New York Times sues DoD over Domestic Spying 511
gbobeck writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the New York Times has filed suit against the U.S. Defense Department. The suit is seeking the release of all relevant documents and a list of people targeted by the NSA domestic spying program. As stated in the article: 'The Times had requested the documents in December under the Freedom of Information Act but sued upon being unsatisfied with the Pentagon's response that the request was being processed as quickly as possible, according to the six-page suit filed at federal court in New York.'"
The list of people who were targetted... (Score:2)
Re:The list of people who were targetted... (Score:2)
What, this isn't the FBI trying to recapture the (fabulous, baby!) glory days of J. Edgar Hoover.
This is NSA doing the surveillance. If you want the list of people targeted, you gotta call these guys [census.gov]!
Re:The list of people who were targetted... (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:2)
NSA already tried (Score:4, Funny)
we need to thank them (Score:2)
Re:we need to thank them (Score:2)
In fact, I think they should also ask for a list of all of the people that are working for our intel community - especially overseas in places like North Korea and Iran. And since a lot of Chinese businesses read the NYT, they'd certainly have an audience for a list of the names of
Re:we need to thank them (Score:2)
If the government really cares about the security of their intelligence operations, then they should be careful to follow the law. Otherwise, they risk having details of the operations revealed in the course of efforts to bring to justice the criminals in the government who ignore the laws.
Apparentl
Re:we need to thank them (Score:2)
Countries across the world have managed for centuries with both a reasonable level of security and a strong standard of liberty, without blatantly violating basic human rights laws. No-one has yet demonstrated that the threat today is somehow greater than what we have faced in the past. On the contrary, when looked at objectively, the damage caused by all the terrorist atrocities in the
Re:we need to thank them (Score:3, Insightful)
Very possibly. Which government rewrote your history, and how recently?
Re:we need to thank them (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell them what?
That the incompetence if not outright malice of their government allowed their deaths?
That their deaths were willfully misused as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with their deaths?
That their deaths are being used as an excuse to pass a whole slew of anti-Liberty legislation?
That their deaths are used by the President to open torture camps, to piss all over the constitution woithout doing a single thing to address the actual issues that lead to their deaths?
Hell, their deaths weren't even in vain, they were maliciously used for purely foul purposes.
Fuck that dude. I don't have the heart to tell them. How about you tell them.
Re:we need to thank them (Score:2)
But these agencies who "value security" apparently don't value the law. A fundamental right of every American is their privilege to receive due process, and be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Federal agencies can't ignore laws or they risk having their entire investigations exposed an
Yeah, real principled (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:we need to thank them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:we need to thank them (Score:2)
My gawd... it really does amaze me how willing people are to roll over on their own civil rights just for an illusion of safety. Seriously, get some balls. Your founding fathers would be ashamed.
Re:we need to thank them (Score:3, Interesting)
So if the info will be redacted and classified what good does it do for the NYTs to sue for it? They just want to exercise their lawyers? Or do they just want to publish a story showing that they can not get that data?
There are somethings that do not need to be made public. This is more about the NYTs trying to make a story out of nothing than anything else.
Re:we need to thank them (Score:2)
Re:we need to thank them (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying this is a bad article, or that the information shouldn't be out there, but the NYT only stands up for it's own agen
Okay (Score:2)
DOJ Circuit Court Rulings (Score:2, Informative)
But the Bush administration says the president as commander in chief of the armed forces has the authority to carry out the intercepts and that Congress also gave him the authority upon approving the use of force in response to the September 11 attacks
I *am* the law! (Score:2)
Pointless (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
- It highlights the fact that the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps, and helps make more of the public aware of the problem and keep them thinking about the problem
- It helps NYT sell papers with articles about how the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps.
We probably are not too concerned with the second, but the motivation provided to the paper by the second causes the paper to act in a manner that gives us the benefits of the first. Go Free Press.
