Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal in Security

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:45:50 EDT

said by FiOS Dan :

Thank goodness! For details click here and for those of you familiar with this thread please note that henceforth I am studiously avoiding any quotes from, or links to, the New York Times. ;)

Hmmm Civil protection and there's all this about lawbreaking etc.... Oh well.. At least We can hopefully catch these guys..
--
da Cajun Darn I hate Malware

Re: Congress: Telecoms Immunized-Warrantless Eavesdropping OK'd

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:00:17 EDT

sivran :

quote:
Today, the Democratic-led Senate ..., acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years

Reminds me of a comic I read in MAD magazine in my younger days. It had the Republican, Democrat, and Indy candidates of the time singing some sort of song.

The refrain was, "We're UN-electable now!"

Life imitating art. Only problem is, this isn't funny.
--
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 profitable cause...

Congress: Telecoms Immunized-Warrantless Eavesdropping OK'd

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:26:14 EDT

SUMware : From Salon.com
by Glenn Greenwald
July 9, 2008 -

said by GG :
Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn't present for any of the votes, but shared Obama's support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

With their vote today, the Democratic-led Congress has covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry, and has dramatically advanced a full-scale attack on the rule of law in this country.

What is most striking is that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP -- when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert -- the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.

Yet again, the Democratic Congress ignored the views of their own supporters in order to comply with the orders and wishes of the Bush administration.

Today, the Democratic-led Senate ..., acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years, eviscerated the core Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants, gave an extraordinary and extraordinarily corrupt gift to an extremely powerful corporate lobby, and cemented the proposition that the rule of law does not apply to the Washington Establishment.

-

From Think Progress
Jul 9th, 2008 -

quote:
Turley: It’s ‘A Very Inconvenient Fact Right Now’ To Say Bush Committed A Felony With His Wiretapping Program

Last night on MSNBC’s Coundown, George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley noted that just this week, a federal judge rejected President Bush’s claim that his “constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped” the FISA wiretapping law. Judge Vaughn Walker explicitly stated that the President is bound by FISA:
Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted.
Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.

In other words, when Bush contravened the FISA law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps through the National Security Agency, he broke the law. Turley said last night that this is an “inconvenient fact” for many in Congress to admit:
Nobody wants to have a confrontation over the fact that the President committed a felony – not one, but at least 30 times. That’s a very inconvenient fact right now in Washington.

Watch it: »www.youtube.com/v/BL083bQm874

Bush has acknowledged that he reauthorized his illegal wiretapping program "more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks."

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:41:32 EDT

fatness : I'm watching you Dan. I'm monitoring your posts. ;)

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:55:37 EDT

FiOS Dan : Thank goodness! For details click here and for those of you familiar with this thread please note that henceforth I am studiously avoiding any quotes from, or links to, the New York Times. ;)
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:33:28 EDT

spy1 : Right NOW is the time to call your Senators Washington offices about this - they're fixing to vote on the FISA bill THIS AFTERNOON!

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 03:24:44 EDT

jig :

said by coldmoon :

The second issue here is that this was done at the behest of our Government with the promise that these same Telco's would not have to "face the music" for their illegal acts. By making it "convenient" for corporations to ignore the law whenever the Government wishes, it becomes easier over time for these same measures to be used against ordinary citizens.

or, rather, by extension, it becomes easier for corporations to flaunt or feel like they can flaunt whole swaths of laws and regulations.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:40:29 EDT

FiOS Dan : I may not agree with everything in your post, coldmoon, but I do appreciate its underlying sincerity and the lack of personal attacks in making your case.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:43:19 EDT

coldmoon :

quote:
Wow, all of that because of the proposal to listen in on phone calls, between as an example Iran and Syria, that get routed through the U.S. Look, if it makes you feel better to think that the only reason people could disagree with you about this is because they are fearful and have been railroaded, so be it. I, for one, am neither.

Hi Dan,
You are oversimplifying this and as a result are obsfucating what all Americans should be worrying about with this issue.

First, regardless of the reasons and whether or not they were for our "benefit" as re national security, the Telco's broke the law. I do not care which side of the isle you come from or what your personal political beliefs are as both should be irrelevant. If we present ourselves as a nation of laws to the rest of the world, it is high time that we live up to our own rhetoric...

The second issue here is that this was done at the behest of our Government with the promise that these same Telco's would not have to "face the music" for their illegal acts. By making it "convenient" for corporations to ignore the law whenever the Government wishes, it becomes easier over time for these same measures to be used against ordinary citizens.

Power has only one goal, more power. Once you give an inch you have no right to complain when the powers that be decide to take even more power to address the next "crisis" and the slippery slope becomes an Olympic bob sled run with the people paying the price of short sighted political considerations.

To me, this flies directly in the face of what our country has always stood for and makes a mockery out of the reasons our founding fathers broke from England to begin with.

And this is not just about a group of Geeks getting worried about a perceived attack on their privacy either. In time, this road will lead to no privacy OR security for the individual citizen in the name of whatever the current idea about national security happens to be and who is in power.

What this does is to poke holes in our country's foundation and I hope you stop and think seriously about what happens when the foundation fails...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:25:08 EDT

fatness :

said by FiOS Dan :

Look, if it makes you feel better to think that the only reason people could disagree with you about this is because they are fearful and have been railroaded, so be it.

No, that's not the only reason. Another reason is because some people like Big Government and Big Surveillance, which I mentioned earlier. And another reason (which you made clear is not your reason but is the reason for some people) is supporting a political party in control of the administration at this time --- were the other party in power they'd oppose what they now support.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:43:31 EDT

jig :

said by FiOS Dan :

said by fatness :

And if another party is in power, I will still be just as worried about willing surrender of privacy, of freedom of expression, of due process, of presumption of innocence, and of basic courage, all because the government wants to railroad people into being fearful, and some people willingly follow.

Wow, all of that because of the proposal to listen in on phone calls, between as an example Iran and Syria, that get routed through the U.S.

huh, i thought you were better informed. this isn't about phone calls between two non-citizens. there's never been a need for a warrant for that, routed through the US or not.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:02:57 EDT

FiOS Dan :

Wow, all of that because of the proposal to listen in on phone calls, between as an example Iran and Syria, that get routed through the U.S. Look, if it makes you feel better to think that the only reason people could disagree with you about this is because they are fearful and have been railroaded, so be it. I, for one, am neither.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:07:25 EDT

EGeezer : for those who thought that voting out the present administration would prevent these kinds of things, see this informative little video of a guy who expects to inherit the powers of the presidency.

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye, And the parting on the left is now the parting on the right, and the beards have all grown longer overnight ... Meet the new boss - same as the old boss
--
If dogs travel in space at the speed of light, do they reach their destination in dog-light years?

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:29:20 EDT

sivran :

said by Ronnie_USA :

We are NOT the good old US of A, that was founded in 1776.
We have lost most of that freedom, and THANKS to stupid, lazy people, we have lost a lot more.

