Federal Prosecutors, In a Policy Shift, Cite Warrantless Wiretaps As Evidence 321
schwit1 sends this quote from the NY Times "The Justice Department for the first time has notified a criminal defendant that evidence being used against him came from a warrantless wiretap, a move that is expected to set up a Supreme Court test of whether such eavesdropping is constitutional. The government's notice allows the defendant's lawyer to ask a court to suppress the evidence by arguing that it derived from unconstitutional surveillance, setting in motion judicial review of the eavesdropping. ... The practice contradicted what [Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.] had told the Supreme Court last year in a case challenging the law, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Legalizing a form of the Bush administration’s program of warrantless surveillance, the law authorized the government to wiretap Americans’ e-mails and phone calls without an individual court order and on domestic soil so long as the surveillance is “targeted” at a foreigner abroad. A group of plaintiffs led by Amnesty International had challenged the law as unconstitutional. But Mr. Verrilli last year urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the case because those plaintiffs could not prove that they had been wiretapped. In making that argument, he said a defendant who faced evidence derived from the law would have proper legal standing and would be notified, so dismissing the lawsuit by Amnesty International would not close the door to judicial review of the 2008 law. The court accepted that logic, voting 5-to-4 to dismiss the case."
There have been a lot of firsts (Score:5, Insightful)
In fairness to Eric (Score:5, Insightful)
POLICE STATE OF THE FREE! (Score:2, Funny)
And the home, of the alleged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:POLICE STATE OF THE FREE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Eric Holder can do no wrong because he is a black man. Furthermore, now that we have black man Jah Rasta Johnson [wikipedia.org] as the DHS leader, nobody can complain about performance or creeping fascism because both are black men and to criticize black men is racist. And racism is a hate crime. Blacks are, after all, predisposed to crime, and will naturally resort to the appropriate criminal behavior even after an Ivy league law education. It's what we free-thinking tea-party individuals like to call "Chicago Politics."
Do you disagree, you racist motherfucker? Huh? Do you?
-- Ethanol-fueled
Chicago has a long history of corrupt politics, as do several other major cities. To focus on the group identity is to distract attention away from the power plays that are being made. That is simply a strategic error. That corruption is becoming more inclusive and diverse along with better and more worthy enterprises is hardly relevant to the state of the republic today. It really does not matter who is at the helm, under what holy name they crusade, with which justification they advance towards fascism. These matters are academic and within the realm of mere trivia.
What really matters is how and why the average person does not wake up and realize that the America they were taught to believe in does not exist, and how their own philosophical, intellectual, moral, and character flaws prevented them from seeing this at the very beginning. There is indeed something wrong with a person who argues passionately about minutia like sports and television shows while their nation is decaying. None of that could be an accident.
Re:POLICE STATE OF THE FREE! (Score:5, Interesting)
What really matters is how and why the average person does not wake up and realize that the America they were taught to believe in does not exist, and how their own philosophical, intellectual, moral, and character flaws prevented them from seeing this at the very beginning. There is indeed something wrong with a person who argues passionately about minutia like sports and television shows while their nation is decaying. None of that could be an accident.
A religious bigwig recently came back from Europe and commented that it is a "spiritual desert".
The problem with the average American you describe is that s/he is the product of a philosophical desert. People here literally don't know how to think, instead worshipping spirits, technology, sports, sex, money, consumerism; The consummate 'mainstream' American leading the Good Life is a confluence of all of these. I personally know people who have recoiled with revulsion when I casually described pure scientific research as an occupation (e.g. "scientists" are thought of as ensconced within for-profit corporations trying to discover things that are either convenient and/or lethal); both times there was no larger political, religious or other context to the discussion apart from talking about some of the people we know. The first time I chalked it up as a fluke misunderstanding; the second person I knew had understood and it frightened me to my core.
This country now produces strident anti-intellectuals: People who worship technology and "science" for its pure power and ability to effect a result. In some ways they're as alienated as can be from The Enlightenment that ostensibly produced our Constitution. Polls show they--most Americans--love the surveillance state.