The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An Art (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the Associated Press article [firstamendmentcenter.org] on the same subject...contains a bit more info on the actual request than the Reuters copy, including:
From TFA:
Coming from an administration that took 411 days to set up a Public Inquiry into 9/11, the most significant terrorist attack in the history of the American nation, this amont of foot-dragging is a mere warm-up. Expect this to go nowhere fast.
Re:The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An A (Score:2)
Can the DoD use the same excuse that google is giving it? that there is no easy way to deliver 10 million names (even you are probably 26 nodes down in the search tree) as it would be technologically unfeasable and reveal too much information about how and when and why they do thier searches.
Getting all that information out into t
Re:The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An A (Score:2)
Can the DoD use the same excuse that google is giving it?
Seeing how well that excuse [slashdot.org] is working out, I highly doubt it.
Getting all that information out into the public might not be as trivial as doing a database dump.
If there is indeed so much information that merely disseminating it is an unworkable proposition, that alone is enough of an indictment on the wholesale breach of privacy the current administration is indulging in.
Re:The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An A (Score:2)
Ahh, see I just read google's official response to the DoJ request [blogspot.com] [shamelessly taken from this comment [slashdot.org] on the story you linked], it seems to outline technological and business concerns, not privacy ones.
Paraphrasing the five points about why they are rejecting the request: 1/ Trust searchers have in google, 2/ search records wont actually tell whether or not the infomation is harmful 3/ the request results would return information about proprietary google search algorithms 4/ 'undue burden' on google to
Re:The Administration That Made Foot-Dragging An A (Score:2)
The "Administration" does not or has ever had absolute control over every agency or every government employee. Except in cases of security, they are afforded the same rights as every other citizen, free speech. Also keep in mind, this is the government. Goverment employees are known for their general apethetic tone towards their job. Its far more likely, no one read it and it was thrown away or used it as toilet paper (since its a
Somewhere.... out there... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Somewhere.... out there... (Score:2)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/01/20 [penny-arcade.com]
Re:Somewhere.... out there... (Score:2)
If my pants had testicles, I would immediately make them cut-offs.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
When asked if he would support the administration's efforts, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "I...uh... what? They're going to kill what? Oh, well. I guess. I must obey my masters."
The ACLU released a statement condemning the move, but they were clubbed and beaten by government thugs before they could take any questions from reporters.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
If republicans win another term, you can expect the US to be turned over to corporates.
First Alaskan reserve land would be turned over wholesale to oil companies.
Iran would be attacked, and in retaliation US would suffer the second worst 9/11. This would make the US declare martial law all around in US thus suspending the FOIA indefinitely. You would be detained if you sare to look up the secret service in eye.
DMCA would include a law prohibiting you from i
ITs going to be a war of attrtion (Score:2)
Re:ITs going to be a war of attrtion (Score:2)
I'm betting on the one with around 300,000,000 people on it.
Good move, outlook not so good (Score:4, Insightful)
I know the attacks I'll face but look; 9/11, Katrina, the deficit, the protracted war in Iraq; do you really feel safer with what this government is doing? Does it seem like they're always prepared to serve OUR best interests? Call me an idealist, but come on, with all the crap that's gone down the American people DESERVE to know what's going on; the blind leading the blind routine is old, let's get an educated populus for our next election!
(of course the republican's scare tactics will be put on full force: 9/11, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, attacked on our shores, this post 9/11 world, defending the homeland, evildoers determined to do us harm, etc)
Re:Good move, outlook not so good (Score:2)
With Iran [aljazeera.com] opening their oil exchange [energybulletin.net] in late March, the US will most likely be forced into some sort of military action.
If oil trading in non-dollar assets catch on, our debt will no longer be sustainable. The powers that be know this. If you read the first link you'll see just how bad the situation is. The goal right now is to stretch the game out as long as possi
Seems like nothing to see here ( yet )... (Score:2)
So:
At least NYT isn't just making it up this time [wikipedia.org].