Fix't.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:29:25 EDT

Ronnie_USA : We are NOT the good old US of A, that was founded in 1776.
We have lost most of that freedom, and THANKS to GW, and Tricky Dickey, We have lost a lot more.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:08:00 EDT

fatness :

said by FiOS Dan :

You just don't get it.

I get it just fine.

And if another party is in power, I will still be just as worried about willing surrender of privacy, of freedom of expression, of due process, of presumption of innocence, and of basic courage, all because the government wants to railroad people into being fearful, and some people willingly follow.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:06:43 EDT

jig : for me, whether they are held fiscally accountable is determined by whether they only caved once the NSA told them that the govt would pay for telco engineers to install the equipment. that doesn't sound like innocent influence, if you get my drift.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:08:37 EDT

mikenolan7 : I do disagree with part of that. I think the telcos should be held accountable. The people of the US demanded that the government get better at spying after WWII, with the expantionist activities of the Soviet Union. The clamor grew louder when China fell to the communists, and louder again when North Korea invaded South Korea, and we didn't see it coming at all. The government does have a mandate from the people to engage in spying, the question remains where best to draw the line. The companies that carry our data have no such mandate, and provided legal assurances that it wouldn't happen in the TOS.

The power of corporations over our government has grown too strong, it is out of balance. One thing that large corporations know very well is the law, they frequently manipulate it to their own advantage. They knew perfectly well that what they were doing was not legal. Allowing them to break the law with impunity is a bad precedent. That said, I still expect to see them get immunity.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:56:34 EDT

jig :

said by FiOS Dan :

See Pete, here's how it is supposed to work in a democracy. Two groups disagree about a piece of legislation and it is put to a vote after which the rule of the majority is respectfully accepted by the minority. The latter don't go running around questioning their opponents' intelligence or speculating that they are being bribed or in effect are being blackmailed.

this sounds a lot like believing in the holy trinity. even if you think blind faith is warranted in the almighty, what exactly makes blind faith in the political process a "good" thing? isn't the opposite true? as voters, aren't we supposed to always second guess the motives of the elected? especially when there's ample evidence of graft and deals that either directly or indirectly harm the electorate?

if there wasn't cloud after cloud of smoke, maybe there'd be less yelling of: fire!

brass tacks - the minority with money has been running things for quite a while. they're generally just as stupid as the majority without money, just as greedy, and they've run various parts of the economy into the ground. the type of pandering to the wealthy, especially in the face of criminal and civil liability, should probably be stomped on wherever it rears its head, and this is one of those instances.

i'm not really talking about holding the telcos responsible, because i think they have a reasonable argument that not following orders just wasn't a reasonable alternative... at least reasonable enough to keep any monetary lawsuits out. But, if the telcos are given immunity, two results are untenable: 1) no-one can sue for an injunction, and 2) no-one can sue to get information about who asked for what and how. the second needs to be determined, because otherwise we've taken a large step away from the basic tenants of American culture and political ideology. all because some idiot crashed a plane into a building. i'm never going to be willing to allow that to shape how the US government treats it's citizens, at least under the veil of secrecy.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:39:34 EDT

FiOS Dan :

said by sivran :

Go live in the UK, if surveillance would make you feel safer.

Oh now I get it. Think like me or leave the country. So much for civil discourse. :(
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:40:04 EDT

danny9 : Thanks for the link, spy1.
Answers alot of the questions I had.
Dan
--
VoicePulse 07/29/04

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:20:20 EDT

spy1 : »blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trai···tio.html

Just another example of "all things to all people" (for at least a minute, anyway).

Please note how these things are never Obama's fault - good heavens no. And how his (documented) positions of last week are no longer his positions this week (or in front of this audience as opposed to that audience).

The man is about as two-faced a slimeball as has ever walked the planet. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:52:36 EDT

sivran :

said by FiOS Dan :

You just don't get it.

1) The NYT was not sharing an opinion with me, they were just reporting a fact (the vote count) like dozens of other media outlets. I could just as easily have quoted Fox News but NYT popped up first on the list of search results when I sought to veify the exact numbers.

2) If another party is in power, I will still be worried about seeing a mushroom cloud down the road over the L.A. harbor, so I will certainly support the surveillance that might prevent it. This is not about political parties, it is about national security, which should be a bipartisan issue.

Jeez... :huh:

Go live in the UK, if surveillance would make you feel safer.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:17:03 EDT

FiOS Dan : You just don't get it.

1) The NYT was not sharing an opinion with me, they were just reporting a fact (the vote count) like dozens of other media outlets. I could just as easily have quoted Fox News but NYT popped up first on the list of search results when I sought to veify the exact numbers.

2) If another party is in power, I will still be worried about seeing a mushroom cloud down the road over the L.A. harbor, so I will certainly support the surveillance that might prevent it. This is not about political parties, it is about national security, which should be a bipartisan issue.

Jeez... :huh:
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:53:43 EDT

fatness :

said by FiOS Dan :

fatness, all I posted from the NYT was the vote count.

Yes, I know that. In the earlier thread the NY Times disagreed with your case, so you said they were not a credible source. In this thread they had news to help you make your point, so you used them as a source. I just wanted to highlight the fact that what counts to you is whether a source shares your opinion or helps you make your point, not the credibility of the source.

So now the big question for you: if another party wins the presidential election, how are you going to feel about all this government surveillance? Are you Big Government and Big Surveillance no matter who is in power? Or will you oppose the surveillance since someone new in power may not, you know, be trustworthy?
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:12:22 EDT

danny9 : Very well written with many well thought out threads here.
Kudos to the posters here. :)

I have one question if anyone here can answer it.
Did not see it in this thread unless my eyes are wacky from reading all of this.

Where do our presidential candidates stand on this issue?
I've heard that Mccain is for it and Obama has issued no statement either way.
Is this correct?
Thanks, Dan
--
VoicePulse 07/29/04

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:14:27 EDT

FiOS Dan : My point was that if spy1's opinion does not prevail he should not impune the motivations of those who opposed him. You know, they are clueless, bribed, or blackmailed. Why can't it be that they are just representing people who disagree with him?
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:56:31 EDT

mikenolan7 : But that's not the way it works in this country at all. The polls clearly show that if this was put to a popular vote, there would be no telco immunity. That is irrelevant, this is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. The way it is supposed to work is exactly the way spy1 is doing it. People that feel strongly about an issue speak their mind. Then representatives vote on it. The bill hasn't passed yet, and spy1 has every right to think and say what he wants.

Edit: sp.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:12:45 EDT

FiOS Dan :

said by spy1 :

The much-more-likely answer(s) (which of course weren't included) are...

See Pete, here's how it is supposed to work in a democracy. Two groups disagree about a piece of legislation and it is put to a vote after which the rule of the majority is respectfully accepted by the minority. The latter don't go running around questioning their opponents' intelligence or speculating that they are being bribed or in effect are being blackmailed. :(
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:51:49 EDT

FiOS Dan : fatness, all I posted from the NYT was the vote count. Even they could not twist or distort something like that. I could have just as well posted it from Fox News or Townhall.com.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:43:28 EDT

fatness : Dan, I'm surprised you'd post something from such an untrustworthy source and try to use it to make a point: your words
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:40:12 EDT

spy1 : FD & CT - Feel free to roll over and let the government rape all your information if that's what trips your trigger.