Philosophical discussion is regarded as unforgivably weird and threatening here, even among people holding four-year degrees. If you lose the ability to probe concepts in general, you lose the ability to effectively probe/question authority (though making an ineffective, self-immolating show of it never goes out of style).
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes, blame the French. And when you can blame the French and Communism at the same time, even better. Your red herring is so scary.
The US, by and large, is still governed more by reason and pragmatism.
I don't even know what to say about this one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:POLICE STATE OF THE FREE! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even that. It's governed by tribalism. The voters consider the two parties in much the same as as sports fans consider their teams.
Re: (Score:3)
Many of the European connections to Christianity are mostly historical and nominal. The UK has a state religion (CoE) but very low church attendance. Germany has a Christian Democrat party that is mainly concerned with secular issues. Denmark and some scandinavian countries collect tax and give some of it to the national religion (Luthernism iirc) but you can opt out of any of your money going to the church. My relatives in France and Finland go to church for weddings and christenings because it is a socia
UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... there is NOTHING FREE !!!
I am speaking on experience.
I am an American, a naturalized American citizen.
I came from China.
I, and many others, risking our lives and swam to Hong Kong back in the 1970's. They were shooting at us, back then.
We risked our lives not because we were poor (and we were) but because there was NO FREEDOM for the people.
Everything that we did - who your friends were, where you been to, what you did, why you did what you did, everything - was under the watchful eyes of the BIG BROTHER.
I went to the United States precisely because, back then, the United States of America was the only country that could guarantee my freedom, because, back then, the government of the United States of America still had respect for The Constitution.
I became an American citizen precisely because I found the freedom that I had longed for.
That was back then.
Not now.
Nowadays, the so-called "freedom" has all but evaporated.
When the prosecutors (or rather, persecutors ) can charge people with warrantless wiretaps , what is the difference between the United States of America and the former East Germany under Stasi or China under CCP ?
Back when I became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, my new government was still operating under the Constitution of the United States.
No more.
Under the Obama administration, I am sorry to say, the Constitution of the United States has become as valuable as soiled disposable diaper.
As an American, I am sad.
As one who was from an oppressed state, risking live in order to gain freedom, I am HORRIFIED.
I am watching THE COUNTRY THAT I ADOPTED turning into just like the one I ran away from.
Re: (Score:2)
"Under the Obama administration, I am sorry to say, the Constitution of the United States has become as valuable as soiled disposable diaper."
...I thought you said you were here since the 1970's
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called "The straw that broke the camels back", the camel always remembers that last straw and who put it their and tends to forget all the others that piled on there.
Basically Uncle Tom Obama the choom gang coward looks far far worse because he promised time and time again to be far far better than his predecessors and instead, well, history has proven that while he is a skilled teleprompter reader his actions prove him to be a far right sycophant.
As for the individual, mouthing off is mouthing of
Re: (Score:3)
Basically Uncle Tom Obama the choom gang coward looks far far worse because he promised time and time again to be far far better than his predecessors and instead, well, history has proven that while he is a skilled teleprompter reader his actions prove him to be a far right sycophant.
The hell of a thing is, even if he truly intended to be better (which I doubt, for he was groomed from his obscure start), it would not matter. He's a mere puppet or a cog in a vast machine far beyond his control despite his high office.
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your honour, integrity and honesty are never ever beyond your control. To abandon those is not to be a puppet but a sell out, a honourable liar without integrity. That is always in your control and always your choice. No, cog, Obama is a co-conspirator and a betrayer of all he pretended to stand for.
Re: (Score:3)
"That is always in your control and always your choice."
The alternate "choice" could be ending up like JFK.
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Obama's failure is particularly profound because he did the opposite of what he promised. But your diagnosis is wrong.
I used to be a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama. But it is clear to me now that there is little difference between Democrats, Republicans, progressives, and conservatives: they all are beholden to their own special interests, and they are all using laws and regulations to enrich their buddies, whether they be unions or corporations. And the NSA, police, military, and government employees are every politician's buddy and get what they want. So stop paying lip service to the propaganda that "the left" somehow has your interests at heart.
