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!

Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over FISA Surveillance Documents

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the let-me-take-a-look-at-those dept.

Government 184

itwbennett (1594911) writes "In a victory for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is suing to make the DOJ release information about surveillance on U.S. citizens, a California judge on Friday ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review. The judge said the agency failed to justify keeping the documents secret and she will decide whether the documents, including one opinion and four orders by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), were improperly withheld from the public."

cancel ×

184 comments

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

winar!111 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243241)

We won

It's gonna be a long war (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243541)

We may have won the battle, but the war is still yet to be won.

damn homosexual gay babies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243245)

gaying up the place..

Papers to be "lost" in (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 4 months ago | (#47243273)

....3....2...1....GONE!

So? (0, Troll)

edibobb (113989) | about 4 months ago | (#47243279)

Why would the DOJ obey a court order? The executive branch has been above the constitution since 2000.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 months ago | (#47243299)

The executive branch has thought itself above the constitution since 1789

Fixed it for you.

(If you want to cut Washington a break you could say 1801. Jefferson thought the Louisiana purchase unconstitutional but did it anyway, perhaps the first "the ends justify the means" rationalization used by an American President. Then of course we have 1861 and Abe's questionable activities during the American Civil War)

Re:So? (4, Informative)

TWX (665546) | about 4 months ago | (#47243519)

Actually I'd chock one up to Andrew Jackson, who marched tens of thousands of indigenous people from their tribal areas in the southern US to what's now Oklahoma, directly against court-order, in what's now known as the Trail of Tears.

Fact of the matter is, unless two branches gang-up on the third, it's not really, truly going to be illegal. Right now there aren't enough people in the legislative branch and the judicial branch to truly oppose the executive branch, especially in the post-2001 era when the executive branch was given latitude by both others.

OCA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243285)

I hope she understands what she'll compromise if she releases them, but I doubt it. There's a reason there are very few Original Classification Authorities [whitehouse.gov] , and why it's at such a high level of approval to designate something as classified. Here [fas.org] are the instructions for intelligence information. However, to understand how some information in a document will disclose classified information, you have to understand what information contained in it or revealed by it (e.g. by omission) is classified, and who has the authority to determine that. If she has not studied the subject in detail, which is likely, she runs a high risk of compromising information she is unaware is sensitive.

Re:OCA (4, Insightful)

Jiro (131519) | about 4 months ago | (#47243291)

That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.

Re:OCA (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47243747)

Of course the flip side of that is the assumption that many people here make which is that there is nothing that is genuinely sensitive and damaging to release.

Re:OCA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244323)

Of course the flip side of that is the assumption that many people here make which is that there is nothing that is genuinely sensitive and damaging to release.

No, the assumption is that the damage is preferable compared to dismantling the democratic structure the nation is founded on.
Also, I don't trust you to make the judgment on what is sensitive or not. That you have made the call that I can't see the information clearly indicates that I can't trust you.

Re:OCA (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47244543)

You are suggesting that having any confidential information in a democracy is anti-democratic. That is clearly nonsense.

Re:OCA (2)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about 4 months ago | (#47243835)

That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.

"You can't handle the truth!" That's the thinking by political insiders and goes a long way to explain why so-called "whistle-blowers" are dealt with so harshly.

Once the public sees the extent classified status is used to cover up government malfeasance rather than issues of national security they become informed voters, and then they might vote in their own self-interest.

You can't handle the truth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244303)

"You can't handle the truth!"

Although some of us have had little experience and thus are currently not really equipped to "handle the truth" (in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy), most of us are intelligent enough to deal with it.

The problem is that quite a bit of that "can't handle the truth" / "classified material" might influence people to rethink, among other things, whom they will vote for next time, and thats not something the powers-that-be are willing to risk.

Ofcourse, much of that above "can't handle the truth" / "classified material" is just there to keep some embarishment or encounters with the Law of one of the powers-that-be outof the eyes of the voters.

In short: most of those powers-that-be are more than willing to violate the principle of accountability (without which any organisation is prone to corruption) for nothing more than a short-term, personal gain.

As far as I can see its the result of internal (gouvermental) rot that allowed the "classified material" invocation bar to be dropped time-and-again, resulting in it now almost touching the ground.

Caveat:
Some of the "classified material" has been designated as such for good reason. For example, when negotiating deals for your country you do not want the opposing party to be able to look into all of your cards ...

Re:OCA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243311)

Fuck off and die, apologist. After all the corruption we've seen revealed in the US military-industrial-espionage complex, the only thing that really needs to be kept secret is nuclear launch codes. Everything else should be leaked, as it would pose no existential threat to the US, we are in no danger of invasion.

