Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance

timothy posted about a year ago | from the gotta-know-when-t'-holder dept.

Government 100

coolnumbr12 writes with this IBTimes excerpt: "The Justice Department may soon be forced to reveal a classified document that details unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. The Justice Department has fought to keep the document secret for about a year, but a recent court order demands that they respond to a formal request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation by next week, June 7, 2013."

cancel ×

100 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All hail (4, Interesting)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#43865781)

the EFF !

exit vikingpower

Re:All hail (0, Flamebait)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43865903)

Yes, they're doing a great service. The republican party should be our watchdogs, but since they seem to cry "wolf" at every little thing, especially the starkly irrelevant and overstated, we have to rely on organizations outside the government to do any sort of digging on real problems.

Re:All hail (5, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43865995)

Why would you expect the Republicans to be our watchdogs? They are just as much a part of the problem as the Democrats.

The who rotten mess of post-9/11 needs to be swept away. DHS, TSA, Patriot Act etc.

Re:All hail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866751)

And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?

Re:All hail (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43866801)

Lack of fear?

Re:All hail (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year ago | (#43866811)

And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?

Well, the crystals wouldn't be any LESS effective. Why not?

Re:All hail (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year ago | (#43867071)

How's about the kind of freedom that our forefathers were aiming for? Hell, I'd be satisfied to see the government moving in that direction AT ALL, but unfortunately they're facing the wrong way.

Re:All hail (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | about a year ago | (#43867721)

And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?

Well, yes, that would be a great start. Coffee doesn't keep me awake at night nearly as well as encroaching, overreaching government power.

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868137)

My anti-terrorism rock.

I'll sell it to them for $11 million and they can save all those billions they spent on security theater and still not lose any safety.

Re:All hail (1)

ko7 (1990064) | about a year ago | (#43868865)

"The best part of waking up..."

At least better than a knock at the door at 5am.

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869415)

"The best part of waking up..."

At least better than a knock at the door at 5am.

Since when do they knock?

Re:All hail (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a year ago | (#43869855)

Technically a battering ram is a kind of knock.

Re:All hail (2)

BranMan (29917) | about a year ago | (#43872025)

So the Police/FBI are kind of like opportunity - they only knock once

            BAM!

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871085)

Why would any of it need to be replaced? The world was a much better place before such things existed.

Re:All hail the Tea Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43870839)

So you want to join the Tea Party.
They want to shrink the government. Stop making deals.
Thus they are the primary targets.
Stop spending MY money!
  - After 9/11 my motto: they can kill us here or we can kill them there, I vote there.

Re:All hail (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866001)

You can't seriously expect republicans to be watchdogs over things like this. While they claim to want small government, they simply offer a different kind of big government than democrats; that is, one that starts wars at every opportunity, spies on its citizens, and makes exception after exception for large corporations. Of course, democrats have some things in common with them, but they're both just trash that can't be trusted.

Re:All hail (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43866467)

Yes, they both spend too much.

But Republicans want to spend on wars in foreign countries.
Democrats want to spend on 'helping' Americans.

I don't like either, but since I have to take one, I'll take the latter.

Re:All hail (3, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year ago | (#43866617)

Kinda sad when people cringe at helping other people...

Re:All hail (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43866633)

'helping' isn't always helping.

Re:All hail (4, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43866697)

Most frightening words in the English language, "We're from the government and we're here to help."

Re:All hail (3, Insightful)

Wookact (2804191) | about a year ago | (#43866899)

I wonder if thats what those tornado victims are thinking.

Re:All hail (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43866919)

They kept waiting for the Red Cross.

Re: All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867697)

we've got churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses donating and going there with people and supplies without the government.

Re: All hail (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year ago | (#43872757)

we've got churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses donating and going there with people and supplies without the government.

And yet, you're not turning down the government money?

Re: All hail (2)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#43873075)

So are the churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses going to rebuild all the homes that weren't insured or where the insurance company finds some way to weasel out of their responsibility? Are they going to rebuild all the shattered infrastructure? Any Libertarian that doesn't see a place for government in a disaster is an Anarchist by another name.

