starting around the bottom of the page numbered "P-4".
Led by a nationally relevant Texas Republican [house.gov].
Re:...interesting. Hope it becomes an election iss (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.
Haha, have you seen Romney/Ryan interviews? They refuse to answer any specific questions because their plan is to cut taxes, increase military spending, keep all other spending (except PBS). Oh, and repeal the health care bill, keep just the popular parts (i.e. the ones that cost money), while tossing out unpopular parts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for that, but you are talking about the United States of America, and gawd knows between attention deficit, reality television programming and the American diet for dumb and dumber talking heads, the chance of such debates are small, and the chance of them getting more than a dozen viewers who aren't CSPAN junkies on non-election years is small to vanishing.
Question time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the mod points when I need them! I don't even bother watching political debates live because the debate questions tend to be a quick rehash of the things we hear on a daily basis. Can we get some real discussion on the issues please?
I just watch the debates live due to the drinking game aspect. I entirely agree that we won't get anything useful from them.
Re:...interesting. Hope it becomes an election iss (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it come up in the debates when both parties feel they have the right to warrantless wiretapping. Kinda hard to debate something when there's no difference in viewpoint.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
HA!
The only issues that are even mentioned in 'debates' are ones that don't matter to the politicians (and more importantly, the ones sponsoring a candidate). This is why you will never ever hear a thing about the thousands arrested by government across the country protesting the bankers and wall street and such, yet not a single banker has been prosecuted even where outright fraud has been admitted and proven. They won't talk about the mercenaries who took over when 'active military personnel' withdrew fro
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why the candidates should be talking about people getting arrested in protests. I'm not aware of the federal government arresting one person for protesting. State and local government might have but the candidates aren't running for state or lo
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you will never ever hear a thing about the thousands arrested by government across the country protesting the bankers and wall street and such
They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for violating the law. Usually stuff like blocking streets and camping in public spaces and whatnot.
yet not a single banker has been prosecuted even where outright fraud has been admitted and proven
Show me evidence of ONE banker who admitted breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Romney has never been in a position that could influence the warrantless searches or the laws forbidding the lawsuits. He has never been a senator or congressman and lost his last attempt to run for president.
He did run for senator against Ted Kennedy back in 94 or so, but lost that. He's basically been just a governor and politician who tried to get a job at a federal level.
Romney can probably weasel out of culpability if he wanted to. However, I doubt either candidate wants to because they most likely see
Re:...interesting. Hope it becomes an election iss (Score:4, Insightful)
The voters swallowed the fear mongering from politicians, pundits, and people selling books and articles on how the world is out to get you. They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security. Both parties are guilty, but they're giving the customers what they want. There's not a politician alive of any party who could get through to the voters and get them to stop sacrificing their rights in exchange for security. Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ben Franklin would be completely ignored by the media today, aside from being the occasional punchline.
Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson authorized opening other people's private mail [wikipedia.org], without a warrant,l to gather intelligence to help win the Revolutionary War. I very much doubt he would object to government surveillance of people in direct contact with Al Qaida.
And the voters would continue to ignore the loss of civil rights.
Which civil rights would those be? The US Constitution doesn't grant any civil right to private communications with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the United States.
They cowered in fear and offered their rights up to a police state as payment for perceived security.
The United States isn't a police state, not even close. You are indu
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
Right. Even if someone brought it up, they don't have to wiggle out because they are both in agreement. While there are some differences (and not minor ones) between those two, the list of agreements is even longer
If we are lucky we might hear debate on the disagreements. Why debate stuff they agree on? Without a 3rd (or a 4th) party candidate that can actually call them on that?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The number one question I would like to ask politicians, political candidates and people more generally (including and especially both Obama and Romney) is this:
Do you believe that it is acceptable for the government of the United States of America and its agencies to violate the Constitutional rights and civil liberties of ordinary American Citizens in the name of the War on Terror?
Two questions I'd like to ask Romney (Score:3)
are these:
1. Governor, you understand that an action may be legal but not ethical. Why, then, given the difficult financial condition of Americans and America, did you take a tax deduction for your wife's horse? With nearly a quarter of a billion dollars net worth, why are you forcing me and my fellow Americans to pay for your wife's horse?
2. In your first debate with President Obama, you said in response to President Obama: "...the place you put your money makes a pretty clear indication of where your hea
Re: (Score:2)
No... he remains just as culpable by his silence on the matter (albeit as the Governor of Mass.) when fellow party-member Bush instituted this particular little policy.
If all else fails and you want something more concrete, get someone to ask him point-blank. Any answer less than dissembling or qualifiers is to be interpreted as assent.