Even the death of a few agents in the field, the usual danger that scaremongers bring up, would be worth it if it struck a blow to the steady establishment of a police state.

Re:OCA (4, Insightful)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about 4 months ago | (#47243403)

Let's also keep the nuclear assembly instructions secret... but yeah, classifying stuff should be opt-in (and hard to do), not opt-out.

Re:OCA (1, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about 4 months ago | (#47243581)

Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.

Re:OCA (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 4 months ago | (#47243653)

Anyone who hasn't figured out how a regular nuclear weapon works is an idiot. Its surprisingly crude.
You just need the time, money and material.

The CNWDI classification covers a great deal more than just "How do I read 'The Curve Of Binding Energy' and apply some fairly basic college level math to calculate neutron numbers for a given fissile material?"..

Re:OCA (1)

mehtars (655511) | about 4 months ago | (#47243667)

Actually there is a lot to the geometry of creating the right explosions around a fissile material in order to compress the enriched core to become super critical.

In addition, the more difficult aspect is purifying the uranium and/or getting enough fissile material.

Re:OCA (2)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47243763)

Or you can just not opt into pointless farting around with the exacting stuff, and make a gun-type fission weapon on the general principle of the Hiroshima weapon. The principle and the level of engineering required are both so dead simple foolproof that you can skip the proof testing.

A gun-type weapon will even work fine without an initiator if you pay enough attention to the combined bullet and target staying together for the fraction of a second necessary for spontaneous neutron emission to do the job.

It is considered that a gun-type will not work with plutonium because of pre-ignition before the bullet and target are fully assembled. What I have never seen is an analysis of likely explosive yield given pre-ignition. An explosion of only 1-10% of maximum theoretical would still do one hell of a lot of damage. Also, a "dirty bomb" with comparatively slight explosive effect might float the boat of a terrorist. It most certainly would ruin the day of a city.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243957)

Actually there is a lot to the geometry of creating the right explosions around a fissile material in order to compress the enriched core to become super critical.

70 years later, this stuff is still top secret.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244007)

70 years later, this stuff is still top secret.

As it should be. (And from this layman's reading of public sources, both posters are more-or-less correct, but that's a matter of engineering, not law.) This is about law, not engineering.

Knowing what's in those FISA documents doesn't enable foreign dictators to impose surveillance on their respective populations, nor will it help them to impose surveillance on Americans.

Knowing what's in those documents might result in our IC reforming itself to be in compliance with the law. If it doesn't, it might motivate constituents to vote for representatives who would change the law to better reflect the will of the people. If you still believe in representative democracy, that's a good thing.

And if you reject representative democracy in the nihilistic (but supported by all observable evidence :) that everyone on the Hill ultimately works for the corporations and not the voters, I would remind you that those corporations make campaign donations too. Google beat MPAA when it came to delaying SOPA. The tech industry is at a point where it can outbid the entertainment industry, and it may eventually reach a point where it can outbid the security/surveillance industry too.

Re:OCA (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 4 months ago | (#47244429)

Not really. You mention uranium and uranium can be used to make an uncomplicated bomb: essentially take a very strong pipe, place 1/2 of the uranium in one end of the pipe and the rest in the other end. Then place explosives behind the uranium blocks and seal the pipe.

This kind of weapon is primitive and not as efficient as the implosion type device but it works, is very simple to construct. Yes it is a bit more complicated than written above to reach a reliable state.

But even doing a implosion type device shouldn't be a problem for a skilled group of people.

OCA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243317)

All three branches of government along with the intelligence agencies have proven that they cannot be trusted to hide behind the shield of 'classified information'.

Our rights are rapidly vanishing and a police state is being erected. It has become a competition between each newly elected or appointed set of government to see how they can break more laws than the last guys. It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using government to find new ways to control you, spy on you, rob you and imprison you.

If ever there was a time to push for the 'classified information' curtain to be torn down, that time is now. Information is being kept secret not for national security reasons, but to make it harder to expose overreach and lawlessness by our own government.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243327)

Posts like this almost make me want to create an account so that perhaps I can upvote.

Re:OCA (4, Interesting)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 4 months ago | (#47243473)

The only upvote that really matters is the one at the ballot box. Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted--it would still be a marvelous statement if droves of citizens started voting third party.

Also, pardon my somewhat US-centric answer.

Re:OCA (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243641)

Ballot box? You mean that box where you may choose whether you want the one person from the party, the other person from the party or whether you vote for someone else, i.e. you don't care whether it's going to be the one or the other person from the party?