The real interesting bits would be if this FOIA request turned up something
Why all the secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
First, they're probably spying on all of us. That is to say, they are probably just recording as much as humanly possible and then going back to review calls and other communications which their datamining and watch lists suggest have the highest probability of yielding results. They can't explain this to anyone, save for a few pliable Congressional reps, because the law says they're not supposed to do that first part without a warrant. I believe they started the program under the belief that if a tree falls in the woods, but nobody goes back to review the tape, then they weren't spying on the tree. The problem with this is that now we're getting even further away from this concept of Democracy our leaders spout off about when referring to the rest of the world. I know we've always been a representative democracy, but if we can't have transparency to the voters, it's really just a dictatorship by whomever presents the cleanest TV image.
Second, they don't want to explain how they're spying because any system is easy to circumvent when you know how that system works. Unfortunately, if you really believe in our system and our morals and our way of life, then you have to stand behind it and expect that it will hold up to a little transparency. Anyone who simply discards our rules as they see fit is, quite simply, un-American.
Re:Why all the secrecy (Score:2)
they're probably spying on all of us
Those two statements contradict each other.
Re:Why all the secrecy (Score:2)
It wasn't a very big news story, but I'm pretty sure they got briefed. I can't find a 'good' news article about it though.
Nice hat. (Score:2)
That may be true, but not in the way you mean. The NSA is apparently scouring records to see who communicates with suspected terrorists. They aren't listening in to random conversations. There's no point to it. It would be a waste of manpower, utterly fruitless, and do nothing but make everybody mad, and rightly so.
Knowing this, people in the media keep using the words "wiretapping" and "spying", to conjure images of men in unmarked vans. It's nothing bu
Re:Democracy and freedom (Score:2)
You are no lover of liberty, justice, or democracy, and I very thoughtfully and consciously hate all those like you.
Damn the subpoena, full shredders ahead! (Score:2)
By "processing" I bet they meant shredding documents.
For those unfamiliar with the NYT.. (Score:2)
Thank You, NY Times (Score:2)
Why is this a Slashdot story? (Score:2)
Someone sues for info about an NSA operation. How is this news? Anyone can file suit for anything at any time.
How is this news for nerds? The NSA isn't spying on nerds, it's spying on terrorists and the people they contact.
How is this "Your Rights Online"? Is there a new right to be free from surveillance in wartime when you associate with the enemy? there never was before.
Re:Why is this a Slashdot story? (Score:2)
No, they aren't. They are spying in everyone and then trying to figure out who are the terrorists from that information. Don't believe the watered down version the White House is pushing, it's not the whole story when you look deeper.
Is there a new right to be free from surveillance in wartime when you associate with the enemy?
Read the fourth amendment. It's actually pretty clear in what it says. You'll also note that t
Re:Why is this a Slashdot story? (Score:2)
Yes, it is clear. It protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
How is it unreasonable to have had your phone call listened to if you're calling some islamofacist nutjob?
Re:Why is this a Slashdot story? (Score:2)
It doesn't mean the gov't can decide that they don't like someone and hence spy on them.
If the gov't think you are an republican-fascist nutjob does that mean they can spy on you?
This of course would be when the Dems. control the Whitehouse.
If a local police thinks a person is a criminal nutjob can they spy on them without due-process?
Now we can change all those TV shows and just have police spy on anyone they think is bad.
Tap their phones and photograph private places
Re:Why is this a Slashdot story? (Score:2)
It is also worthwile to note that we are not officially in a time of war. Congress authorized the use of force and is happily signing the checks, but they stopped short of actually declaring war.
Cool! (Score:2)
All that and they'll still lose!
Once again, hypocrisy reigns (Score:2)
We are at war.
We are at war with a stateless foe that moves from place to place easily.
We are at war with a foe that uses modern communications technologies to do their damage.
The NSA is tracking calls from this foe. This foe calls American phone numbers, and in some cases, American citizens.