Re: All hail (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43877707)

If I have a house and don't insure it and it catches fire and burns down then no one will give me a cent. Why is it that when people don't insure their houses that get caught up in a tornado like this they are entitled to money? If they pay for these peoples losses they should pay for every single motherfucker out there that didn't buy insurance no matter where or how they lost their homes.

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869873)

The most scary words you can hear are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you'
Whenever they're uttered you become a child, complete with all the lack of rights of one.

Breeding dependence is not helping people.

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872579)

Remember this?

"I am from the government and I am here to help."
"Trust me."
"The check is in the mail."
"I won't do that in your mouth."

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867277)

The democrats don't want to help people any more than the republicans do. They both want to remain in power - it's all about control. The republicans use fear of a boogeyman(communism, drugs, terrorism, internet) and the democrats use the nanny state(free healthcare, lifetime welfare,all powerful federal bureaucracy). Both are driving the US towards a cliff.

Re:All hail (1)

Jockle (2934767) | about a year ago | (#43867439)

I don't like either, but since I have to take one, I'll take the latter.

You most certainly do not have to take one.

Re:All hail (4, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#43867835)

But Republicans want to spend on wars in foreign countries.
Democrats want to spend on 'helping' Americans.

Are you fucking joking, trolling or high?

Seriously it has to be one of those options because if anything, Democrats have proven themselves to be as bloodthirsty as Republicans.

And before I get off topic on my rant, do note that the Bush era fuckwad who signed off on GWB's warrantless wiretapping and torture policies, is Obama's pick to head the FBI:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/james-comey-fbi-bush-nsa [guardian.co.uk]

Then what shall we talk about with respect to Obama:
Should it be his war on the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment. His war on whistleblowers? Or just plain old war. Like tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan or conducting war with Libya without any congressional approval (goodbye War Powers Act, that little bit of post Viet Nam sanity designed to get us back to how the constitution says war is to started). Should we talk about how Obama tried to extend the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq beyond the Dec 2011 expiration, failed, and as result pulled out the troops (and you fucking DNC hacks give him credit for ending Iraq when what he did was fail to extend it).

Maybe we should talk about Obama's opposition to the International Treaty to ban cluster bombs.

Maybe we should talk about how aggressively Obama has used the State Secrets Doctrine to shield torturers and those who spy on Americans. Maybe we should talk about why Obama as a candidate railed against NDAA, but recently cajoled Congress to pass it without any modifications, such as general estimate of how many Americans are illegally spied on.

WHATEVER. You fucking Democrat asshats are the biggest bunch of hypocrites around. Your ONLY reason to exist is to normalize the executive power grabs and constitution destroying behavior of the GOP. The entire country would be better off if you collectively had a heart attack and died, because then a real opposition to the GOP could evolve. Your ilk though, you're all talk and all back stabbing.

Democrats: The New GOP. Fresh face, same shit.

Re:All hail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869923)

Democrats want to spend on 'helping' Americans.

Are you fucking joking, trolling or high?

Allow me to enlighten you...

note that the Bush era fuckwad who signed off on GWB's warrantless wiretapping and torture policies, is Obama's pick to head the FBI:

Obama helping an American

tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan

Obama is helping the Americans who were already there by giving them backup.

conducting war with Libya without any congressional approval (goodbye War Powers Act, that little bit of post Viet Nam sanity designed to get us back to how the constitution says war is to started).

He doesn't appear to have suffered any legal consequences for this, so I can't have been illegal. If it weren't illegal, then it clearly wasn't a "war", which would have required congressional assent to do legally.
Just a sunny outing for a few American flyboys.

Obama tried to extend the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq beyond the Dec 2011 expiration, failed, and as result pulled out the troops

Helping Americans by bringing them home.

Obama's opposition to the International Treaty to ban cluster bombs.

Helping Americans who are employed making cluster-bombs.

Obama has used the State Secrets Doctrine to shield torturers and those who spy on Americans

Helping Americans to avoid persecution and media trials.

Re:All hail (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43866081)

you don't really understand politics do you?

Re:All hail (1, Flamebait)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43866137)

Are you kidding me? If there is anyone even more blatant in their support for the secret surveillance police state than the democrats, it would be the republicans.