Third party voting is failing for the same reason consumer boycotts fail. It's near impossible to organize enough people to actually get something done unless you have lots and lots of money available. And then, you're more likely to be interested in supporting the status quo than change it.

Re:OCA (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 4 months ago | (#47243779)

Yep. That's what I meant by "Even though Lessig is right--by the time the candidate is on the ballot the candidate is already corrupted..."

You should look up Lessig's project. Or just continue doing nothing while complaining that people are doing nothing.

Re:OCA (-1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47243439)

It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using government to find new ways to control you, spy on you, rob you and imprison you.

You seem to be overlooking ideology. There are plenty of people that want to reshape society, make choices for you, and control you, all based on ideology. There are poor ideologues just as there are rich ones, don't lose sight of that.

The people very seldom have much to do with "people's committees" on X.

Re:OCA (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 4 months ago | (#47243495)

In the end it's all about money. The poor ideologues end up living in mansions once they win and take control. The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.

Re:OCA (1, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 months ago | (#47243505)

The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.

This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling. I get why they want to have more money than they could ever spend, but at a certain point, it becomes self destructive to continue to accumulate wealth beyond even that.

Re:OCA (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 4 months ago | (#47243513)

Those in power have convinced themselves that they can squash a revolt or prevent one from even happening. With the ubiquitous surveillance and militarized local police forces, they may be right.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243579)

Nah, the problem is the poor are starving, but instead of going after the rich, they go after EACH OTHER. People in poor communities are offing each other left and right, yet they hardly ever kill rich or even middle class citizens. Maybe if the poor came together and fought against "the man" something would be accomplished, but now there's way too much in-fighting (between gangs, races, districts, etc.) that nothing will ever get accomplished and the rich will only keep getting richer.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243599)

You're either a troll or confused. Poor people killing middle class or rich people is only going to create more poor people, not bring riches to them.

Re:OCA (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243659)

But it would also create fewer rich people.

Re:OCA (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47243693)

Probably not. The rich people would simply change.

Re:OCA (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47243919)

So the poor people WOULD improve their chances of advancing by killing rich people.

Re:OCA (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47244063)

No. They would have to do something actually useful to advance their chances of becoming rich.

Re:OCA (1)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47244169)

So then, where would those other people that become the rich come from?

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243705)

But if everyone is poor, then everyone is also rich, amirite?

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243777)

No, you aren't right. Self-medicated, maybe, but not right.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243679)

Nah, the problem is the poor are starving, but instead of going after the rich, they go after EACH OTHER.

I'm going to call BS on this one. If the poor were actually starving, the problem would be self-solving in about 45-61 days, with the top end being if they were in excellent physical condition the day before they started starving.

Re:OCA (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 4 months ago | (#47243809)

I don't think that "starving" has to be literal. We are more in a state of Bread and Circus, but people are getting to the point that they can't afford to go to the circus, and they are now living on that half a loaf of bread that was better than none at all.

Re:OCA (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243651)

There is a limit to this. For reference, see Iran 1979.

The Iran in 1979 was a police state if there ever was one. Ubiquitous secret police, extreme suppression of dissenters, the fourth largest military on the planet (all thanks to us, btw).

And then the students hit the roads by the millions. Interviews with them later revealed that they well expected to die that day. And they were not the religious jihadist kind, that came later, they were simply fed up with the regime to the point where their stance towards the Shah was "you or me. At the end of this day, one of us is gone. Either is fine by me, but that's how it will be".

The military pretty much noticed that. What do you want to do? What are you going to do after the 30 bullets in your rifle are shot? Sure, your kill/death ratio will be 30:1.

The problem is: the 1 is you. And no respawn.

Re:OCA (1, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47243815)

Religious extremists were present in Iran the whole time. The Shah helped keep them in check. They were part of the revolution.

Even though I doubt it is really your bag, you should really look into the Soviet Union in the 30s, and maybe a few other times/places I could name. Compared to them the Shah was a piker. I think it likely that your assessment of the Shah and his regime isn't based so much on the actual scope of brutality but on the fact that he was allied with the US.

There is an old saying you should take to heart: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244253)

The military pretty much noticed that. What do you want to do? What are you going to do after the 30 bullets in your rifle are shot?

Stock up. Combat vehicles are given to police all over the country. Secret internment camps are being erected. We are talking about the leading military-industrial complex here. There will be enough bullets for everyone.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244399)

They will have to feed the families of the soldiers also. That means feeding the food producers supplying the soldiers, and their families. And the people who distribute the food, and their families. They will fail. Soldiers can't work without support isnside a hostile territory filled with guns. No matter how much tanks or helicopters you have all cities will be denied from you. You could maybe starve a city to death. But at that point you pretty much have to slaughter the people trying to escape it. I'm almost certain american soldiers won't be willing to mindlessly kill hordes of people on american soil.

