Domestic Spying Records Ordered Released 257
CokoBWare wrote to mention an eWeek report on the NSA's domestic spying program. A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to release records from the program by March 8th. From the article: "In ordering the Justice Department to expedite the FOIA request processing, Judge Henry Kennedy Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said that the department's opinion that it could determine how much time is needed was 'easily rejected ... Under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests,'"
:Grumbles: (Score:3, Interesting)
BushCo: 1x10^7
The highlighted is exactly what the Bush Administration has been trying to prevent since he came into office and frankly I don't see this victory becoming a trend.
Bush, Cheney and the Republicans have already been cracking down on leaks of classified information so that they won't have any more splaining to do.
Remember how they jumped all over the leak of the NSA spying? Not to condemn possible spying of Americans, but to demand investigations in order to discover the identity of the leaker(s).
Re:Kick ass (Score:5, Interesting)
So, you have one branch saying, "Let's see what really happened" and the other two saying, "Nothing to see here; move along, move along".
Re:Something to remember (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately it's not a cut and dry issue. Ex-CIA chief James Woolsey [com.com] (appointed by Clinton) believes that the President actually has greater powers than the ones they're asking for. The only thing he believes should be looked at is whether or not a judge needs to be involved once the NSA program starts targetting specific American citizens.
He said he staunchly believes that Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the president's role as commander-in-chief and implicit wartime powers, permits the president to do the kind of "electronic mapping of the battlefield" that the NSA program appears to do.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Not going to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
The Gonzales will just give him the same tripe they've been spouting on TV. Constitution, use of force authorization, blah, blah, blah. The Bush administration isn't going to let some piddly little district court judge push them around. Especially when they've managed to load the Supreme Kangaroo Court with their cronnies.
They'll claim it's necessary for "security" and there will be a 5 to 4 vote overturning the order and they'll go right back to doing whatever the hell they feel like. This will only further demonstrate how little the current administration values the rule of law. And if you haven't figured that out by now, you're never going to. For rest of us it will simply be one more razor slash on the Constitution.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh. If agents know their conversations might be tapped they will find ways of coding their communications. Pretty rational reason to keep the program secret. The statement you made was the irrational one.
"people who will happily give away this country's proud heritage because they're terrified of the big bad swarthy bogeyman."
Equating al Qaeda to the bogeyman is also irrational.
Who mods this crap up and mods down any
I don't even agree with Bush's program, and your arguements still suck ass.
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Information about domestic spying must be kept confidential... Oh, but here's the name of an active CIA operative.
RE: Deceptive Headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of us don't want to live in a pickle jar, and we need to start taking action. The executive branch is running an unprecedented power grab. Congress has no balls, so some judicial oversight is needed to ensure new measures improve security without sacrificing civil liberties or violating the constitution.
I am convinced this is the WORST administration in our country's history. Over the last few years, I've seen the administration leak the name of a CIA operative whose spouse disagreed with them. I've seen the United States use torcher on a grand scale and then criticize the newspapers that print the photos as inflammatory and inappropriate. I've seen a Vice Admiral in the United States Navy say the following about accountability (regarding Abu Ghraib):
"I don't think you can hold anybody accountable for a situation that maybe if you had done something different, maybe something would have occurred differently,"
I was an officer in the Navy. Actually, technically I'm still an officer in the Navy, and this quote from a high ranking officer makes me ill.
I've heard reports of secret prisons, secret courts, warrantless wiretaps... I sometimes wonder if the Neo-Con artists are taking bets on how many actions that prompted our secession from the British Empire they can get away with. "Okay you won on the secret courts, but double or nothing we can't get away with impressing British sailors." More importantly, it makes me wonder what atrocities we are not hearing about, and how these are being kept secret.
The real terrorists, the ones doing the most damage to this country are those currently in power. They criticize anyone who takes their illegal acts to press as unpatriotic and then continue to do whatever the hell they want. Can anyone think of some other world governments in the last 73 years or so that used censorship and propaganda like this? Once we lose the rule of law we will be no better than our perceived enemies. It is a slippery slope, and we are already a good ways down with high velocity.
We are completely mollified by the conveniences we have become dependent on. Since few understand the principles the country was founded on, we vote for whoever meets our immediate needs (in some cases, after they've convinced us what these needs are). As a result, we've lost all the statemen.
Where are the congressmen with the huevos to say "This is more power than a good man should want or a bad man should have." as did Sen A. Vandenburg regarding FDR's bill to allow additional presidential appointments to the Supreme Court? This is not a partisan issue, and this administration is not made up of Republicans. They are fascists and need to go quickly. The only good news is they are incompetent (see Katrina). Imagine the damage they could do if they knew their ass from a hole in the ground.
It torques my ass that we elected a frigging puppet in the first place. The fact that there are so many who cannot cognize or refuse to cognize what's going on and think Bush is their friend or a 'Patriot' is just icing on the cake.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the thing - that's not true. The FISA law itself says it's the only method. [pfaw.org] So either FISA matters, or it doesn't.
If the FISA statute attempted to limit the Presidents authority to conduct the kind of survellience that is under debate, it would be an unconstitutional infringement on the president's authority to do such.
This is what the administration is claiming, but this is far from settled. (This is not the only justification that the administration has offered, including "Congress authorized it in the use of force amendement". This administration does not have a great track record with shifting justifications.)
It's not clear to me what you think "co-equal" means - let's grant for the sake of argument that an Executive with unlimited wiretap authority has abused it in the past, in the form of J. Edgar Hoover. What is Congress's ability, as a co-equal branch of government, to place checks and balances on that power?
Bonus question: if the President is allowed to independently and secretly decide which laws are constitutional and which are not, how does that differ from an elected monarchy?
Re:Grumble consistently, and about the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Ghouliani (Score:2, Interesting)