I'll be damned if I will.

The much-more-likely answer(s) (which of course weren't included) are:

"nearly 300 congressional representatives are clueless as to what's actually happening there"

"nearly 300 congressional representatives are getting tons of money in their campaign chests from the telco's"

"nearly three hundred congressional representatives have a very bad feeling about what the government has already collected on them and thus are not prone to buck the Presidents' wishes"

There is absolutely no reason the legislation can't be passed without the telco immunity provision except for the fact that the current Administration is absolutely petrified that if the telco's are forced into court, the telco's will blow the lid off of the actual start time of the program, how many legitmate, innocent American's data has been gathered and kept, the true depth and scope of that information and the glaring illegality of it all.

The current government couldn't survive that kind of "light". Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:00:39 EDT

CajunTek :

said by FiOS Dan :

The New York Times
June 21, 2008
----------------------------------------------
The bill cleared the House by 293 to 129, with near-unanimous support from Republicans and substantial backing from Democrats.

Pete--let's play mutliple choice. Why do you think the bill has such widespread support?

A) Nearly 300 congressional representatives are part of a vast conspiracy, led by the anti-Christ Bush and his sidekick Darth Vader Cheney, to listen in on the phone calls of U.S. citizens.

B) Nearly 300 congressional representatives have heard from plenty of their constituents who want this bill passed.

c) Nearly 300 congressional representatives are simply uninformed.

I have a hunch that the correct answer is B.

Darn it... you provided the correct answer at the end.. ;) Just destroys a multiple choice question :o :D
--
da Cajun Darn I hate Malware

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:28:46 EDT

FiOS Dan : The New York Times
June 21, 2008
----------------------------------------------
The bill cleared the House by 293 to 129, with near-unanimous support from Republicans and substantial backing from Democrats.

Pete--let's play mutliple choice. Why do you think the bill has such widespread support?

A) Nearly 300 congressional representatives are part of a vast conspiracy, led by the anti-Christ Bush and his sidekick Darth Vader Cheney, to listen in on the phone calls of U.S. citizens.

B) Nearly 300 congressional representatives have heard from plenty of their constituents who want this bill passed.

c) Nearly 300 congressional representatives are simply uninformed.

I have a hunch that the correct answer is B.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:01:53 EDT

spy1 : »www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372501,00.html

"Senate Postpones Vote on Controversial Surveillance Bill

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday put off voting on controversial electronic surveillance legislation, in spite of what appeared to be overwhelming support for the bill.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and more than a dozen other senators who oppose telecom immunity threw up procedural delays that threatened to force the Senate into a midnight or weekend session. The prospect of further delays was enough to cause Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to postpone the vote until after the weeklong July 4 vacation.

The bill provides legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap American phone and computer lines without court permission after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

It also makes it easier for the government to tap the calls and e-mails of terrorists. Its detractors contend that it does not protect Americans' privacy rights while its champions argue that it strikes the right balance between civil liberties and security. The bill passed the House with a strong majority last week.

Feingold and other critics of the legislation say civil lawsuits are the only way the country will learn the extent of the Bush administration's nearly six years of warrantless wiretapping. The surveillance took place without the permission or knowledge of the secret court Congress created 30 years ago to handle such activities.

The bill amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act represents a compromise. In exchange for telecom immunity, the inspectors general of the Pentagon, Justice Department and intelligence agencies will investigate the wiretapping program.

The attorney general and national intelligence director on Thursday said President Bush would veto the bill if the immunity provisions were stripped from it."

=================================

What this means, basically, is that this is simply put off again. What those in favor of telecom immunity are hoping for is that we're all going to get tired of hearing about it and that we'll fail to contact our Senators yet again when this comes back up.

I can guarantee you that if our Senators don't hear from us again after the 4th, telecom immunity will sail right on through.

Thank God for men of principle like Feingold and the others who support his efforts.

And my personal thanks to each and every one of you who've responded each and every time it's been needed. Thank you. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:23:47 EDT

spy1 : »rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_FI···619.html

Watch the video if you have some time this weekend. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:06:58 EDT

spy1 : As usual, Sen. Russ Feingold said it best:

»rawstory.com/news/2008/Feingold_···619.html

"Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who has been among the most vocal critics of the administration's apparent disdain for the Constitution, called the latest deal "a capitulation."

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:53:04 EDT

anon : Train forget it!. That train doesn't stop for the American people at u.s.a junction. It only makes stops at corporations,banks and lobby offices,But it doesn't stop for the public. And get this,It's never going to stop for you and me never.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:39:12 EDT

CajunTek :

said by spy1 :

This could still be stopped in the Senate if enough people rear up and CONTACT by PHONE their Senators (both of them).

Contact links above will get you their numbers.

Last chance to derail the train, people. Pete

I contacted my senator... She's voting for it...
--
da Cajun Darn I hate Malware

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:38:15 EDT

spy1 : This could still be stopped in the Senate if enough people rear up and CONTACT by PHONE their Senators (both of them).

Contact links above will get you their numbers.

Last chance to derail the train, people. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:11:02 EDT

SUMware :

said by EGeezer :

it's clear that both political sides of the ruling government are embracing the opportunity to seize and exercise more and more power over the governed. Those who screamed for replacement of one party in congress with another are now finding that the power grab is bipartisan.

Completely agree. It's my impression that the democrats are insidiously promulgating an adopted 'image' of weakness and capitulation to cover for their republican inspired, and fully intended, authoritarian power grabs. And to hell with the rule of law, the Constitution, and US citizens' rights.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:07:43 EDT

EGeezer :

said by O Anrai :

I've kind of been under the impression that the Security thread is for computer security related issues.

You are partially correct, however the forum is not limited to "computer" security. See the forum header (included above).

The issue of whether one's personal and private information, communications, assets and daily actions are subject to unwarranted search falls well within the topic guideline.

As to being a policy promulgated by "righties" or "lefties", it's clear that both political sides of the ruling government are embracing the opportunity to seize and exercise more and more power over the governed. Those who screamed for replacement of one party in congress with another are now finding that the power grab is bipartisan. the same people who supported the power to be given to the Republican government may soon be decrying its use - or misuse - by a Democratic government. In their knee-jerk support of their trusted favorites, they never stopped to figure what their political opponents might do with it. They had forgotten the concept of "a nation of laws, not of men", and assumed their "men" would always be in charge.

Jefferson and Adams must both be spinning in their graves...

BTW there's a little "hey mods" link at the bottom of every post. Using that, you can send a message directly to the moderator.
--
If dogs travel in space at the speed of light, do they reach their destination in dog-light years?