So far, the only politician of note to speak out against it directly is Ron Paul, who obviously has no hope of winning this (or any) presidential election.
so, basically they are saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
So essentially, they have openly stated that because the practice is useful to the government ut should not be subjected to judiciary review, despite clear concerns from privacy advocates, and seemingly legitimate legal challenges to the validity of the practice?
Since when did the judiciary stop doing its job and become rubber stampers?
Re:so, basically they are saying... (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Denying a petition doesn't mean the SCOTUS agrees with the lower decision just that the Court won't hear the case for whatever reason. It doesn't have to say why. Here, likely, the Court thought the issue would be settled in the other case it did take and that the two cases weren't close enough to combine. Basically, decide the NSA case. If NSA can't authorize then AT&T can't comply. It's a waterfall decision so there is no reason to hear both.
Re: (Score:3)
>Denying a petition doesn't mean the SCOTUS agrees with the lower decision just that the Court won't hear the case for whatever reason
Tacit approval is still approval.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
The overall effect is the same.
Tacit approval means that the Court will simply look the other way. While it doesn't set legal precident, it certainly sends a signal.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
It sends a signal that the court did not address it. Any other court can address it if someone with cause can bring the case to it. That seems to be the problem in this case though, you cannot get cause if the law says you cannot sue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a blatant copout that admits "There's so many fuckups we don't have time to fix them all" and gives the appeals courts a blank check to run amok.
Re: (Score:2)
About 11 years ago, when 9/11 made all the dreams of the totalitarian twatwaffles come true. In the opinions of many, the two circumstances are linked.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where the U.S. government gets access to all of the E.U. members banking data, what sort of in-country data could possibly be off limits?
Lets face it, not only have they recorded every phone call since sometime shortly after 9/11, they also have direct access to every database of every major corporation. That includes your banking data, your credit data, your email, and what articles you posted upon on slashdot.
Re:so, basically they are saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Spanish Inquisition was also useful in preventing the spread of heretical doctrines. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Re:so, basically they are saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
So essentially, they have openly stated that because the practice is useful to the government ut should not be subjected to judiciary review, despite clear concerns from privacy advocates, and seemingly legitimate legal challenges to the validity of the practice?
At issue isn't the wiretaps themselves are kosher but whether you can punish the telecom for doing what the people at whatever government agency ordered them to do. This is pitting the telecoms and the people against each other while the real culprit, the government agents, just snicker. The entire private sector needs to take up the protest together.
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially, they have openly stated that because the practice is useful to the government ut should not be subjected to judiciary review, despite clear concerns from privacy advocates, and seemingly legitimate legal challenges to the validity of the practice?
Well, sort of. Or more like, don't arrest AT&T officials because they did what the President told them to do. Kind of the wrong spot to put them in. Sort of like Mom tells you to do something, and Dad tells you he'll ground you if you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Most severely since the shenanigans that permitted the communist takeover of the US back in the first part of the last century. Not that they were all that effective before that, mind you.
James Madison said it best. (Score:5, Insightful)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
â" James Madison (father of the US Constitution)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well Spoken! Also said by Cicero over 2000 years ago "Laws are silent in times of war".
Re:James Madison said it best. (Score:5, Informative)
"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato
There is nothing new in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Obama's kind of been a dick about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there is an opposing candidate that would do better, but if you expect improvements in civil liberties from either of the two major parties, I think you'll be disappointed.
Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Romney is even more authoritarian.
Unfortunately, in a two party system, you are bound to pick the lesser of two evils, and a vote for a third party is a vote for the incumbent.
In b4 shitstorm of people who don't know how the system is deliberately broken.
--
BMO
Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this (Score:5, Insightful)
First, a vote for 3rd party is not a vote for the incumbent.
Second, even along that line of thought, it is only a half vote for the one opposite who you would have voted for.
Third, it is not a wasted vote when voting against the ruining of the country.
A vote for Obama or Mitt is VERY VERY BAD for this country. Like 50 years from now people will be looking in their history books studying why people were so stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, in a two party system, you are bound to pick the lesser of two evils, and a vote for a third party is a vote for the incumbent.
In b4 shitstorm of people who don't know how the system is deliberately broken.
The only way to fix a deliberately broken system is from the outside.
Since a violent revolution is not feasible in the American political climate, your only choice is a massive vote for "third parties" in all levels of government.
Just remember that if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.
Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this (Score:4, Informative)
>. Coming from a parliamentary system I have seen grassroot parties grow from nothing to destroy the establishment.
The US government is not a parliamentary system where various parties can form coalitions and whatnot. There is no such thing as a "minority government" in the US legislature.
--
BMO
Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this (Score:5, Informative)
If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.
How would that be a good sign?
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
With Romney, I KNOW he won't hold to that promise even if he makes it.
Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this (Score:4, Informative)
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
He never had the chance to..... signed into law by bush.