Re:All hail (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43866507)

This is very true. It seems to go kinda like this:
Republican: National security is at risk, we must curtail civil rights!
Democrat: Hey you can't take people's rights away like that....you have to do it like this...then you can get everything you want AND prosecute anyone who leaks on it
Republican: Ok Deal.
Democrat: Now lets raise taxes to pay for it
Republican: Not so fast, how about we backdoor a tax hike to make it look like something else, and make sure we can shield ourselves and our friends
Democrat: Ok deal.....oh and we can fight about it and suck up all the air time so nobody talks about civil liberties
Republican: Now you are getting it.

Re:All hail (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43866717)

Finally! Someone on slashdot that understands how politics in the US really works.

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867049)

except he\she is clearly wrong because there have been no deals on the hill in...oh, i don't know how many years now.

Re:All hail (4, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43871699)

Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6 [commondreams.org]

Then there is the whole issue of their fake fights. Someone first pointed it out to me a few years back. Chart the minimum wage over time against inflation. You will find that it follows inflation on a long term average. Everyone who watches the issue knows this. However, congress wont just bake it in because, every few years it gives them an excuse to drag it out and beat the drums.

The Republicans beat the "too expensive to do business" drum, and the money flows into their coffers from all manner of group against raising the minimum wage. Employers all over the country are falling all over themselves to throw money at the GOP.

The Democrats beat the "workers are hit hard" drum, and labor unions, and all of their associated groups fall all over themselves to throw money a the Democrats.

Then in the end....they all "grudgingly agree" to do what they all knew was going to happen from the start....and put the issue away for the next few years until they can dust it off and do it all over again.

Thing is, you see it everywhere. Abotion? ever noticed how often anti-abortion laws blatantly violate Roe V Wade? Ever wonder, why professional lawmakers, people who have had time to study the system and work with it, would propose something that they know can't survive? Fact is, the public's opinion of abortion is a near 50/50 split, and hasn't changed in while. Perfect issue for them.

Propose a law, knowing it will never have to be implemented seriously for more than a few weeks. Money starts rolling in to both sides. Law gets passed, law gets struck down, pro-life and pro-choice groups both see a huge windfall.

Then, they take the budget, come up with an agreement, but call it a sequester, really tiny fractional cuts in the increase in discretionary spending, coupled with a small tax hike, thats all it was. They agreed to it, but structured it so they could pretend to disagree and "try to avoid it" for months, then blame each other when it "hit".

But that isn't really how they deal, thats just how they suck up all the air.

For the deals, look at how the PATRIOT act got passed or renewed. Look at how FISA courts got gutted and how the torture program went unprosecuted. They make deals all the time, they just don't talk about those deals.

Re:All hail (1)

nmr_andrew (1997772) | about a year ago | (#43875745)

Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered

I think I just figured out why the US has such a large debt...

Note to humor impaired: no need to mod or respond

Re:All hail (1)

unitron (5733) | about a year ago | (#43869711)

Finally! Someone on slashdot that understands how politics in the US really works.

I regret that I cannot remember to which Slashdotter credit is due, but a few years ago they showed that they understood just fine when they said "The Republicans are the party of evil and the Democrats are the party of stupid."

I added my own corollary about the nature of those things which they get together to do.

Re:All hail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866233)

No political party will ever be our watchdog, they are both too busy stuffing wads of cash down their collective pants and up their asses.

Re:All hail (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43865935)

especially after reading: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware?currentPage=all [wired.com]

Seems like they'll stop at nothing to catch their man, even if it means turning us into a police state.

Re:All hail (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | about a year ago | (#43867031)

Turning us into a police state is the point. Giving themselves the power to do whatever they want without even the slightest hint of oversight. The rest is just a happy side effect for them

Already Slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43865825)

That didn't take long. Anybody got a copy to post?

Re:Already Slashdotted... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43865921)

I think it's inverse-slashdotted. It must've gotten better since you posted this 7 minutes ago. Broken before it makes the main page. Fixed afterwards.

Re:Already Slashdotted... (4, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#43865977)

Anybody got a copy to post?

Sure! [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] by [REDACTED] [REDACTED] suck [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] hamburger [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] turbine [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Joshua Tree [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] feces.

Re:Already Slashdotted... (1)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#43867045)

Too much info. More like

The [REDACTED] is [REDACTED] because [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

Re:Already Slashdotted... (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43867101)

Yo Dawg!

