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,'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:2, Troll)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:2)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
My hope is this: the avalanche of Republican scandals and screw-ups will result in democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Then we'll have a real investigation, with subpoena power too. Bush will fight the investigation and it'll probably all wind up in the Supreme Court's lap. That'll be interesting.
Re:I love this guy. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I love this guy. (Score:2)
Re:Ghouliani (Score:3, Informative)
and...
Re:Ghouliani (Score:3, Insightful)
Ghouliani had nothing to do with the TRILLIONS of dollars funneled through NYC during the Internet Bubble he lucked into. When the unemployment rate drops by half, those people aren't doing crime for their money - they're at work, and better supporting families who then do less crime.
Of course, Ghouliani's fascist police patrols, who shot unarmed poor people, especially black poor peopl
Re:I love this guy. (Score:2, Insightful)
It appears that the tendency to abuse power is a universal, not a party trait.
Re:I love this guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: I'm not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat, I'm a conservative and I am often disturbed by the absurdity of the entire system.
He must be one of them activist judges... (Score:2)
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.
So then.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(sarcasm doesn't always transmit well via text...)
Re:So then.. (Score:2)
To reply to your "who will Dick Cheney have to shoot to get that to happen?"
This story ain't gonna get buried.
Fortunately for us, this lawsuit wasn't locked away behind the doors of a secret court proceeding, so any BullShiat excuse the Gov't might try to pass off will have to meet public scrutiny.
Re:So then.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could agree with you on that. I really do, but this is 21st Century (We're afraid of the terrorists, so please do whatever it takes to make it safe for me to shop at Target) America. The mainstream press, which used to include heroes like Edward R Murrow [wikipedia.org] and Woodward and Bernstein [wikipedia.org] taking time to gather facts and check them thoroughly has been replaced by the 24/7 "we don't care what's important, we only care about what's NEW" now, now, now press.
For example, the biggest story out of Washington this week was Dick Cheney shooting his hunting partner. What about the almost lack of debate in Congress about the pending renewal of the Patriot Act? What about Dick Cheney saying that he has the right to declassify information whenever and to whoever [cnn.com] he wants?
Listening to NPR these past couple of months regarding this issue, it's become VERY clear to me that most people simply don't care that this is going on. They say, "Well, I've got nothing to hide!" and the people I've spoken with at work about this feel the same way. If this was as big of an issue to American public as a missing white girl, or celebrity divorce, this story would be the headline on CNN today, instead of Harry Whittington apologizing the Dick Cheney for being shot!
Whatever, maybe I shouldn't have had that second mocha!
Re:So then.. (Score:2)
And I honestly think that the Cheney shooting has only persisted so long because it has turned into a metaphor for the secretive nature of the Bush Administration.
And I read about Cheney claiming he can declassify information whenever and to whoever he wants. I thought only the President had the legal authority to unilateraly declassify something without going through channels. Kinda li
Re:So then.. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, "channels" means anyone with Original Classification Authority, which includes the President, Vice-President, Director of Central Intelligence, and other intelligence community leaders (I believe DIRNSA, and presumably also the new DNI).
I believe that each individual is responsible for certain kinds of information. For example, the Director of NSA would obviously have some authority over information regarding crypto, so he wouldn't be authorized to declassify information about human spies. Higher-level authorities like DCI, DNI, and obviously VPOTUS and POTUS, would be able to declassify more and more.
So, yes, I would expect that VP Cheney would have the authority to declassify certain information, including, most likely, whatever it is "Scooter" is up the creek over (I honestly have forgotten). But I'm equally certain that such a declassification would have to have a paper trail, and anyone who simply "takes [someone]'s word for it," even the Vice-President's word, that something is now open for release, well, they're not doing *their* job to protect classified information.
I can't remember which Executive Order it is that covers all this...I think 12958 or something along those lines. Okay, I just checked, and OMG, I *did* remember the order. Check it out here: Executive Order 12958 - Classified National Security Information, as Amended [archives.gov]. It's actually fairly interesting reading....