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 22:08:25 EDT

FiOS Dan :

said by coldmoon :

CNN is reporting the bill passed:

Hooray!!! Now it's on to Senate for quick approval. Sleep tight folks, secure in the knowledge that the people you despise so much are nonetheless looking out for your safety as well as mine. GW, pay them no mind.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:24:27 EDT

SUMware :

said by spy1 :

it's all about telecom immunity, past. present and future.

It's all about institutionalizing and protecting American fascism past, present and future.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:42:49 EDT

coldmoon : CNN is reporting the bill passed:

»www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/20/···dex.html

quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House on Friday approved a bipartisan plan to overhaul the nation's wiretapping laws.
President Bush on Friday urges Congress to act quickly on the domestic surveillance legislation.

President Bush on Friday urges Congress to act quickly on the domestic surveillance legislation.

The House vote was 293-129, with 188 Republicans and 105 Democrats voting for it.

One Republican voted against the measure, which now moves to the Senate...

:mad:

Edit: link to the roll call on this: »clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:25:18 EDT

mikenolan7 : It's not looking good. As many here expected, the leadership of the "other" political party has shown no more willingness to prevent warrantless wiretaps than the people pushing this bill. Pelosi has called it a good compromise, neither endorsing or coming out against the bill. Obama is nowhere to be found, keeping tight-lipped on the subject. His campaign is not returning calls with questions related to the bill. Sigh.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:48:32 EDT

spy1 : »www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369492,00.html

"House Prepares to Take Up Terror Surveillance Bill

....Speaking at the White House, Bush called on both the House and Senate to pass the compromise deal that key lawmakers confirmed Thursday and said he believes it is a vital tool for U.S. law enforcement."

...."He noted that the bill would protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating for "past or future cooperation" with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists by following "who they are talking to, what they are saying, what they are planning."

...."The compromise bill would have a federal district court review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit."

.................

There it is, people - straight from the horses' mouth - it's all about telecom immunity, past. present and future. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:57:07 EDT

spy1 : Might be our last chance to stop this, people - please call before it's too late:

»www.eff.org/action/no-false-compromises

»cdt.org/action/snooping/

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:59:12 EDT

spy1 : »www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/re···rantless

Report: Deal to Stop Courts From Ruling on Illegal Warrantless Wiretaps Imminent
Posted by Kurt Opsahl

Today The Hill and Congressional Quarterly are reporting that a deal has been reached on legislation to amend FISA, which will include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Under the guise of a compromise, the legislation is designed to ensure that the only issue the courts will review is whether or not the President told the telecoms that their conduct was legal, but not whether the conduct actually was legal.

Over forty years ago, President Jack Kennedy said "In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger." We are such a generation, facing down an executive branch that has seized incredible power to violate the laws set forth by Congress under a dubious interpretation of the Constitution.

To maintain our core values and the separation of powers that is integral to our Constitutional system of government, we must allow the Courts to review and rule upon the legality of the President's warrantless surveillance program. Such a ruling effects not only the power of the president to order unlawful surveillance, but will speak to any instance in which the executive branch seeks to unilaterally override the will of the people's house.

The most promising hope of a judicial ruling on the authority of the President to order surveillance in violation of the FISA statute remains the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies who collaborated in NSA program. The ACLU's lawsuit directly against the NSA was already thrown out of court (on procedural grounds, not the merits), and the Administration has already asserted sovereign immunity against any case directly against the government. The options for accountability are dwindling.

With this in mind, the Administration is seeking, desperately, to forestall any judicial review and throw the telecom cases out of court. Working with their allies in Congress, and backed by the lobbying might of some the largest and most powerful corporations in the world, it appears that the Administration is on the verge of sweeping a massive violation of the rights of millions of ordinary Americans under the rug.

But it is not too late. According to The Hill:

aides said the deal is not final because negotiators have to vet the language within their respective caucuses. One person familiar with the talks said if there are no major objections, the deal could be announced next week.

You have the opportunity to stand up and defend the fundamental freedoms upon which this country was founded, by calling your representatives and asking them to oppose letting the telecoms off the hook. Any deal is no deal unless the courts can rule on the legality of the warrantless surveillance program. Please call today: »https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?ale···akeACall

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 21 May 2008 08:55:45 EDT

Name Game :

said by fatness :

The problem is that technological advances run so far ahead of public understanding. When the government finds something useful they just implement it, and if explanation is needed then they're the ones defining how it's talked about: "to fight terrorists", or "to fight communists", or "to protect children" or some other catchy idea.

Lots of catchy ideas going around these days.. never laughed so hard in a long time..yes please do write your guy or gal in the legislative branch..

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices

»www.reuters.com/article/topNews/···&sp=true
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
*
A fun/friendly/informative forum for the mature elder crowd
»www.theover50goldengroup.net

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 19 May 2008 21:54:25 EDT

FiOS Dan : One of the most thoughtful and well-reasoned posts I have read in many a year here at BBR Blackbird. I salute you my friend.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 19 May 2008 20:03:01 EDT

whizkid3 : Although I have yet to post in this thread, I for one, have been enjoying this debate of unchecked, unconstitutional infringement of our right to privacy by the US government. Censoring it, because a small minority of readers (one so far) feel the subject is political, is the wrong way to go.

How could the issue of any group spying on your internet traffic - US Government or not - not be related to computer security, O Anrai? If its too political for you, then remember that no one is requiring you to read it - its costing you nothing.

This, unfortunately is one of the major problems with stopping the government from unabashed violations of our privacy - computer privacy included - the lack of concern on the part of the average US citizen.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 19 May 2008 11:05:06 EDT

mikenolan7 : I'm not a mod, but let me take a whack at an explanation. Security is a process. It doesn't begin and end with what you can type on a keyboard. Whether we like it or not, our governments are players in the security of our computers and networks. Therefore the politics of how our governments interact with the internet and our computers are an important security topic.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 19 May 2008 00:54:51 EDT

Its a Secret : This IS about security. The internal security of a nation, and the potential abuse thereof.

It's just been extrapolated. A bit. :D

Welcome to the forum!
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 19 May 2008 00:50:11 EDT

O Anrai : Mod: You want to explain to me, and others, why I'm paying my money to put up with this political BS. I've kind of been under the impression that the Security thread is for computer security related issues. Why are you allowing it to be hijacked? If I want political threads, pro or con, I'll spend my money elsewhere. If you want political threads, right or left, start a new category, and label it right wing BS, or left wing BS, as appropriate.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 23:38:26 EDT

Blackbird :

said by fatness :

The problem is that technological advances run so far ahead of public understanding. When the government finds something useful they just implement it...

Ironically, I think that many times, technological advances run far ahead of even general scientific understanding - and certainly governmental understanding. The tragic history of the early years of the use of radium is a case in point... for a number of years, even scientists had no concept of what it could do (and was doing) to the human body of those handling it.