With that in mind...will some of you learned people please tell me why it was good for FDR to monitor communications between Nazi and Imperial Japanese intelligence, and their assets here? All without a
Source? (Score:2)
Re:Once again, hypocrisy reigns (Score:2)
1) The United States is not at war (Congress has that perogative), irrespective of what Mr. Bush says; and
2) Spying on your fellow Americans is quite different than spying on a foreign power.
Re:Once again, hypocrisy reigns (Score:2)
We are at war. We are at war with a stateless foe that moves from place to place easily.
Bullshit. We aren't at war. You can't wage war on drugs or fear or anything else other than a foreign nation.
The NSA is tracking calls from this foe. This foe calls American phone numbers, and in some cases, American citizens.
What makes you think that? The NSA is spying on americans. maybe they are citizens that are in contact with foreign agents. Maybe they are citizens who donated to Kerry's election fund. We
Re:Once again, hypocrisy reigns (Score:2)
Even the Democrats say we are. You can rant all you want about that, and it's not going to change.
The entire American intelligence community would revolt if that was the case, unless you think every single NSA agent is part of a vast Republican conspiracy.
Peacetime ended on 9/11. You can say it wasn't an act of war all yo
Who they've spied on before (Score:5, Interesting)
US intelligence has stepped out of its role of supposedly defending the US, to taking an active, partisan role in US politics. In fact, the beginnings of the FBI were in the first red scare right after the Russian Revolution, the FBI was created with this political police role.
Another thing I hear on TV is how the Church committee tied the arms of the intelligence community in the 1970s. It tied it because "former" CIA agents like E. Howard Hunt were caught in the Watergate trying to wiretap the Democrats phone lines, they tied it because the intelligence community was not only illegally domestically spying in a partisan political manner, it was actively involved in trying to disrupt political groups. Even after these supposed controls were put on, it seemed like this did little good in the 1980s when these big brother institutions came out once again against anyone opposed to US intervention in Central America. The FBI were spying on nuns who were unhappy that teh Archbishop of El Salvador was killed, as well as four nuns who were raped, tortured and killed in El Salvador as well, with most evidence pointing towards military involvement, a military Reagan was supporting. When the lawsuits, FOIAs etc. flew about, it was even found that FBI agents and informants were discussing trying to seduce the US nuns against sending military supplies down there. This is after the "shackles" of the Church committee, which have been lifted and then some by the PATRIOT act.
Which doesn't even get into the question of why the US needs "defending". Everything the US does worldwide is called "defense". Farmers in western Nepal are fighting their landlords and the Nepal dictator who just abolished Congress - the US is sending rifles to the dictator so he can put down this rebellion (along with other countries like France). About half of all military spending worldwide is by the US. If the US can't leave alone farmers in western Nepal who are rebelling against their landlords and the dictator due to their maltreatment, can it be surprised some people somewhere in the world are unhappy with this? Osama Bin Laden stated long before 9/11 his unhappiness with US troops in Saudi Arabia (another dictatorship), in his eyes he saw himself as a defender of his home country, and the US as the attacker, and it seems pretty clear to me who drew first blood. The US will always be under threat as long as it seeks an empire. Just take the UK as an example - after decades, the IRA finally gave up military attacks in England because they were willing to accept a political solution offered - and as soon as that happened subways in London began exploding again due to British troops in Iraq. I think the forces of Halliburton, ExxonMobil and so forth are moving of their own accord, and only a great deal of effort can truly secure the US, by preventing this worldwide intervention.
New York Times caring about privacy? (Score:2)
OK, on my spamgourmet.com account, I signed up one time by mistake with a disposable email address to read an NYT article.
This was April 1, 2005 @ 9:50 AM, less than one year ago.
I have had to date, 364 spams sent to me at that address, above and beyond mortgage scams and porn sites that I have given disposable addresses to.
So, I'm glad NYT is caring about privacy today.
I will not read the NYT article.