Re:So then.. (Score:2)
Re:So then.. (Score:2)
s/have to shoot/get to shoot/g
> (sarcasm doesn't always transmit well via text...)
What makes you think either of us is being sarcastic?
Hang on there. (Score:2)
I think you've gotta be misinformed on that one. Unless it was just totally ignored by every media outlet on the planet, and it's being blocked by Google... I don't think it's happened. Yet.
about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:about time (Score:2, Funny)
Blah. Wait for the appeal(s)... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blah. Wait for the appeal(s)... (Score:5, Informative)
So basically, the judge set a deadline by with the government must respond to the FOIA request (which could just be a denial saying you can't have the records cause it's classified, likely in this case), he didn't order them to actually release the records.
Re:Blah. Wait for the appeal(s)... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blah. Wait for the appeal(s)... (Score:2)
I assume (hope) that he means in relation to specific cases. Like, if there is not a good (and hopefully specific) reason not to release a particular record, that record should be released.
Why so much foot-dragging time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why so much foot-dragging time? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why so much foot-dragging time? (Score:2)
They (we) want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Allowing their
Unlikely a problem... (Score:2)
The Bush administration is fond of saying things like "If someone is talking to a terrorist..." They always try to justify their actions by suggesting that it only happens when a "bad guys" is involved. They hold people without allowing them due process. Something that our constitution guarantees as a right and justify doing so by saying that they only
Checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Next steps: The White House will declare him an "activist judge" (whatever that really means) and unpatriotic. Meanwhile a religious zealot on the ABC Family channel will pray for his death.
But nothing is more patriotic than those in power keeping the government open. Because nothing could more empower the citizens.
Re:Checks and balances (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Checks and balances (Score:2)
Re:Checks and balances (Score:4, Funny)
More than that, there are rumours going around that he might secretly be black [uscourts.gov].
Re:Checks and balances (Score:2)
Something to remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Jedidiah.
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 th
Re:Something to remember (Score:2)
I wasn't suggesting it was, or was not constitutional. I was expressing my belief as to what does, and does not, represent good practices with regard to surveillance regardless of legal standing. It may well, once it has worked its way through the system, be decided that Bush's actions were legal. That does not mean I have to agree that allowing such things is a good idea, merely that I accept it a
Re:Something to remember (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Something to remember (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much more convenient (for this Pre
Re:Something to remember (Score:2)
I don't think that the Founding Fathers ever anticipated that anyone would have the balls to get up in fron
Re:Something to remember (Score:5, Informative)
James Woolsey may have been appointed by Clinton, but he also was a member of The Project for a New American Century [wikipedia.org]. Mr. Woolsey's buddies in that organization included Bill Kristol, the Scaife Family, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. That is not exactly a list of names you would find listed in the Democratic National Committee fundraising book.
I'm not saying that Mr. Woolsey's arguments are invalid. I am saying that you shouldn't (intentionally or unintentionally) insinuate Mr. Woolsey is a liberal Clintonite....
Born Again = Post Facto (Score:5, Informative)
After terrorists attack our ports through infiltrating the royal United Arab Emirates corporation that just got handed the ports management contracts [nytimes.com], I expect Congress will pass a law that says that "no one could have anticipated that the ports would be infiltrated through their foreign managers".
Re:Born Again = Post Facto (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does changing a law mean it applies retroactively to offenses in the past?
Just the other day, my father was bitching about seat belt laws. Saying that when they first passed the law, they said it wouldn't be used to pull you over. 10 years later, they changed the law to allow cops to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt.