When advancing technology makes possible a scheme allowing "easy" automatic and covert interception of comm traffic on a broad-scale basis, the spooks certainly see the potential usefulness, the executive branch can be readily convinced (since it makes part of their 'executing' job easier), and a Congressional majority may even sign on because their advisors tell them it could increase national security (which makes re-election easier). But insufficient thought is given at all levels to the ramifications upon the rights of ordinary citizens. And none of which even considers the possible less-than-honorable lust for power/control lurking in the back of the minds of some of the advocates. If the executive branch becomes especially convinced of the 'urgent' need for the scheme (or its potential power)... maybe a way will even be found to avoid entangling Congress too much and 'complicating' the situation with 'needless' approvals or enabling legislation. And if it all eventually does unravel, a crusade will be mounted to get everyone pardoned, exonerated, or even canonized for the poor decisions and choices made earlier. So the flaws in the decision paradigms and the lapses in the exercise of Constitutional discernment go unremedied - and even compound.

It takes time to responsibly deal with new technology in the core specialty areas - and it takes even longer time for general science, government, and the public to come to grips with the implications it may raise for our culture and our governance. But unfortunately, it's time that we increasingly lack. With the half-life of major technological advances seemingly diminishing each year, I can't help wondering where this is all leading us... What I do know is that better education methodologies, reflection and decision processes, and servant-ethics are needed, compared with what we see at work currently.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 22:35:02 EDT

fatness : The problem is that technological advances run so far ahead of public understanding. When the government finds something useful they just implement it, and if explanation is needed then they're the ones defining how it's talked about: "to fight terrorists", or "to fight communists", or "to protect children" or some other catchy idea.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 22:27:03 EDT

Blackbird :

said by fatness :

...What has increased the threat of government-by-secrecy and government intrusion more than anything else is technology. J. Edgar Hoover didn't have the ability to route all telephone communications to the government, or he would have been convincing presidents it had to be done. Today it can be done technologically and consequently it was done. Done illegally, with a government protecting those who allowed them to do it. Done because technology allowed it, and of course our government wanted that information.

I totally agree. Personally, I believe nuclear technology and electronic technology have been the greatest two combined blessings-and-curses of the last 100 years. And genetic technology looms in that same way for our current generation. To have any hope of keeping the malevolence of the curse side of technology even partially contained, outbreaks from it must be confronted and contested at every single turn. And it's why this present retro-immunity issue is so pivotal.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 22:15:44 EDT

fatness :

said by Blackbird :

You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion. But devolving all that has happened into a partisan, political broadside is to ignore the basics of what has been occurring in the US for many, many years at the hands of political leaders of both major parties... and by working members of the legislative, judicial and executive branches.

That's true. And it's something that is obscured by talk from political partisans on both sides, who think the main issue is that their guy or girl wins.

What has increased the threat of government-by-secrecy and government intrusion more than anything else is technology. J. Edgar Hoover didn't have the ability to route all telephone communications to the government, or he would have been convincing presidents it had to be done. Today it can be done technologically and consequently it was done. Done illegally, with a government protecting those who allowed them to do it. Done because technology allowed it, and of course our government wanted that information.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 22:13:28 EDT

Its a Secret : Agreed, well stated. I do believe I've tried (albeit poorly) to say the same thing in previous threads.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 22:10:52 EDT

Blackbird :

said by Its a Secret :

I guess what I was trying to say is, is that over the years it has gotten worse, no matter what party you subscribe to. I have no choice of a party, but of a true leader. And not some damn talking head that says what their advisors say!

The last true leader I remember was JFK...

And I guess what I'm trying to say is that no president of either party, even JFK, is above over-reaching his Constitutional authority. (Bay of Pigs?) That is not to say their objectives were/are necessarily wrong or right... but under a Constitution, there is a legitimate way to get there. What must happen is that such over-reaches be confronted immediately and dealt with, Constitutionally. Else the over-reaches will accumulate and accelerate, 'precedent' will take over, and we will all descend a little further into rule by simple decree and rule by statute-d'jour, Constitution-be-damned.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 21:59:10 EDT

Its a Secret : I guess what I was trying to say is, is that over the years it has gotten worse, no matter what party you subscribe to. I have no choice of a party, but of a true leader. And not some damn talking head that says what their advisors say!

The last true leader I remember was JFK...
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 21:50:22 EDT

Blackbird :

said by Its a Secret :

Sadly, the current president's power to veto law is being abused in a way never done before, by anyone before him. Sadder yet, 'We, the people' have let him get away with it. Nixon was impeached on less. But then again, GW uses the 'terrorist' card a lot...

You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion. But devolving all that has happened into a partisan, political broadside is to ignore the basics of what has been occurring in the US for many, many years at the hands of political leaders of both major parties... and by working members of the legislative, judicial and executive branches. It was a Democrat - Harry Truman - who, in June 1950, personally directed the US into perhaps its first real "undeclared" war (in Korea), under "UN police action" auspices. And it was a Democratic Congress that allowed it - though the Constitution clearly specifies that the nation is to be committed to war through a Congressional declaration of war. We have paid the recurring price for that precedent (and Congress's repeated abbrogation of their responsibilities) in every single military action taken by the US since that date... and, as they say, "the results ain't very pretty".

Both Democrats and Republicans are up to their eyeballs in blurring or ignoring the provisions of the Constitution. If one narrowly focuses wrath on a specific party or politician, they risk missing the sweep of what is (and has been) really going on. Any president is just as capable of grasping for power beyond what the Constitution provides whether he be FDR, Truman, Nixon, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush. And that grasping does not, of itself, necessarily make the man the incarnation of evil... perhaps they simply see it as an efficient way to do the executive job they've been charged with doing. Or perhaps some of them really are evil. Either way, it is up to the other branches of government to hold them to account when they cross that line... and it is up to the citizens to hold all the branches to account to make sure they do that.

I am convinced that if you think these kinds of problems will end (or even lessen) with 'Democrats' in the White House and controlling Congress, you fail to understand the nature of what has been and is going on - and what will continue to go on if we blind ourselves to it because "our guys" are now 'in control'. Our focus as citizens must remain on principles and conformance to Constitutional government, whoever is in power and whatever crisis is at hand. Or else we risk losing far more than our focus...
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 18:55:14 EDT

Its a Secret : Sadly, the current president's power to veto law is being abused in a way never done before, by anyone before him. Sadder yet, 'We, the people' have let him get away with it. Nixon was impeached on less. But then again, GW uses the 'terrorist' card a lot...
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 18 May 2008 18:15:52 EDT

Blackbird :

Whatever these Federal executive orders, findings, interpretations, and opinions may or may not be, they are not laws. At least, Constitutionally, they are not laws. And to buy into that rhetoric is to make worse (by confusion) the mess we've already allowed this land to fall into.

The Constitution of the United States
Article 1, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..."