Re:Wonderful (Score:2)
Ah yes, anyone exercising their right to bring the government to task must be helping the terrorists. Good grief, how easily some people surrender liberty in crisis. What's worse is they have surrendered it to an Administration which even its own Congressional and Gubnorial allies are beginnin
Re:Wonderful (Score:2)
I'm with the NYT on the grounds that the warrantless wiretaps are illegal. However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose. We've seen enough stuff that's *completely* unrelated to terrorism being pushed through while playing off fears of terrorism that I'd say that FOIA demands are going to get about as much traction as a demand to see McCarthy's list
Yep, they're going to lose. (Score:2)
Agreed. There are national security exceptions to the FOIA, and I would be real surprised if the DoD didn't refuse to provide a lot of the data based on those exceptions.
And that would be because they didn't. (Score:2)
Neither Clinton nor Carter "did the same thing." They used the FISA court to get warrants. This is public knowledge, so you can stop pretending it isn't, now.
Re:Clinton's Other Domestic Spying Program (Score:2)
But does this indicate that Clinton "spied" on anti-abortion citizens without a warrant?
Here is the DOJ link: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/tfreppub.htm [usdoj.gov]. While you may disagree with the goal of VAAPCON, the fact is, it appears they were using perfectly legal means (obtaining judicial warrants) to gain the information in order to prosecute people that were breaking the law.
Re:Clinton's Other Domestic Spying Program (Score:2)
I haven't yet heard anyone say that there is 'tapping going on on actual domestic calls.
You're joking, right? (Score:2)
Re:You're joking, right? (Score:2)
Re:You're joking, right? (Score:2)
Re:You're joking, right? (Score:2)
I'm sorry to offend your sensibilities. I'm sure you're one of those people who say "Faux" News, instead of Fox News, and then tune into your little CBS nightly news every night for your "unbiased" dose of reality, while reading the Wash Po or NY Times.
Not the same goddam thing at all! (Score:5, Informative)
And BTW, you neo-cons need to get a new rejoinder. the whole "but..but Clinton" thing is getting really fucking stale.
Ummm, no (Score:2)
Re:Not the same goddam thing at all! (Score:2)
There was more than one string of bombings designed to kill and terrorize, and you think that it shouldn't be investigated?
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are going to get into past presidents, lets talk about who gave weapons and money to terrorists in Iran and Nicaragua, hmm?
Re:Interesting... (Score:2)
Re:Why is this rated a troll? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is this rated a troll? (Score:2)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html [cato.org]
Interesting, but also a distortion. (Score:2)
What the author (and it doesn't surprise me, since this is the CATO Institute) fails to mention is that the searches referred to are specifically of foreigners on foreign soil, not American citizens on U.S. soil.
Re:Why is this rated a troll? (Score:2)
Technically they're correct, but only because physical searches were not under the purview of FISA at that time. You can't violate a law that doesn't apply to what you were doing.
Clinton eventually added physical searches to the FISA jurisdiction in 1995.
Re:Why is this rated a troll? (Score:2)
Re:Even more interesting (Score:2)
That would be because the leakers were not whistleblowers.
Then the NYT turns around and publishes information that is much more damaging to national security than the Plame case ever was.
Only if you accept the Bush argument that basically boils down to "we need to be able to break the law at our whim - to protect you." I, for one, am ve
You're awfully late to the party to be saying that (Score:2)
I don't care if you're liberal or conservative; if you have to lie to support your position, it's time to reassess your position.
Re:Next Article (Score:2, Funny)
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh you mean that loosely defined "send our troops anywhere and disregard local laws" bit
As for "oh well monitoring the middle east calls is ok isn't it?" the point of the "slippery slope" is where does it end? It's easier for me to enter Romania of all places then it is the united states. Land of freedom? My ass. I can visit the UK for upto 6 months. I can't do that in the USA (or ireland for that matter
Tom
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
At the same time, "slippery slope" is a logic error of argumentation.
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
And the UN security council, and international law...
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:4, Insightful)
And you seem to forget you can't declare war on an idea. A formal declaration of war means cessation of trading, recalling foreign diplomats, sending troops to defeat a foreign power and occupy.