What we need is more politicians that fight for individual liberties and reduce the size of the US federal government.
Re: (Score:3)
Until 2001, things weren't so bad. After 9/11, Bush and Congress went crazy. Obama was elected in 2008 to reverse this trend. He had made great promises to restore the rule of law, privacy, due process, and constitutionality (and also to reduce crony capitalism and craft a sane drug policy). As a constitutional scholar and liberal, he had all the credentials. That's why people voted for him; that's why I voted for him. Instead of doing what he promised, Obama has actually made things far worse, and because
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem is, we now have an entire generation that has never known the difference. We have too many people who are products of their environment, knowing only what they were taught, who lack the initiative to really look into the history and understand the changes that have occurred. To them, all of this is necessary and normal. It's a problem of inertia.
Re: (Score:3)
I am pretty sure our leaders have been ignoring the constitution for over 100 years. Just because you did not notice that it was corrupted and ignored when you came here in the 1970s does not change that.
Warrant-less wiretaps is certainly a very old thing.
I don't think that Obama has been any better or worse than previous presidents at following the constitution.
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, you say that warrantless wiretaps have been going on for a very long time. Maybe they have, but they were certainly never standard operating procedure. Good hell they're warrantlessly wiretapping EVERYBODY these days. And back then they never came out and said,"Hey, we're doing warrantless wiretaps, and if you don't like it you can fuck right off" like they do now.
Second, saying it's been going on like this for hundreds of years makes it sound like it'll always be this way, so you might as well do nothing. It also lends it an air false legitimacy: "If the founding fathers were doing it it must be okay."
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, I really hate posts like yours, for a couple of reasons.
First, you say that warrantless wiretaps have been going on for a very long time. Maybe they have, but they were certainly never standard operating procedure. Good hell they're warrantlessly wiretapping EVERYBODY these days. And back then they never came out and said,"Hey, we're doing warrantless wiretaps, and if you don't like it you can fuck right off" like they do now.
Second, saying it's been going on like this for hundreds of years makes it sound like it'll always be this way, so you might as well do nothing. It also lends it an air false legitimacy: "If the founding fathers were doing it it must be okay."
The Founding Fathers were adamantly against this sort of thing and were willing to risk everything to try and create a nation that stood for something better. Their real problem is that they had to deal with the social realities of their day that were not within their power to overturn, such as the institution of slavery and the notions of class and wealth. Yet within those suffocating boundaries they instituted something more that we have failed to realize.
One of their fears about having a Bill of Rights at all, was that the mere existence of such a document may foster the notion that human rights were limited to only those which were enumerated. As it stands today, the Bill of Rights is merely a yardstick by which we measure how far our failures have progressed.
I sincerely believe that future generations will consider us a Dark Age greater than any medieval period, for never has the average person been so petty, emotionally and spiritually immature, ill-informed in the face of an Information Age, navie, and unwilling to stand up for what was right. The medieval serf at least had the excuse of being at the mercy of the information brokers and gatekeepers of their time. Our ignorant, on the other hand, can point only to their own laziness and failure of priorities.
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:5, Interesting)
We have very similar stories, except I am from Africa, and the bit about the swimming. I agree with you entirely.
I have noticed that people born in the USA take their liberty for granted, and are careless with it. On the other hand, those who have seen oppression (and I have seen the trajectory we are once already) understand the real and present danger we face.
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have very similar stories, except I am from Africa, and the bit about the swimming. I agree with you entirely.
I have noticed that people born in the USA take their liberty for granted, and are careless with it. On the other hand, those who have seen oppression (and I have seen the trajectory we are once already) understand the real and present danger we face.
Some of us who were born there do love and cherish our liberty and recognize the many ways in which it is being trampled with impunity. The problem is, we are drowned out by so many who think that professional sports, pop music, consumerism, television, and personal dramas are much higher priority. It's a problem of values and a problem of dehumanization as explained by Erich Fromm.