Article 2, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States..."
Article 2, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... and may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments on any subject..., ...shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons... shall have Power, by and with Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties... shall appoint Ambassadors and other public Ministers and Consuls... and all other Officers of the United States whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for... shall have the power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate..."
Article 2, Section 3: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend... he may on, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them... he shall receive Ambassadors and other Public Ministers, he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
[emphasis added]

Websters Dictionary
legislative adj 1. having the power of legislating 2. of or relating to a legislature
legislate v 1. to make or enact laws 2. to bring about by legislation
legislation n 1. the action of legislating 2. laws made by a legislative body

executive adj 1. designed for or related to carrying out plans or purposes 2. of or relating to the enforcement of laws and the conduct of affairs

The stark difference in Constitutional responsibilities and roles for the Legislative and Executive branches of government ought to be apparent to even the most casual reading.

It strikes me that so many of the current conflicts in the affairs of US government stem from the failure of governmental branches to remain within their Constitutional bounds. Too often, the executive branch is legislating, Congress is executing, and the courts are both legislating and executing. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President tasked, permitted, or encouraged to create law. Where the President must issue executive orders, they necessarily must be subject to the review of Congress and the Courts to establish that the laws (that Congress passes) are being faithfully executed. We are not a monarchy nor a dictatorship -- law should not emanate from the executive. Secrecy from Congress and the Courts regarding laws and their enforcement has no place in this Constitutional Republic.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 19:51:26 EDT

fatness :

The whole thing totally points to a mindset of "I'll have it my way - and if it's inconvenient to defend (illegal) then I'll just "classify" it and remove anyone's power to review it."

And if this Administration is allowed to get by with it, all future Administrations are going to use and expand on it, too.

Those 2 things together are alarming. It may well be a permanent change in the way we're governed.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 15:00:15 EDT

jig : not sure if you mentioned this above, but in addition to classifying current documents when they don't need to, this administration also re-classified a huge amount of past, already released information and sequestered it. information that includes climate research, Bush senior administrative decisions, infrastructure research and repair recommendations... and more.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 14:27:53 EDT

spy1 : Perhaps the most disturbing trend in all of this is the outright contempt in which the government apparently holds the citizens who support it.

Example: "In a Senate hearing that I chaired April 30, the top official in charge of classification policy from 2002 to 2007 testified that classification of this memo showed "either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for" the standards for classification." (Feingold)

Further evidence of this (if any were really necessary) comes from here: »www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/05···gon.html

"SASC REBUFFS PENTAGON SECRECY PROPOSALS

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) rejected several legislative
proposals submitted by the Department of Defense that would have
increased the Department's secrecy authority.

One proposal would have granted the Defense Intelligence Agency an
extension of its "operational files" exemption from the Freedom of
Information Act, which expired at the end of 2007. Such an exemption
would permit the agency to dismiss FOIA requests for certain types of
intelligence records without searching or reviewing the records.

Another proposal would have created new criminal penalties for the
unauthorized disclosure or possession of maps and other geospatial
products that have been marked for Limited Distribution (LIMDIS).

"For several years, products bearing the LIMDIS caveat have wrongfully
been offered for sale to the public through a variety of means from
surplus stores to on-line auctions," the Pentagon said as justification
for the proposal.

"Current protection efforts have been ineffective, at least in part,
because of the lack of effective penalties for unauthorized possession,
sale, and use."

A third proposal would have expanded the government's authority to
withhold certain unclassified homeland security information from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The three proposals, all of which were excluded from the Senate
Committee mark up of the 2009 defense authorization act, were presented
earlier this year in the Pentagon's own draft of the authorization bill
and were described in detail here:

»www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/dod-2009.html "

The whole thing totally points to a mindset of "I'll have it my way - and if it's inconvenient to defend (illegal) then I'll just "classify" it and remove anyone's power to review it."

You have to keep going back to this statement by Feingold to keep this issue in perspective: "No one questions the need for the government to protect information about intelligence sources and methods, troop movements or weapons systems. But there's a big difference between withholding information about military or intelligence operations from the public and withholding the law that governs the executive branch. Keeping the law secret doesn't enhance national security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without oversight or accountability." - because this is the crux of the current problem.

And if this Administration is allowed to get by with it, all future Administrations are going to use and expand on it, too. Just another example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

So - to TRY to draw this thing back to the "FISA" issue - these kinds of things are why we MUST dig in, write/FAX and call our Senators and Reps on the FISA issue (among others).

If we don't this kind of attitude of the government towards its' people will flourish and grow even more.

Does everyone really want to be treated like shit while paying for the privilege (through our tax dollars)?

I would certainly HOPE not. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 08:05:22 EDT

Name Game : The Constitution does not guarantee economic equality..never did..never will. ;) The farce to stop is thinking that it will. Whatever Freedom you think the Patriot Act stopped..is in your mind..your personal economics stopped your freedom..welcome to the welfare state.
That the thing one should be writing his congressman about.

I think you are mistaking Freedom for Liberty..which is what you really have.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ttDUGM-···=related

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 01:21:55 EDT

Its a Secret : Then I guess it's up to the American people to stop the farce, eh? The Patriot Act is intended to stop FREEDOM.

The Constitution does not guarantee equality? :uhh:

Preamble: Statement of purpose

'We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'

The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. What it does, is establish the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended. "We the people", is one of the most-quoted sections of the Constitution. It was thought by Federalists during this time, that there was no need for a bill of rights and they thought that the preamble spelled out the people's rights.

The Bill of Rights

'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···titution

It's time to put up or shut up. Anarchy in the truest sense is what the world requires.
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 00:48:39 EDT

Name Game :

said by Its a Secret :

I'm sorry to see any that anyone would allow a complete denegration of their rights, freedoms, and privacy.

Well it all started when...

"One authority estimated that, in 1930, the government's share of the economic pie was about 12%, it jumped to 22% in 1947 and consumes about 42% today. They further estimated these market share percentages would increase an additional 13% if un-funded regulatory mandates were added. The result is, depending on how it is figured, socialism today is somewhere around half of the economy. Free enterprise is on the wain in America."

»blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopi···eri.html

"The Constitution does not guarantee equality. "

"It seems the debate over the relative merits of the Patriot Act are different than the debate over socialism. The Patriot Act is intended to stop terrorism. That said, the big government socialism creates, like America's Federal Government today, can perpetrate bad laws, prosecute a war against the majority's will and take citizens property."
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
*
A fun/friendly/informative forum for the mature elder crowd
»www.theover50goldengroup.net

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Thu, 15 May 2008 00:33:09 EDT

Its a Secret : I'm sorry to see any that anyone would allow a complete denegration of their rights, freedoms, and privacy.
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 23:39:56 EDT

Name Game : Here is some veto stuff for you..

»www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/washi···.html?hp

If you look under the wrapper of this bill...you will understand why it should be vetoed...but that will not come out for a few days. This one is really going to cost Americans dearly. :(

Here is just part of the Pork..

»councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?J···trl=1389

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 23:14:10 EDT

Name Game : No you did not..you told me what I said.. with your 'country' bait which was not true...then you put some more twists in your line and did not catch a thing you could eat. And now you got two more question..which is it ??? He has both. "absolute control over the Executive Branch and all that is under it..and also the powers given to that Office under the Constitution."