My dad said "That's how they get you. They chip away at it"
And I remember thinking "Yep, and our civil rights too"
: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::Grumbles: (Score:3, Insightful)
Grumble consistently, and about the right things (Score:4, Insightful)
And what exactly is your problem with this? You can't honestly say that there should be no such thing as classified information, unless you'd like every poor SOB who's trying to keep on eye on various actually bad guys to be strung up and shot. The classification of intel methods and collected information exists specifically to allow it do what it has to do. If you tell Kim Jong Il what time of day the next high-altitude drone will be overhead which of his slave camps, or CC the lunatic president of Iran on the intel you're sharing with EU security people about his nuclear program... you're pretty much asking for the consequences, including the unpleasant deaths of the people living in those countries and working, with our spooks, to counter the influence/acts of the mullahs or the so-honorable KJI.
Assuming you don't actually refute the need for classified and covert activities on a number of fronts, then how can you complain about tracking down the people who deliberately leak such specific operational information? It sounds like you're more in the "classified is OK, but only on the stuff I think should be classified, and then definitely the administration should be investigating the people who leak it" camp. But that's not what you're saying, and should be. At which point, you should be more clearly spelling out what you think should, and should not be classified when it comes to intercepting a phone call from a known Al Queda-type contact in, say, Lahore, Pakistan to a used-only-once-ever cell phone that was in a batch of fifty or so [go.com] bought with cash. You know, a cell phone that is untraceable to a person, will never be used again, and can never be part of a FISA warrant scenario by its very nature. Is reminding the guys using those phones that we know when the person in Lahore is dialing a number from that batch of disposable phones something you think should be leaked? Is that constructive, from your perspective?
Re:Grumble consistently, and about the right thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Classifying illegal activities isn't right.
Leaking information about classified & illegal government activities isn't wrong.
Nothing you said addresses that fundamental issue.
Re:Grumble consistently, and about the right thing (Score:2, Troll)
The fundamental issue: people sitting in other countries have acted to kill a substantial number of people in the US and abroad. They loudly proclaim that they want to do more, and work to that end. Part of that includes placing calls (regarding funding and operational coordination) to supporters and collaborators. When people make those calls, it's not only legal to follow the trail, it's an obligation to. The constitution not only permits it, but empower
Re:Grumble consistently, and about the right thing (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong - that is not the fundamental issue being discussed. The issue is whether or not the president has the authority to spy on US citizens *without approval & oversight*. Bush thinks he does; many others disagree. This is a core issue of civil rights.
Twisting the argument into "but we need to do it to catch bad guys!" is a nice straw man [nizkor.org]. It's not about what "bad
Re:Grumble consistently, and about the right thing (Score:2)
Re:Grumble consistently, and about the right thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The law is the law (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue that Biblical and Liberal are not mutually exclusive.
well (Score:3, Funny)
Domestic spying... ok.
There was this one time, when I was ten, I was hiding in the hall and I heard my mom and dad talking about my birthday present. That was pretty cool.
Then there was this time in high school when I hid in the principal closet and hoped to hear something interesting, like him having a secret affair or him reading the final exams out loud for fun or something, but he just made a phone call to his doctor and passed gas a few times.
Then there was this time I was in a Jefferies tube with Seven of Nine, and we were listening to the Cardassians who had taken over our ship, but I'm pretty sure that was just a dream.
There was some other stuff, but I don't remember most of it.
Careful now... (Score:2)
How about hearing from the guy who ran it? (Score:2, Informative)
One thing about this is story is everybody has an opinion about what NSA is doing, and what the law is. Then of course there is the reality of what the NSA is really doing and what the law really is. General Hayen used to run the NSA, and was running it when the program was set up. He was the briefer of members of Congress (remember from both parties) on what the program was doing during his time at the NSA. Here is the transcript http:/// [http]http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.h tml/> of Gen. Hayden'
Re:How about hearing from the guy who ran it? (Score:4, Informative)
threat (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Plenty of time (Score:2, Insightful)
Amendment IV (Score:2, Insightful)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
ENOUGH SAID.
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".