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/07/09 [eff.org]
Two things should be pointed out: Obama voted for this bill, and all of the "nay" votes were democrats.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168 [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Two things should be pointed out: Obama voted for this bill, and all of the "nay" votes were democrats.
Thank you for the correction, I got the dates mixed up
But that makes it even worse. Voting "nay" would let Obama make a statement for free (i.e. without actually delaying or stopping the bill as veto would have). And he couldn't even be bothered to do that and PRETEND to stand by his promise.
Re: (Score:3)
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_fisa.php [talkingpointsmemo.com]
The distinction being, he was never in a position to promise a veto on the FISA bill. He should have stood against it, as ALL members of congress should have, but i think you're suggesting he made a promise which is at odds with what was actually happening at the time. He could have promised to repeal it,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm reminded of slashdot conversations over the topic of China vs USA. Consider for a moment that Romney represents China and Obama represents the US -- as many would choose the latter over the former because the former is "even worse". At the same time, also consider that we've seen popular arguments [slashdot.org] which basically say that China is "at least honest" about their authoritarianism, and that the caring facade put up by the US, in spite of its actions to the contrary, represents a more insidious [slashdot.org] threat to it
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really like to hear what those who upvoted those two linked posts would say about this.
The /. moderation system makes this difficult.
Re: (Score:3)
But I doubt you agree with one candidate 100%, especially on this issue where both will do the same thing, but one is honest and one isn't. It seems like you're ignoring that and focusing on only the disagreeable positions of one and and only the agreeable positions of the other. Previous posters in previous threads have argued successfully that an honest tyrant is easier to oppose and rally an opposition against, while the soothe-saying tyrant will gain power up to and past the point of no return. I gather
Meet the old boss ... (Score:2)
Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss [banoosh.com] ...)
(lather, rinse, repeat
THIS is why we need to endorse a third party, and break the Republican/Democrat chain that has gone on since 1868 [wikipedia.org]... just after Abraham Lincoln.
Screw them BOTH, and vote Independent.
Ex-post facto? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
In a system that has no negative consequences for a politician lying, did you really expect presidential candidates to keep their promises?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Posters above us have established (with overwhelming moderation approval) that both mainstream candidates are similar, so it would be illogical to vote for one because you fear a victory by "the other" major party.
Re: (Score:2)
The more correct question to ask is.. would Mittens be any worse? At this point it is hard to envision anybody being worse on issues of civil liberties than has been Obama. Not only has he continued the Bush era wiretapping, he has expanded the programs reach and use (see recent ACLU report on pen registers and trap and trace). He has greatly expanded the powers of the FBI. And those are just a few of the things we actually know about. Since getting in office he has been totally down with everything
Require a damn warrant !!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if we took 100% of the NSA dollars and spent it on teachers and education, science programs, social programs like healthcare, college tuition forgiveness and urban development..... ahh to dream, guess I won't be using ATT anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing your telecom company is a lot like changing your choice of president.
There isn't much of a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the same people... (Score:2)
...who allowed Obaaaaama care to pass a national tax. But the supporters don't call it a tax.
I guess this isn't wiretapping just really strategic listening.
U.S.A Government is the new Terrorist (Score:2)
They scare me more then anyone else on this planet.
Even as I speak out like this, I'm afraid my emails, internet, phone will be monitored because I am speaking out.
I do NOT feel safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good.
I'd extend it further to posit that the purpose of democracy isn't really to give its citizens anything more than an illusion that they have any impact on how things are run. Democracy is merely safeguard to prevent the established institution from being overthrown in a bloody revolution in case one of the leaders fucks up royally. Our leaders have become brilliant at straddling the line, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Good post let me add some points.
The Senate before the 17th amendment represented the state governments in Washington DC. This was important because it pit one group of greedy power hungry bastards against another. The 17th amendment was passed because they said the way senators were elected was corrupt. Of course it was. That was the purpose. Now nobody represents the state governments in DC and it shows.
Second.
The final check is a jury trial and nullification. A jury can rule on not only the guilt or inno
Re: (Score:3)
you can exercise your RIGHT to jury nullification.
but be aware that you risk 'angering the court' and getting one of those law talking guys to give you a bad court thingie.
contempt of court can be a deterrent. you have to lie to the court to even get past voire dire, and so there's that. and when you lie and say you won't follow your heart, but will, instead, dutifully be a sheep to the judge's view of the law - then you go and vote against his views, you are really risking contempt. lots of bad court th
Read the constitution to understand (Score:2)
This isn't railing against all data mining operations. This is railing against data mining operations that operate in direct opposition to the 4th amendment of the US constitution.
There are still a few people around who think the government ought to be limited by the constitution, and that the only legitimate way to change the constitution resides under the aegis of article V, and that the fiddling the government -- all three branches -- has been doing is by definition illegal.