You absolutely must have a broken people with malleable values and loyalties before you can have a police state. A strong, intact, whole people who are relatively self-sufficient and value ideals far beyond their own convenience cannot be trampled in this manner.
Re:UNDER THE POLICE STATE ... (Score:4, Informative)
Back when I became a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, my new government was still operating under the Constitution of the United States.
No more.
Under the Obama administration, I am sorry to say, the Constitution of the United States has become as valuable as soiled disposable diaper.
Actually, crap like warrantless wiretaps began under Bush shortly after the attacks in 2001, and Obama just expanded the scope of abuse.
It's also far from the first time that the federal government has shit on the Constitution. The WW2 internment of Americans with Japanese ancestry [wikipedia.org] is one example -- and don't forget the Constitution-shredding fun of McCarthyism [wikipedia.org], the Subversive Activities Control Act [wikipedia.org], and the 1798 Alien Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org], just to name a few.
I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of what's going on, to be clear -- just pointing out that the current problem runs much deeper than our current administration, and that it's not the first time deep corruption has fucked over a lot of Americans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When the prosecutors (or rather, persecutors ) can charge people with warrantless wiretaps , what is the difference between the United States of America and the former East Germany under Stasi or China under CCP ?
As long as it remains limited to national security cases - people in direct contact with an enemy in an armed conflict - the difference remains substantial. If the practice migrates to other areas of the law, then there is trouble.... big trouble. I doubt that will happen in a direct fashion since it is a pretty big cultural gap to cross, but eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty.
Re:In fairness to Eric (Score:5, Insightful)
He's a representative sample of what the U.S. government has become, and that's by no means limited to either component party of the Ruling Class.
He's not a product of an entirely faceless process. He's an individual who has chosen his allegiances, as do all individuals. That must not be disregarded when measuring what sort of man he is.
The Left Wing and the Right Wing are two body parts of the same Beast. It's a monument to human stupidity that so few seem to truly comprehend that. The purpose of a two-party system is to play "good cop, bad cop" and to periodically switch roles for maximum mindfuck effect. The Founding Fathers foresaw what a two-party system would become because they understood and chose not to delude themselves about a few basic principles of reality. The understanding component is easy and painless compared to the decision to accept no delusion, however comfortable and reassuring it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been a lot of firsts for Eric Holder's corrupt and diseased justice department.
This is the first Hail Mary Pass I've the DOJ throw. We can only hope the Judges remember their oath of office.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I'm not counting on it, but I believe even the court has seen the huge uproar this issue has caused.
They realize that if they allow this, all bets are off, no holds are barred, and the surveillance society had full reign.
Once loosed, they realize they can never put that genie back in the bottle.
Call it a "natural process" (Score:3)
I can't wait until we vote Bush/Cheney out (Score:4, Funny)
This crap is never going to stop as long as the evil Rethuglicans are in power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So because it's the law we're no longer allowed to have a problem with it? Why are there idiots like you always cheering on the state?
Democrats vs republicans is irrelevant. Both are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I can't wait until we vote Bush/Cheney out (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody threatened to default on our debt unless we repealed the PATRIOT Act, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The Treasury Department most certainly holds the purse. As long as they pay to service the debt, we don't default. The debt service costs about 250 billion a year. Revenues are about 2 trillion a year. As long as taxpayers pay their taxes and the Treasury pays what we owe to US Government bond holders, we prevent default. The Treasury Department is in the executive branch, and is directed by the President.
The Constitution requires us to recognize our foreign debt. The Treasury makes bond payments whet
Re: (Score:2)
The only way a default is currently possible is if the president specifically orders the treasury department not to service the debt, regardless of what congress does with budgets and debt ceilings.
if you don't like those facts, you can work to change them. Perhaps you could support moving the treasury department from the executive branch to the legislative branch, and with y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It would have to be clear and simple, though: something as straightforward as the U.S. Constitution.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait until we vote Bush/Cheney out (Score:5, Insightful)
"expanded it 100-fold."