We could go galluping and cut to the chase. ;)

»www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2···ws/4833/

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 23:01:47 EDT

Its a Secret :

said by Name Game :

said by Its a Secret :

So in effect, you saying you believe the president has absolute control over the country, and has to answer to no one? Veto this and that until 'they' get what they want?

I said no such thing, I asked a question. You say my arguement is ambiguous, and yet you say in the preceding paragraph "the President does have absolute control over the Executive Branch and all that is under it..and also the powers given to that Office under the Constitution."

Which is it? Or are you arguing bait for bass?
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 22:48:45 EDT

Name Game :

said by Its a Secret :

So in effect, you saying you believe the president has absolute control over the country, and has to answer to no one? Veto this and that until 'they' get what they want?

No you said that...and now added extra stuff. :D So it appears you do not understand the specific issue of that 30 April hearing muchless listened to it.. Of course the President has Veto power..Congress gave that to the Office of the President. But yes.. the President does have absolute control over the Executive Branch and all that is under it..and also the powers given to that Office under the Constitution.

Where you come up with the President has absolute control over the Country is just as amibiguous as saying the Country has absolute control over their Congressmen..they are elected..they legislate..but seems to me in that last few years..my life has not gotten any better for what 'they' have done..how about you ?

Whatever backroom deals they are doing..sure wish they would come out of the closet and start helping the 'Country' instead of just talking about it. They have virtually shut down any meaningful legislations when they all started campaigning and politicing 2 years ago.. :D

--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
*
A fun/friendly/informative forum for the mature elder crowd
»www.theover50goldengroup.net

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 22:19:38 EDT

Its a Secret : So in effect, you saying you believe the president has absolute control over the country, and has to answer to no one? Veto this and that until 'they' get what they want?
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 22:07:34 EDT

Name Game : Well like it or not...the client for the OLC is just one person..the President of the United States.. they give confidental legal advice. All Opinions from OLC that have been given that results in implentation of actually policy should be known when policy is set..but all the rest should not..The focus of that hearing was on OLC memo's. Democrats there think they should get to read them all.. even if they did not effect policy or a Presidental order and that is just a crock. They are also then trying to prove that they should, before hand, get to read these opinions from the OLC to the Presidents that do effect policy so they can TELL the President how to run his office or what Presidental order he can give..and that is just hillarious to me...so that is infact this secret stuff they think is important to know.

If you actaully look at the video or did see the hearings..it all start at 1:20 minutes into the video. and 1:42 minutes

Bottom line for me..is that when 9/11 happened..no one knew when or if it was really going to be over..or if that was all they had in planning to attack American lives and property.
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
*
A fun/friendly/informative forum for the mature elder crowd
»www.theover50goldengroup.net

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 21:34:21 EDT

fphall : I'm FOR anything that the ACLU is against. :-)

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 20:14:16 EDT

Name Game : Dawn Johnsen: "OLC Has Been Terribly Wrong to Withhold The Content of Much of Its Advice From Congress"

»www.acsblog.org/separation-of-po···ess.html

Good idea to read her entire prepared statment

»judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/08-04-3···mony.pdf

Or see the video that is now available.

»judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3305

--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
*
A fun/friendly/informative forum for the mature elder crowd
»www.theover50goldengroup.net

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 20:10:46 EDT

Name Game : edit..see next post

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 19:53:04 EDT

Its a Secret : Of course, the question begs... if a law is secret, how do you know you're breaking it? Or is this just another case of "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
--
A triple espresso, please...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 16:03:32 EDT

Name Game : In the same thread and in bold ??? :D Reminds me of that
never ending web page

»unlimited.orange.co.uk/flash/go

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 15:37:02 EDT

ross :

said by spy1 :

From this article - »www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-···59.story :

"By Russ Feingold
May 8, 2008
The Bush administration recently announced it will allow select members of Congress to read Justice Department legal opinions about the CIA's controversial detainee interrogation program that have been hidden from Congress until now. But as the administration allows a glimpse of this secret law -- and it is law -- we are left wondering what other laws it is still keeping under lock and key.

It's a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record. But the law in this country includes not just statutes and regulations, which the public can readily access. It also includes binding legal interpretations made by courts and the executive branch. These interpretations are increasingly being withheld from the public and Congress.

Perhaps the most notorious example is the recently released 2003 Justice Department memorandum on torture written by John Yoo. The memorandum was, for a nine-month period in 2003, the law that the administration followed when it came to matters of torture. And that law was essentially a declaration that the administration could ignore the laws passed by Congress.

The content of the memo was deeply troubling, but just as troubling was the fact that this legal opinion was classified and its content kept secret for years. As we now know, the memo should never have been classified because it contains no information that could compromise national security if released. In a Senate hearing that I chaired April 30, the top official in charge of classification policy from 2002 to 2007 testified that classification of this memo showed "either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for" the standards for classification.

The memos on torture policy that have been released or leaked hint at a much bigger body of law about which we know virtually nothing. The Yoo memo was filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to see the light of day, on subjects including the government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization and the government's ability to bypass the 4th Amendment in domestic military operations.

Another body of secret law involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 1978, Congress created the special FISA court to review the government's requests for wiretaps in intelligence investigations, which is -- and should be -- done behind closed doors. But with changes in technology and with this administration's efforts to expand its surveillance powers, the court today is doing more than just reviewing warrant applications. It is issuing important interpretations of FISA that have effectively made new law.

These interpretations deeply affect Americans' privacy rights, and yet Americans don't know about them because they are not allowed to see them. Very few members of Congress have been allowed to see them either. When the Senate recently approved some broad and controversial changes to FISA, almost none of the senators voting on the bill could know what the law currently is.

The code of secrecy also extends to yet another body of law: changes to executive orders. The administration takes the position that a president can "waive" or "modify" a published executive order without any public notice -- simply by not following it. It's every president's prerogative to change an executive order, but doing so without public notice works a secret change in the law. And, because the published order stays on the books, Congress and the public have no idea that it's no longer in effect. We don't know how many of these covert changes have been made by this administration or, for that matter, by past administrations.

No one questions the need for the government to protect information about intelligence sources and methods, troop movements or weapons systems. But there's a big difference between withholding information about military or intelligence operations from the public and withholding the law that governs the executive branch. Keeping the law secret doesn't enhance national security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without oversight or accountability. Even the congressional intelligence committees, which are supposed to oversee the intelligence community, have been denied access to some of these legal opinions.

Congress should pass legislation to require the administration to alert Congress when the law created by Justice Department opinions ignores or even violates the laws passed by Congress, and to require public notice when it is waiving or modifying a published executive order. Congress and the public shouldn't have to wonder whether the executive branch is following the laws that are on the books or some other, secret law.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees."

And from this article: »washingtontimes.com/article/2008···DITORIAL

"Another witness before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution was Dawn Johnsen, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Concerning secret interpretations of not only executive orders but also of laws, she said the central question is:

"May the Office of Legal Counsel issue binding opinions that in essence tell the president and the executive branch that they need not comply with existing laws — and then not share those opinions, and that legal reasoning, with Congress or the American people? ... This combination — the claimed authority not to comply with the law and to do so secretly — is a terrible abuse of powers, without limits and without checks. It clearly is antithetical to our constitutional democracy."