I heard you like [REDACTED] so we [REDACTED] some [REDACTED]in your [REDACTED] so you can [REDACTED].

Re:Already Slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868213)

Hey! I heard that one on the radio!

Re:Already Slashdotted... (4, Informative)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43866047)

Summary: That such a ruling about unconstitutional activity exists is all that's publicly known. The methood of spying was ruled unconstitutional, but has not been revealed.

The EFF is currently suing to force revelation of the unconstitutional method. Next court step: government has until June 7 to respond why it should remain secret.

Note this is separate from the subject or topic of the spying.

Re:Already Slashdotted... (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43866149)

The incident in question was about 20 months ago, and the ruling, as OP says, was about a year ago. Some months back a congressman revealed the ruling existed, but nothing else since the ruling itself was classified.

It was the method of data collection that was important and ruled unconstitutional. Obviously, We The People want to know what the government did, specifically the method of spying that it abused, and not the persons or subject matter.

Re:Already Slashdotted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866271)

Summary: That such a ruling about unconstitutional activity exists is all that's publicly known. The methood of spying was ruled unconstitutional, but has not been revealed.

The EFF is currently suing to force revelation of the unconstitutional method. Next court step: government has until June 7 to respond why it should remain secret.

Note this is separate from the subject or topic of the spying.

Better summary:

There was a decision in a secret case that SOME methods used circumvented the SPIRIT of the constitution. The EFF wants to get the details, the Department has a week to get any objections submitted.

Note that according to the publicly available information, there was not ever a determination that the LETTER of the law was violated, or that the case being referred to actually involved any potentially unconstitutional methods.

Re:Already Slashdotted... (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43866705)

Summary: That such a ruling about unconstitutional activity exists is all that's publicly known. The method of spying was ruled unconstitutional, but has not been revealed.

The other thing that is that the DOJ is fighting to keep the document secret.
They should be fighting to make it public.

Its time to seriously consider moving the DOJ to a different branch of government, perhaps its own branch.

Re:Already Slashdotted... (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#43868807)

Its time to seriously consider moving the DOJ to a different branch of government, perhaps its own branch.

Rename it to the "Dept. of Jocularity". Truth in advertising. Calling that corrupt, power-grabbing, partisan-politicking, Rights-violating, pit of jackboots-in-suits a department of "Justice" is already a bad joke. Also, like stand-up comedians, they both try to "kill" and "slay" their audience. The DoJ audience's change of state is much more permanent and final in nature, however. Just ask Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans after that F&F DoJ gun-gag...oh, wait...

Strat

Site is non-responding (1)

meadwizard (1136767) | about a year ago | (#43865831)

Slashdot'ed already

Working fine for me (1)

bobthesungeek76036 (2697689) | about a year ago | (#43866025)

I'm having no problem bringing up the article...

Slashdotted (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43865931)

Here's a cached version [wikimedia.org]

Thank you EFF (4, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43865955)

The justification for "classifying" information is pretty much lost on people working in government these days. Keep up the good work, EFF! This classification of government crimes against the constitution nonsense has to stop.

Surprised? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43865981)

This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how much blatantly fucked, unconstitutional shit these assclowns manage to get away with... then I remember: bread and circuses.

Fuck.

Re:Surprised? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43867127)

This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.

That makes perfect sense. Who would know better then himself about the crimes he did not commit?

This is not a big deal (1)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#43866027)

Here is the court order:

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/052413-eff.pdf [fas.org]

One possible "response" they could provide is "piss off".

You'll also note the Rule 7(i) Security Clearance information proviso for the EFF counsel; so even if they get to see the information, it doesn't meant that you get to see the information, or that they can subsequently re-disclose.

Re:This is not a big deal (1)

berashith (222128) | about a year ago | (#43866439)

this is the one that i am expecting.

Re:This is not a big deal (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43866957)

If the Feds can leak so can the EFF. Depending on the severity of what the governments been up to (and I'm fairly sure it's far beyond anything we've even thought of) and the amount of it that's actually revealed in this document, I personally would sacrifice my citizenship to let the rest of the world know about it... and I think the EFF is a lot more dedicated than I.