For the millionth time-It's not "domestic" spying! (Score:2)
You people are either ignorantly parroting what the left-leaning media has labeled this issue or else you are deliberately misstating the case: It's not "domestic" when a person in the US receives or places calls to someone OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.
Re:For the millionth time-It's not "domestic" spyi (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a Republican. You're a Tool. or maybe...a Troll. Not sure which.
Word games... (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize that the Bush administration and its shills don't like being caught in the act of domestic spying but word games won't make it any less egregious.
Re:Word games... (Score:2)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it unpatriotic, nevermind not OK in your view to question your government's policies on breaking civil liber
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress determines that authority.
Do you think that Britain and the US got warrants when they were trying to break Germanys enigma code in World War 2?
Last I checked Germans weren't American citizens and afforded the rights granted by the Constitution
A significant majority of the US population approves of this activity
Apparently you have read any polls lately.
If you don't want to be monitored by the government, then don't talk to overseas agents of an organization that has killed Americans, wants to kill more, and is killing our troops every week. It's not that complex.
The FOIA request wants to make sure that that is really the case. Negligence and poor planning is what is killing a lot of our troops every week.
To those who are worked up about this,
I question your seriousness about preserving our country.
Preserving our country means preserving the system of check and balances and assures that no one is above the law.
I question your patriotism.
Blind following of leadership is not as patriotic as questioning it.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
If THAT'S true, when will everything 'snap back'?
It's one thing to be fighting a fixed enemy that has a location and people to negotiate with, and another thing entirely to be fighting people that refuse to negotiate and are happy for you to kill them; it just adds fuel to the fire. More than ever, th
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
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard Nixon thought so, but somehow that didn't help him any.
"A significant majority of the US population approves of this activity, and they will be voting next election"
A significant percentage of the US population also believes that Saddam Hussein personally piloted both of the airplanes used in the attack on the World Trade Centre. And yes, many of them will somehow figure out how to vote in the next election.
"Sure, why not- but we're not talking about civil liberties here, we're talking about monitoring the communications of people who want to kill us, and their agents in our country. The fact that so many don't realize this- or plainly deny it because of a visceral hate for the current administration- sickens me, and you have just read the result of that disgust."
Actually, you're talking about the laws of your country and the principles upon which it was founded. You may want to try reading books instead of burning them, you may learn something.
I question your seriousness about preserving our country.
I question your patriotism.
and most of all....
I question your judgement
I question your motives. Wrapping your country in plastic and then never sitting on it will "preserve" it, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
Richard Nixon thought so, but somehow that didn't help him any. "
Watergate had nothing to do with the Vietnam War, nor did anyone ever claim it did.
"Actually, you're talking about the laws of your country and the principles upon which it was founded. You may want to try reading books instead of burning them, you may learn something."
Yes, a
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
I would act surprised by this statement, but really I'm not.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Who says ? The administration certainly likes to imply those were the only conversations listened to, but Gonzales went out of his way to avoid confirming this.
> I question your patriotism.
And I question yours. If being an American means anything, it means respect for the constitution. Trying to justify the efforts of a
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Since this program resulted in thousands of dead end leads [nytimes.com], only an idiot would claim that only terrorists were monitored under this act.
If the NSA was only spying on terrorists, then FISA would have granted warrants (even after the wiretap had started). Given that the administration decided to end run around FISA, it's reasonable to speculate who else was being spied upon - particularly considering this crowd's track record with honesty.
No rational person can make the case that the disclosure of this program has damaged national security, so by making it you prove your irrationality. It's not like Al Qaeda didn't know that the NSA existed, or that the NSA was spying on phone calls. No one, and I mean no one is arguing that the NSA shouldn't be able to spy on terrorists. Why in the world would terrorists care whether or not the NSA got warrants to do this? The best excuse this administration can offer is that reminding the terrorists that the NSA taps phone calls damages national security, otherwise "they forget". If keeping the NSA out of the headlines is that important, then they'd damn well better follow the law.