Think we're not already deep into totally lawless government?

You better think again. Pete

GREAT POST! Bears repeating...

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 12:12:24 EDT

Name Game : Charges dropped for 20th alleged 9/11 hijacker

»www.latimes.com/news/printeditio···88.story

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Wed, 14 May 2008 11:56:57 EDT

spy1 : From this article - »www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-···59.story :

"By Russ Feingold
May 8, 2008
The Bush administration recently announced it will allow select members of Congress to read Justice Department legal opinions about the CIA's controversial detainee interrogation program that have been hidden from Congress until now. But as the administration allows a glimpse of this secret law -- and it is law -- we are left wondering what other laws it is still keeping under lock and key.

It's a given in our democracy that laws should be a matter of public record. But the law in this country includes not just statutes and regulations, which the public can readily access. It also includes binding legal interpretations made by courts and the executive branch. These interpretations are increasingly being withheld from the public and Congress.

Perhaps the most notorious example is the recently released 2003 Justice Department memorandum on torture written by John Yoo. The memorandum was, for a nine-month period in 2003, the law that the administration followed when it came to matters of torture. And that law was essentially a declaration that the administration could ignore the laws passed by Congress.

The content of the memo was deeply troubling, but just as troubling was the fact that this legal opinion was classified and its content kept secret for years. As we now know, the memo should never have been classified because it contains no information that could compromise national security if released. In a Senate hearing that I chaired April 30, the top official in charge of classification policy from 2002 to 2007 testified that classification of this memo showed "either profound ignorance of or deep contempt for" the standards for classification.

The memos on torture policy that have been released or leaked hint at a much bigger body of law about which we know virtually nothing. The Yoo memo was filled with references to other Justice Department memos that have yet to see the light of day, on subjects including the government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization and the government's ability to bypass the 4th Amendment in domestic military operations.

Another body of secret law involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 1978, Congress created the special FISA court to review the government's requests for wiretaps in intelligence investigations, which is -- and should be -- done behind closed doors. But with changes in technology and with this administration's efforts to expand its surveillance powers, the court today is doing more than just reviewing warrant applications. It is issuing important interpretations of FISA that have effectively made new law.

These interpretations deeply affect Americans' privacy rights, and yet Americans don't know about them because they are not allowed to see them. Very few members of Congress have been allowed to see them either. When the Senate recently approved some broad and controversial changes to FISA, almost none of the senators voting on the bill could know what the law currently is.

The code of secrecy also extends to yet another body of law: changes to executive orders. The administration takes the position that a president can "waive" or "modify" a published executive order without any public notice -- simply by not following it. It's every president's prerogative to change an executive order, but doing so without public notice works a secret change in the law. And, because the published order stays on the books, Congress and the public have no idea that it's no longer in effect. We don't know how many of these covert changes have been made by this administration or, for that matter, by past administrations.

No one questions the need for the government to protect information about intelligence sources and methods, troop movements or weapons systems. But there's a big difference between withholding information about military or intelligence operations from the public and withholding the law that governs the executive branch. Keeping the law secret doesn't enhance national security, but it does give the government free rein to operate without oversight or accountability. Even the congressional intelligence committees, which are supposed to oversee the intelligence community, have been denied access to some of these legal opinions.

Congress should pass legislation to require the administration to alert Congress when the law created by Justice Department opinions ignores or even violates the laws passed by Congress, and to require public notice when it is waiving or modifying a published executive order. Congress and the public shouldn't have to wonder whether the executive branch is following the laws that are on the books or some other, secret law.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees."

And from this article: »washingtontimes.com/article/2008···DITORIAL

"Another witness before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution was Dawn Johnsen, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Concerning secret interpretations of not only executive orders but also of laws, she said the central question is:

"May the Office of Legal Counsel issue binding opinions that in essence tell the president and the executive branch that they need not comply with existing laws — and then not share those opinions, and that legal reasoning, with Congress or the American people? ... This combination — the claimed authority not to comply with the law and to do so secretly — is a terrible abuse of powers, without limits and without checks. It clearly is antithetical to our constitutional democracy."

Think we're not already deep into totally lawless government?

You better think again. Pete

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 12 May 2008 14:56:51 EDT

Just Basics : "Electronic Border Searches: An Open Letter in Favor of Open Borders" is what your link should read.

I find nothing in the letter that applies only to U.S. citizens. Was this intentionally worded to apply to all Americans as described by Wikipedia:

American may refer to:
* A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere
* A person or attribute of the United States of America
* A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of the Americas

If so, the letter sucks.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Mon, 12 May 2008 13:34:03 EDT

Name Game : Electronic Border Searches: An Open Letter

»www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/···n-letter

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 11 May 2008 09:45:28 EDT

fatness :

said by jester121 :

Mark your calendar for next year at this time and come back to review this thread. I'll lay odds that nothing much will have changed no matter who wins in November, but eventually you won't have GWB to kick around. Then what?

You're exactly right --- nothing is likely to change no matter whom is elected. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It is a government (and corporation) vs. the public issue.

Once the election is over, if a Democrat is elected, those supporting the illegal surveillance by government and telco will break into 2 groups:
* those who no longer support it because "the other guys" are in power
* those who still support it because they favor overwhleming government power
And those opposing it now will break into 2 groups
* those who suddenly support it because "thier guys" are in power
* those who still oppose overwhelming government power

It'll be interesting to see who reverses course and who sticks to their position.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex..

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sun, 11 May 2008 01:45:58 EDT

Mchart :

said by Name Game :

No problem..already scanned the NSA " Big Brother" data base on the SAT Uplink and found it

»i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj13···cave.jpg

Good to see the encryption is working.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 10 May 2008 23:08:42 EDT

mikenolan7 : And now I probably have the copyright sharks on my tail also. But it's like I used to tell my SCUBA students: I don't have to outswim the shark, I only have to outswim you.

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 10 May 2008 23:01:29 EDT

Name Game : No problem..already scanned the NSA " Big Brother" data base on the SAT Uplink and found it

»i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj13···cave.jpg

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 10 May 2008 22:59:13 EDT

mikenolan7 : I hope they won't mind, just this once.

(MV5BMjE1MzA5MDYyMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjc4MzM2._V1._SY400_SX600_.jpg)

Re: Stop the FISA "back-room" deal

Sat, 10 May 2008 22:54:19 EDT

Name Game :

said by mikenolan7 :

They've got some well-equipped caves:

»ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BM···600_.jpg

Not only well equipped..they don't give free tours :(

Referral Denied
You don't have permission to access "ht tp://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjE1MzA5MDYyMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjc4MzM2._V1._SY400_SX600_.jpg" on this server.
Reference #24.c10bb0c.1210474334.2098be32
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
*
A fun/friendly/informative forum for the mature elder crowd
»www.theover50goldengroup.net