Executive Order...wait for it.... (3, Interesting)

some old guy (674482) | about a year ago | (#43866071)

in 3...2...1...here it comes...

"President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."

Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.

Re:Executive Order...wait for it.... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43869387)

in 3...2...1...here it comes...

"President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."

Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.

My favorite is "Previously Classified Anti-Constitutional Finding Court Document Stout" -- It tastes like freedom, as in beer.
I save the labels. They'll be worth something to historians someday.

RE: Unconstitutional Domestic Spying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43866079)

National security. Nothing to see here.

--DOJ

If only... (4, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#43866155)

If only we had another department. A department that could bring justice to these rogue agencies. We could even have a separate one for each agency. For DoJ, We'd call it "The department of justice justice department". Of course it would only be a matter of time before it became corrupt. That's why it would be overseen by a department of justice justice department justice department. And after that? The Department of Turtles, which is all the way downtown.

Re:If only... (3, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about a year ago | (#43866597)

Actually, what needs to happen is a few senators need to clone Chuck Grassley's spine and attitude. That is what congressional oversight is all about.

Re:If only... (1)

tygt (792974) | about a year ago | (#43866715)

I'd suggest we call it the Bureau of Sabotage [wikipedia.org] . It would help a lot of things out.

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867135)

I believe you mean "intents and purposes". What's in your sig makes no sense.

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867437)

Wow. Just wow. That was the only thing you noticed that was wrong with his sig? Please don't reproduce. Oh, that means "don't have children" since I'm guessing you're too stupid to know big words like "reproduce".

Re:If only... (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a year ago | (#43869887)

Responding to sigs is off topic, but sometimes you see something that is so blatantly wrong that something needs to be said. Or typed, rather.

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872273)

Jeez, another one. Everything in his sig is wrong. Everything. I do believe that is precisely the point of his sig.

Fixing "intensive purposes" doesn't make the rest of the sig make any more sense.

Re:If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872169)

If you're going to critique grammar in your .sig, at least use proper grammar yourself. The phrase is "For all intents and purposes," not "for all intensive purposes."

Re:If only... (1)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#43874849)

Gigantic WOOSH

The IRS is going to audit the EFF . . . (4, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43866335)

. . . "audit", with "extreme prejudice" . . .

redacted (1)

zeroryoko1974 (2634611) | about a year ago | (#43866571)

That document will just be redacted to hell, even if they release it.

What's to stop them from lying? (0)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#43866583)

What's to stop them from lying like Holder apparently did. Just editing out tons of stuff. It's not like they're worried about going to jail.

I am not being cynical.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/28/eric-holder-under-investigation-by-house-judiciary-committee-for-possibly-lying-under-oath/ [firedoglake.com]

We have a serious problem with the integrity of the justice system. It's mainly because of worries about national security. Those worries go directly to a part of the minds of the individuals involved, the decision makers, and interact with inchoate, unconscious, individually-derived, unexamined, unspoken, irrational fears of death, chaos, disorder and loss of control.

What we're getting from this is a lot of law breaking and attempted law breaking on the part of the authorities who are basing decisions on the contents of their own personal unconscious .

Essentially everything, every breach of secrecy, every challenge to the ways and means they've decided upon, in some cases every utterance and especially anyone displaying an attitude of contempt for America is processed as some sort of potential disaster of absolute and unrecoverable proportions and justifies every kind of abuse .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesselyn_Radack#cite_note-Dark_Side.2C_p.97-22 [wikipedia.org]

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/29/imprisoned-cia-torture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-pens-letter-from-loretto/ [firedoglake.com]

9-11 made us lose perspective of a lot of things we need to keep perspective on in order to achieve real security and also to maintain our way of life, e.g. democracy.

One of those things is the fact that people may hate us for perfectly reasonable causes from their perspective because war involves the injection of unfairness by Bad People followed by an attempt to reduce, mitigate and unfortunately redistribute that unfairness. That's the morality of drones. As soon as the extremists in Waziristan decide someone's going to die, our job is to make that dying redistribute to them and unfortunately those close to them, but in any event it's not going to be their intended target. The morality of it is, we didn't decide anyone has to die in the first place- they did.

We have to consciously and collectively decide what we're wiling to put up in terms of terrorism in order to sustain our way of life . We aren't doing that.