It's not about eavesdropping on people who want to kill us - otherwise those thousands of dead ends wouldn't have happened. It's about whether the President can pick and choose which laws he wants to follow by invoking the excuse of a perpetual war, relegating Congress to a powerless debating soceity.
The candy asses are on the right - people who will happily give away this country's proud heritage because they're terrified of the big bad swarthy bogeyman. Grow a spine.
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 bogeyma
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
Wow, I'm impressed. I'm impressed your lungs didn't shut down when your one brain cell was tied up in typing this.
Okay, I'll presume you're sitting down, since I don't think you can stand and read at the same time: The US has spied on calls before, and people know that. I know, this must come as a total
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
The exact same kind of tapping could already be done, just with a warrant. This was public knowledge. The warrant may even be obtained up to 72 hours after surveillance begins, so agents can begin monitoring them immediately. Exposing this illegal and un-American program did not give the terrorists any
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they thought they were not being listened to. I don't think they are that stupid.
I would say exposing this program has increased our national security (assuming it stops or is reduced in scope). Now maybe the FBI can do something useful rather than chasing thousands of dead ends. You chase enough dead ends and you start to assume all leads are wor
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
The President has the ability to start a war but only Congress can wage war. There has been no Declaration of War and therefore there is no war that the United States of America is engaged in. The President has the ability to quickly react and defend the Constitution and People of the country but long term deployments of troops must be approved by Congress.
Any executive orders must have their authority from Congressional acts and/or the Constitution. No if or but about it. We are a nat
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
>>if it's wrong). Did the US President at the time use it as an excuse to
>>start a fear campaign across the US and drag us into further conflicts?
Don't forget USS Cole, the African embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, etc.
No the "president at the time" (can't bring yourself to say Clinton, can you?) didn't fight back. Too bad, it probably would have saved the Twin Towers and thousands of lives.
According to Marc Genest, pro
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2, Insightful)
It is true, it is not always realistic to conduct a war with full Constitutional protections in effect. But compared to
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
I don't disagree on any one point, but I do take great offense to those who go out of their way to murder us, and my desire for the preservation of my friends, myself and my family demands hunting such people down without mercy.
As for aiming to conquer, I don't know if you followed my Norway lin
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 libert
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I guess that one reason is that he questions the patriotism of those who disagree with him. Not to mention his insinuation that those who disagree with him are "candy asses". Yeah, agree or disagree with him, that post is most definitely flame.
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
Re:Deceptive headline (Score:2)
This conversation, however, is about one thing: spying on our enemies.
Dumb, da dumb dumb (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wanted to point out that this is one of the stupidest concepts since the Romans made plates and cutlery out of lead.
The cartoonish axioms this statement rests on are:
This is related to the slightly less stupid idea prevalent in lazy journalism: "if both sides are mad at me, we mu
Re:Interesting Separation of Powers Case (Score:2)
Maybe you need a refresher course on the Separation of Powers [wikipedia.org].
Re:Interesting Separation of Powers Case (Score:2)
Way to sound pious without actually answering his very specific, reasonable, and important question. This isn't a separation of powers question, it's a is-FISA-even-about-this question. Arguably, it's not.
Re:Interesting Separation of Powers Case (Score:2)
Well, let's re-read the original post
Does a low level member of the Judiciary branch have the ability to override the executive branch? We have a black program, that is protected by multiple layers of secrecy. This is a construct of the executive branch. Can the Judiciary proclaim this level of secrecy null and void by decree and order classified information released?
Insteresting. I read those questions as specifically being related to Separation of Powers. In
Re:Interesting Separation of Powers Case (Score:2)
I might point out that "everyone" doesn't include the one branch of Congress with the authority to declare war.
2)If this is a war, does the Judiciary have any role to play in how that war is conducted? In the past the answer has been they do not, as there seems to be n