How can you possibly know that? The Bush administration was arguably the most secretive administration ever. The fact that the Obama administration has let slip 100 times more than the Bush admin did, does not indicate that Obama is more prying than Bush. It MAY only mean that Obama/Biden is more inept than Bush/Cheney. That, plus there are more whistle blowers.
Maybe that was arguable a few years ago.
It isn't any more.
Obama's administration has made a mockery of FOIA requests, turned the IRS into a politcal attack dog going after political enemies, has had it's Attorney General held in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents, and hounds whistleblowes to the ends of the Earth.
Contrast all that to how the Bush administration treated Michael Scheuer and Joe Wilson when they leaked classified data critical of Bush during elections.
And I'd venture to say the way Obama fumbled events in Syria is pretty good evidence that's Obama is WAAAAY more inept than Bush.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh bullcrap. Any reasonable reading of the IRS evidence shows that it was going after both parts of the political spectrum equally. The law itself is very vague and clearly led to the situation.
Bush made a mockery of FOIA requests as well.
The Attorney General being held in contempt was an action by Dan Issa's group of monkey's. It was a completely partisan vote y a body whose openly avowed purpose was to do anything possible to prevent the re-election of the sitting president.
I notice you DIDN'T mention the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you possibly know that? The Bush administration was arguably the most secretive administration ever.
Certain things are easily visible even if they do not "officially" exist
For example, no matter how secretive and non-existent in US, drone bombings get noticed by affected countries. Obama expanded drone operations quite a bit (perhaps not 100-fold, but significantly).
Can someone remind me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having lived in East Germany, I can tell you. East Germans didn't pretend they were free.
So you're saying that America is better at propaganda than East Germany was?
Re: (Score:2)
Team America! Fuck Yeah!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you're saying that America is better
fuck yeah america is better
USA USA USA
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:4, Funny)
How are we, the U.S., different from East Germany?
The US has an independent press that's always critical of the government, no matter which politcal party is in power, like the New York Times.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has an independent press that's always critical of the government, no matter which politcal party is in power, like the New York Times.
Was...was that a joke?
Re: (Score:2)
The US has an independent press that's always critical of the government, no matter which politcal party is in power, like the New York Times.
Was...was that a joke?
Apparently; Chomsky's punchline that impartial news is a joke has been widely known for decades. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In East Germany if you liked your health insurance you got to keep it.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Informative)
How are we, the U.S., different from East Germany?
Easy. The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people. The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers. The suspect in this case is accused of assisting a terrorist group. East Germany's secret police had both an intelligence function and police powers. Their primary purpose was to keep the East German Communist party in power. The secret police were referred to as "The Sword and Shield of the Party." You could be arrested and imprisoned for such things as making jokes about the nation's leadership, wanting to form a new political party, being a member of an unapproved church, trying to leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot), and many other possible infractions. It isn't a small gap between them.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Informative)
How are we, the U.S., different from East Germany?
Easy. The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people.
Except when they entrap people who are too stupid to find their way to the bathroom and lead them by the hand into a Hollywood terrorist plot that they never would have come up with on their own. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/nyregion/16terror.html [nytimes.com] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/12/how-terrorist-entrapment-ensares-us-all [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
While it is true that the original scope of the intelligence community were not to enforce the law, that role is increasingly becoming part of their previously secret budget. Or that budget just increases with the collaboration between the different alphabet soup agencies. A microscopic gap indeed. That gap is non-existent to foreigners especially if you are in certain regions of Pakistan and Yemen under a CIA drone.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
You HAVE read 1984, right? We are actually in a Forever War. The War on Drugs has become the War on Terrorism, and every year our "police forces" become more and more militarized.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been true since the country was formed. Why is it only in the last 30 years that S.W.A.T. has been used at the drop of a hat and average police regularly go out with military-level gear?