You got the last part down, but last I checked YOU STILL HAVE A SAUDI EMBASSY IN THE STATES.
Oh yeah, where did the 9/11 "terrorists" come from? Iraq? Afghanistan?
You really need to stop watching Fox News.
tom
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
you seem to forget the whole airplanes crashing into buildings.
I remember the planes. But I don't seem to recall a Declaration of War from Congress. No, the president doesn't get to declare war, presedients declare fake wars, like the War on Drugs and such. You know the ones, where they are really wars on rights, not on the target. Like the Red Scare and the War on Terrorism.
Romania is not the economic superpower of the world
Neither is it the "Land of the Free". And neither i
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
Uh huh. And Bush was *confident* that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So you see, you can be absolutely certain about something in your own little world, yet still have no connection with the real one.
To wit: I am *confident* you are not an American citizen with relatives in the Middle East.
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:2)
and i am not an apologists for that bumbling idiot, i am just want to know the truth and i do think in the long run this is better for the iraqi people. should hav
Re:once again this proves.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Against who, exactly?
Re:66% of the US Populace ISN'T confident in Bush. (Score:2)
http://newsbusters.org/node/4206 [newsbusters.org]
Amazing, isn't it?
Re:66% of the US Populace ISN'T confident in Bush. (Score:2)
Re:Those who fear the government... (Score:2)
Actually, if you increase the sensitivity of any test you also increase the false positive rate. This is a fact and any statistician will point this out to you.
That means the more you wiretap, the more likely you are to find people who seem guilty, but really are not. So you've spent a LOT more money to "catch" a lot more "seemingly" guilty people. The actual increase in the number of real guilty people "cau
Re:Those who fear the government... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who fear the government... Are doing something illegal.
What about those who fear, and have been proven correct repeatedly that individuals within the government are the ones doing something illegal? What is it about the government that makes you think anyone elected or assigned to a post within it should immediately be able to commit crimes?
I am completely fine with government doing what is reasonably neccessary to protect me even if my phone conversation with my ji-had buddies is being listened in on.
And you can provide what assurances that this what they are doing instead of illegally spying on political opponents and blackmailing other government officials as has happened every other time a government agency has lost transparency?
I know that we should have freedoms, but in a post 9-11 age, there is certain information that should not be released for the public to have. This is why we elect government officials. I love freedom, but I am willing to give some up if it means my wife and daughter are safer as a result.
What makes you think your family is any safer? They are already about as likely to die by accidentally drowning in a bucket as by being killed by terrorists. The risk of terrorists is statistically negligible and the actions taken by the administration seem mostly to be PR. People are forced to stand in extra long lines at the airport so they can feel safe but investigative reporters can still sneak anything they want on board and random people accidentally board while wearing six inch hunting knives they forgot about. What makes you think that anyone is even trying to make your family safer? More successful attacks result in more fear and more opportunities for bureaucrats to expand their power and make money. Hell Iraq is the fastest way conceivable to make terrorists who hate the US. We've done everything possible to create angry, frightened people with nothing to lose and an unbelievable hatred of the US.
Cowards like you make me sick. You cringe in fear at a PR campaign and willingly give up all the freedoms your ancestors fought for in the hopes that someone else will protect you, even though they have no reason to do so. If you want to be a coward at least be a smart coward and act in ways that might protect you, rather than ways that history has shown will lead to more suffering and pain.
Re:Those who fear the government... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those who fear the government... (Score:2)
You want to give up your freedom, go right ahead. Just don't drag the rest of us with you. Don't you have a loyalty oath to take?
Re:Those who fear the government... (Score:2, Insightful)
I figure you are already set in your ways on this topic, but I cannot let a statement like that to go on and appease others.
How much? How much freedom are you willing to give up? Quantify it for me so I can understand. Are you willing to carry ID cards all the time, that can't be that bad right. But you know, those ID cards can be duplicated, lost, stolen. Maybe we can get
Re:Those who fear the government... (Score:2)
And that's not the full quote.