The answer can't be "nothing ever gets through" because no one can promise that anyways and only the total corruption of our government lies down that road.

Maybe one day their will be a DIY doomsday technology. When that day comes, and I think it will, we will have to have worked out a way for us to keep ourselves free and keep ourselves safe. In order to have achieved that, we have to start talking publicly about tradeoffs between security and freedom, gotten the unconscious, hysterical motivations out of the collective closet, created a means to know what needs to be known and a means to deliberately not know what doesn't need to be known.

The government is hysterical. More precisely, the people in the government are so afraid of making a mistake , not having turned over the right rock, that they're breaking the law.

I have to add that the insane, vituperative politics which treats every potential national security error as a form of treason plays into this too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/pete-santilli-secret-service_n_3312564.html [huffingtonpost.com]

  No one wants to lose all power because one got through. That is a ridiculous criteria and those who apply it are just using tragedy to wage an extremist political war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/pete-santilli-secret-service_n_3312564.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:What's to stop them from lying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868109)

RACISTS!

Re:What's to stop them from lying? (1)

redneckmother (1664119) | about a year ago | (#43869007)

9-11 made us lose perspective of a lot of things we need to keep perspective on in order to achieve real security and also to maintain our way of life, e.g. democracy.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but the US is (was?) a Constitutional Republic.

Re:What's to stop them from lying? (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#43869861)

You're confusing a literal democracy with Democracy. A democratic republic It's a democratic form of government. It's not majority rule or direct democracy, At any rate the distinction being made is the difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms.

A representative Republic is not a form of lawless despotism.

Re:What's to stop them from lying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43869253)

The "justice" "system" is fucked from head to toe (cue that jackbootlicker westlake coming in to tell us about "the geek" complaining about corruption in the system instead of bending over and taking it in the ass unlubed like a good patriot). It'd be one thing if it was just the federal government, but from county to nation, prosecutors and the cops have been working together to strip everyone of their rights and harass innocent people without fear of reprisal ("ooooooo if I send an innocent person to jail, YOU taxpayers get to pay millions of dollars ooooooo im so scared!")

Likely Results (1)

Artagel (114272) | about a year ago | (#43866699)

I would expect that the EFF will get nothing, or if something, a highly redacted version.

The court will only have any effect as long as the government keeps coming to the court. The court is unlikely to provide a strong disincentive for the government coming to the court by providing the full decision.

After all, its job is not to rat out the government, it is to tell the government what not to do.

Privacy and freedom versus safety (3, Interesting)

turp182 (1020263) | about a year ago | (#43867115)

This could impact national security. It could inform those who would attempt to do us harm about which communications are being monitored and potentially how.

But, this is America. I want privacy and freedom over security.

A man name Franklin once said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly (defining privacy and boundaries).

But the 4th Amendment to the Constitution does a pretty good job and is pretty clear when it comes to the government (Facebook is another story):
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A judge has opined that there have been breaches of the Constitution. We the People, deserve to see the document in question.

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868749)

A man name Franklin once said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Yes Franklin did say that. But it's not true, and he knew it when he said it. Ever since the first families banded together to form tribes people have been trading a little liberty for a little safety and it's worked out well. In fact trading liberty for safety is a pretty good way to describe the entire arc of human history.

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (1)

sysrammer (446839) | about a year ago | (#43869809)

A man name Franklin once said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

Yes Franklin did say that. But it's not true, and he knew it when he said it. Ever since the first families banded together to form tribes people have been trading a little liberty for a little safety and it's worked out well. In fact trading liberty for safety is a pretty good way to describe the entire arc of human history.

Not true? He qualified it with "essential Liberty" and "temporary Safety". Perhaps, without the qualifiers, he knew it to be false statement, but I've never seen anything that would indicate that he didn't believe his own statement.

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (1)

molog (110171) | about a year ago | (#43871309)

Well, since being imprisoned will make you safer, lets throw you in prison. What? You don't want that? Maybe because there are somethings that are more important than being safe? Like maybe being free?

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43871337)

FORCING me to make that trade is not acceptable.

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (1)

MSG (12810) | about a year ago | (#43882105)

I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly

Rights exist, absent government. The U.S. Constitution doesn't create rights, it protects several of them from government infringement.