No, we shouldn't. Armed yes, militarized no. The militarization is due largely to the drug war and departments dumping money into shit they don't need to and assuming a stance of force over communication with the citizens of whatever city they feel like pointing guns at.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. Even at the height of prohibition, when Al Capone and his ilk were carrying Thompsons, the police forces throughout most of our nation were still carrying six-shooters. City police forces didn't respond to Tommy guns by purchasing tanks and bazookas. Alright, so maybe New York, Los Angeles and Chicago don't have tanks today, but they do have APC's that they refer to as "rescue vehicles". Mounting a machine gun or a small cannon on one of these is simple enough. A similar model with a main gun isn't much of a reach at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
City police forces didn't respond to Tommy guns by purchasing tanks and bazookas.
No, many of them bought Thompson submachine guns and BARs - Browning Automatic Rifles.
You may be cheering for the police to be outgunned, but if you've ever been outgunned it isn't an experience you wish to repeat - and they generally don't. (And the infamous North Hollywood shootout [youtube.com] is why many police departments traded in their shotguns for rifles in the current era.) And since the police are an arm of government, they are able to buy better weapons if they care to. Just think of it as an upgrade from
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only partly guilty of mixing metaphors. 1984 also had it's "forever war", but didn't use that precise term. "We've always been at war with Eastasia"
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The US is using its national intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence on terrorists trying to kill people".
Mostly BULLSHIT.
"The intelligence agencies themselves don't have police powers".
Fully BULLSHIT.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has both an intelligence function and police powers. Their primary purpose is to "secure the nation from the many threats it faces". You can be arrested and imprisoned for such things as whistle-blowing, opposing the status quo, being an unapproved immigrant, trying to enter or leave the country without permission (could get you shot on the spot), and many other possible infractions. No gap between them but the propaganda gap.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and obtaining intelligence on political movements like Occupy Wall Street. [rollingstone.com]
Oh? [theguardian.com] What's that you say? [rollingstone.com] TFA is about warrantless surveillance undertaken by the FBI, which is the federal agency with explicit domestic police powers.
Under the USA PATRIOT Act, providing "mate
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:4, Interesting)
How are we, the U.S., different from East Germany?
East Germany had a bigger, richer, and democratic neighbour. That was in the end enough motivation to overthrow the government. The USA has Canada and Mexico. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
In East Germany this would never be subject to judicial review or public comment. The concept of 'warrantless wiretap' would be preposterous because warrants were never required under any circumstances.
There would also be no notification to the defendant that anything unusual was happening, nor publication of that information in a newspaper. There would be no prior court case on the topic, or appeals related to that non-existent action.
There would be no publication of how the evidence was obtained, or publi
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the power to fix it, if they care enough.
By... not voting for Bush?
I wonder how that'll turn out.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:4, Informative)
The American people have the power to change this - UNTIL the second amendment is defeated. Have you noticed how the Democrats support gun control? Just like some National Socialist in the 1930's, at every opportunity our Democratic Socialist party today wants to undermine a free man's right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is the defining difference between a free man and a slave.
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see it now, gun nuts getting blown to bits by missiles and bombs they never even saw coming before firing a single shot.
Get over yourselves, you aren't protecting us from anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can someone remind me? (Score:5, Insightful)
A well-armed and coordinated populace can throw out a well-trained and well-funded military. All you need to do is coordinate the American gun-owners into an organized resistance, which in a country this size, you'll have to do via telephone, email, text message, postal mail, or simply physically travelling around.
And we all know that the government can't track you when you.... aww, crap!
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm humans with guns vs drones .....
Somehow I don't see the 2nd amendment as being very useful. Sorry but its time has passed. It can't protect you against the government or each other.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll, I'm sure it's the "we have a better chance of having it upheld now than we do down the road" though this isn't a traditional conservative vs. liberal wing of the Court issue.
Re: (Score:2)
So this might actually be a bit of a blessing since this could stir exactly that kind of public discussion within...
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, it's awefully hard to finish this sentence with a straight face.
The supreme court is the Constitution (Score:3)
Please, stop regarding the Constitution (of any country) as some sacred document. In every country, including obviously despotic states where the judicial system is staffed by the reigning dictator's stooges, the Constitution is simply what the supreme court of the land says it is. So effectively the Supreme Court IS the constitution. Sure there are violent and non-violent ways to fix the problem, throwing out the government or the simpler political expedient of impeaching and throwing out the recalcitrant
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I could see a lot of people, on different ends of the spectrum, tending to agree that warrantless wiretaps should be unconstitutional. It's hardly a position exclusive to (large portions, but not the entirety of) the left.
Re: (Score:3)
I just find it strange that there is anyone (other than those doing the searches) that supports warrant-less searches and secret evidence.
How can you have anything remotely like an honest court if you can't see all the evidence against you and how it was obtained?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No doubt. The problem is the long settled law invariably deals with (a) border searches or (b) searching of individuals outside the US. One could argue that wiretapping of a foreigner abroad is somewhere between (a) and (b). The problem is obviously that invariably to wiretap a person abroad nearly mandates that the other party *in* the United States be searched too. Otherwise, the foreigner abroad answering in "yes" and "no" wou
Re: (Score:2)
So if I understand you right, you're saying, regardless of the outcome of a supreme court case involving warrentless wiretaps, they will still be conducted and used to incarcerate people? The Government will simply decline to actually prosecute any of these people, and just hold them without charge indefinitely? Wow.
Is there any winning outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember - we "knew" a lot of what Snowden reported. We just didn't have public awareness. I could search to see when the first post on Slashdot told us about things like Echelon and Carnivore. Those programs have simply evolved and grown over the past two decades, Snowden didn't actually report anything "new". We gave our tacit consent years ago, and the NSA has taken the ball and run with it. Let's be grateful that Snowden managed to wake up some of the masses, but let's not exaggerate what he has done.
Re: (Score:3)
It does not. It comes from the will of the people, the constitution is the compact by which the authority the people have ceded for mutual benefit is spelled out. It is a proxy to measure against that generations of the people have accepted as reasonable enough.
A government that ignores the will of the people is tyranny. Unfortunately, tyranny also has a way to derive its authority - violence.
Bullshit standings (Score:5, Insightful)
The US can kill an American [wikipedia.org] and his teenage son, yet no one can challenge the action because they were not directly affected. If all the relatives are taken out in one action, then the US is free and clear.
We can't just protest to have unconstitutional laws removed, we have to prove they were used on us. Simply keep quiet about parallel construction [wikipedia.org] and you're good to go. If the defendant says "yes they did" and the US says "no we didn't", then the constitutionality of the law makes no difference, the US is free and clear.
This thing about not challenging a law because it doesn't affect you is bullshit.
If a law is unconstitutional, then it should be possible to challenge the law on its face.
Re: (Score:3)
yet no one can challenge the action because they were not directly affected.
Al-Awlaki's father [still alive] and civil rights groups challenged the order in court.
The Bush Administrations argument... (Score:5, Informative)
Was that
A> warrantless wiretapping was only being done when it involved one foreign contact on the other end.
B> such wiretapping couldn't be used as evidence in any trial anyway.
Essentially a splitting of hairs but the US citizen be brought up on charges.
This is now turned on its ear - the Obama Administration is saying they can gather evidence on you WITHOUT permission (IE Illegally!) and they can charge you with a crime so long as they inform the accused they gathered such information... Illegally...
WTF has this country come too?!
Re:The Bush Administrations argument... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AC already stated the obvious - we never were a democracy, constitutional or otherwise. We are a constitutional REPUBLIC. There are some subtle differences between the two. Government seems to like to promote the idea that it is a democratic government, which encourages fools to act in a stupid manner. In a democracy, at least theoretically, the majority rules. In a republic, the majority's voice is easily ignored. With a tyrannical government, no one even listens to the people's voice. We haven't be
Re: (Score:2)
Between the Patriot Act and Citizens United we no longer are a constitutional democracy.