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about a year ago | (#43883117)

I just wish said government would read the Constitution once in a while and reflect on it before writing legislation (they should also read the legislation before voting...). Very few Federal legislators fulfill their oath regarding upholding and protecting the Constitution. Most legislators, with good intentions, feel that "protection" (the "common defense" and "general Welfare" bits of the preamble) can override other Constitutional protections. This should not be. If there is a conflict it is not Constitutional.

The Supreme Court is also highly complicit in the "bending" and breaking of the Constitution, especially when it comes to the Commerce Clause.

The two party system is very engrained, Ross Perot was the last best non-affiliated Presidential candidate (hugely successful, 19% of the popular vote in 1992, I consider Clinton to have been a very good President, Bush 1 wasn't bad either (he knew not to overthrow Saddam), I have no party affiliation whatsoever). 11 years after Perot ran and here we are, civil liberties are just cows at the slaughterhouse. And no one in either of the two parties really cares. They pay lip service here and again, but it's all just marketing in my opinion.

I do believe their intentions are good. Except for Cheney and Rove, their intentions were very much against the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion.

Sorry for the rant, it's Saturday morning and I don't feel like cleaning the house...

Re:Privacy and freedom versus safety (1)

turp182 (1020263) | about a year ago | (#43883291)

Sorry, but I’m going to spam you a bit more about the two party system. Your post got me thinking and I can’t turn it off. And I really don’t feel like vacuuming

The two parties have a lock on both election funding and ballot eligibility. Both of these are solvable, funding should be pooled and split among registered candidates (and corporations should not be able to contribute a penny, they are not citizens). Private Citizens can do as they wish, as much as I may dislike the idea and the results, but such is freedom. Ballot eligibility at the Federal level needs to be opened up. There should be at least five people at every Presidential Debate. We need a wider set of ideas.

Moving on, eventually the two-party system will fail. Nothing lasts forever. The problem I see is that the cause of the failure may be a critical tipping point that is difficult to come back from.

Economic failure or very high energy prices could cause the two-party system to fail, but those who end up in power could be worse than the current crop. Given the massive Federal debt, austerity could hit the US, causing the two-party system to splinter, but again, the new leaders may be worse than expected. In any of these scenarios those in power would be left with a very bad situation to deal with. Leadership during a bad, unrelenting storm is not something I would envy.

Revolution, such as another Civil War, is a real possibility in my opinion. Any of the previously mentioned scenarios could result in such a situation. That’s my greatest fear. I have young children and I wish a good future for them, but as my mother used to say, wish in one hand, shit in the other.

The Constitution is an incredible document, the most relevant document since its creation. But, in these times, the original writers would be political pariahs; they would be sidelined and irrelevant.

I hate to say it, but I am not hopeful for the future. I try to do the best for those around me, but the powers that be continue move in the wrong direction, again, my opinion.

As I type I’m sitting outside, watching my cat clean his fur and listening to the birds singing all around. My cat is my property, but he lives a good life (spoil the cat, save the rod for the children). The birds however live in a world of total freedom (ignoring human ecosystem destruction, the birds go with the flow), one where security is defined by ability and life and death are just the result of their abilities.

Anyway, the vacuum is calling and my time is getting short, my wife will be awake shortly

And I feel empowered by the Constitution and will post this as a member of the Slashdot community, not a coward.

"Department of Justice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43867503)

Was the name supposed to be Orwellian or did that come later?

DoJ will just ignore it. Again. (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#43867959)

Because there are no consequences for ignoring such an order, and our government officials are never held accountable for criminal acts while in office, they will simply just ignore this order like they have ignored the last several.

Reserve A GITMO Cell For Holder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43868663)

Holder is THE enemy combatant and needs to be rendered to a torture cell in Syria, then sent to a suite at GITMO for infinite detainment.

And when he is the sole inmate throw away key and carpet bomb to whole thing to hell. :)

Or else ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43870141)

... demands that they respond ...

Or what? The judge can't throw the department of Justice in jail. At best it's the GW Bush's Whitehouse leaks all over again: Some minor clerk takes the blame and everyone tells the same lies as before.

NOBODY WORRY!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43872183)

The document will mysteriously disappear in the event they fail to block its release...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>