I am vehemently opposed to the PATRIOT act, but I personally cannot understand the notion that people, when acting together, lose their constitutional rights, and that's exactly what an opposite ruling in Citizens United would have implied.
.
Makes sense... (Score:2)
A lot of times you don't use information you have because it would reveal your methods and sources. But now that a lot of NSA methods and sources are known, they can use the information out in the open like this. Assuming the court accepts it as admissible under rules of evidence.
It's sad, really (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad to see the US turning into a police state. Or perhaps it's too late, that's been done, and they're just dotting the I's and crossing the T's.
If this evidence is deemed acceptable, you can expect the scope of the surveillance to expand dramatically as there is suddenly a reason for tapping the people in-country: prosecution. You can expect widespread surveillance to capture gang bangers, drug dealers, and probably even the guy next door who works "under the table" to avoid paying the IRS.
Modern technology gives the government powers far over and above anything that has ever been available before when it comes to monitoring the population. And not merely monitoring, but controlling. Unlike with television, the "message" you get on the internet can be customized and tailored based on where and how you're surfing from. Newspaper sites have already been doing this for years, tailogring the news based on which nation someone is surfing from.
I must admit I would never have predicted the abuses that I'm seeing happen. There was so much hope for the benefits of the internet when it was starting that no one ever really discussed the potential for abuse. Worse, you can't even try to stop the abuse because if you implement the end-to-end encryption that can prevent it, the government comes down on the companies involved to force them to stop. You're not allowed to maintain your privacy through a service like LavaBit in this new surveillance society.
There was a Sylvester Stallone movie years ago that porttrayed an idyllic society above ground where it was illegal to even swear, and where in-room monitors spat out tickets for such offenses automatically.
Is that where our world is headed? Towards a stale and staid managed society where any crime is a major shock because the people have stopped even thinking about performing criminal acts because they expect to be caught immediately if they try? It sounds like a lifestyle of fear and repression far beyond anything even the Nazis or East Germany ever dreamed of.
I'd say that it all starts with this case, but we all know that's not true. It started years ago, when the surveillance began. This case is merely a continuation of the world government's mission to enslave humanity.
Re:It's sad, really (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/?ref_=nv_sr_1 [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been shouting slippery slope for decades... usually to a chorus of "traitor" and "terrorist sympathizer"
Haven't you heard? The slippery slope is a fallacy, and anyone who makes the argument can be dismissed out of hand. Basically, we're fucked.
Did anyone actually RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's very fashionable to compare US to the communist countries, which most of you haven't lived in, and aren't even old enough to have seen on TV. I did - and let me just say it's nothing alike.
Still, perhaps it's worth reading the "FA" to understand exactly what it means?
tl;dr; version - some US prosecutors have been using evidence so derived in criminal cases without notifying defendants. Sometime during this summer someone higher up in Justice Department became aware of this (I'll take this claim at face value for now) and after some discussion (and presumably some opposition from those prosecutors who found the practice very convenient) it was decided that hiding the warrantless wiretaps from defendants is not acceptable (based on the way the law is interpreted).
Based on that, find 3 differences between US and East Germany. I'll take a stab at it:
1. There is a discussion in the prosecutorial branch wrt. legality of application of such law, and the outcome of that discussion is factual information provided to defendants, that may aid in their defense.
2. The court will take this in consideration, and we will see this debated, probably at every level of judiciary all the way to Supreme Court.
3. We are reading about all of this in the major media news outlet.
Do you need me to tell you which of these items did not apply to the "Soviet Russia"? You, people, have no f-ing idea and your childish fits undermine legitimate efforts to create more transparent government and more just society.
Re: (Score:3)
The fear is that they are no longer taking efforts to hide the shenanigans because they no longer care whether we find out...
Re: (Score:2)
There's an on-the-record public interview with Scalia from which the parent took their claim. You could, y'know, fact-check what people say before mocking them.
Re: (Score:3)
Or that they just know that in the event of losing, the worst that can happen is to continue the status quo: Parallel construction.