Re:OCA (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 4 months ago | (#47243891)

This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling.

I don't think that intelligence is the necessary attribute for acquiring wealth -- instead it is sociopathy. The ultra wealthy are only out for themselves and they don't care about the consequences, even the consequences for other rich people who are going to suffer from the starving people -- they have their private security.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244041)

This is why the wealth disparity that the ultra rich work towards is so baffling. I get why they want to have more money than they could ever spend, but at a certain point, it becomes self destructive to continue to accumulate wealth beyond even that.

When you beat a game on your computer, do you play it forever, or do you download something else and play that instead?

After you've beaten Monopoly and have all the money you could spend in a lifetime, Diplomacy [wikipedia.org] starts looking like fun.

Re: OCA (1)

chill (34294) | about 4 months ago | (#47244295)

Think of it like nuclear fusion. Once you get critical mass it is a self-sustaining reaction. Einstein is credited with once calling compound interest the most powerful force. Once you get past the hump of earning more than you spend, short of a catastrophe you're just going to get richer. It is the nature of capitalism. Marx and Engals knew this.

The trick is getting to that point. Most people don't make it because when they make more they immediately spend more.

It isn't baffling one you realise it is the nature of the system and doesn't require the rich to do anything.

Re:OCA (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47243577)

In the end it's all about money.

Don't be ridiculous, it is about power. Power over other people, power to do what you will. Wealth may or not follow power.

The smart ones realize they can't take all the money because starving people are dangerous.

The ruthless ones realize that starving people die [youtube.com] , sometimes by the millions.

Re:OCA (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#47243583)

Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed. They are not spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars, and they are not out generating propaganda so that they can send the rich kids off to die in a war for profit.

Sure, there are people in every society that will take advantage of others for gain. We are supposed to have laws protecting us universally from that happening, yet today if you are rich you can take billions and walk but if you are poor and sell a joint you are doing 1-5 years.

So yeah, the ideologies are always going to be around. Those ideologies have been around since our earliest political writings (read Plato's "The Republic"). This is why we (you included) should be fighting to clean up the corruption, end the monopolization of media, and break up the financial cartels.

Re:OCA (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 4 months ago | (#47243697)

Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society.

Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants; if we include video games, we'd all be stealing card at gunpoint, and if we included TV in general, we'd have massive comedy in the streets every Thursday night, followed by cartoon moralizing Saturday afternoon. It's anyone's guess what would happen after each Ellen Degeneris show; perhaps we'd also all go down to Orchard Supply Hardware, buy tiki torches, and vote someone out of the city.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244075)

Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society,

So why does it work so well?

Why most of Americans equate "Marxist" with the devil but have no fucking clue what Marxism even is or is not? I guess it works so well you don't even know you are indoctrinated.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244081)

Maybe you don't realize the extent of your indoctrination? Marxists killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century. That might have something to do with their reputation.

Mod parent down (1)

amaurea (2900163) | about 4 months ago | (#47244385)

In 1983, the US Army Institute for Professional Development considered TV and Radio to be the second and third most effective means of propaganda [psywarrior.com] after face-to-face interaction. (Nowadays internet and social media would probably be high on the list too.)

What did you check to determine that TV is a "piss-poor way to attempt to shape society"? Did you look at yourself and go "I don't feel like I've had my opinions or feelings manipulated by TV, so it clearly doesn't work"? Many (most) people don't think they are affected by advertising either, yet advertising is so profitable that it is almost everywhere. Our minds have known vulnerabilities in the form of appeal to emotion, subconcious association of unrelated things, etc, [buysellads.com] , and of course these are being exploited. Sadly, we can't fix these vulnerabilities like we can with software, but at least it helps to be aware of the ways we're being influenced.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244521)

Last I checked, TV and Radio shows were a piss-poor way to attempt to shape society, or we'd all be Limbaugh/Cobert.Stewart sycophants

TV/radio are not so good at imposing specific extremist opinions. They are good at imposing issues.

Notice the attention paid in the US to drone strikes and school shootings, and compare with basketball, Benghazi, or anything to do with a Kardashian. Mass media gets to pick what people talk about.

Their influence over the direction of that conversation is more subtle, again largely dependent on selective not-talking-about. By telling only one side of a controversy. Detail the terrorists killed in drone attacks, but "collateral damage" with only that phrase (if at all). Contrast the kookiest extremist from 'the other side' with a bunch of moderates from their own side. Media control is about subtle manipulation, which is exactly what makes Colbert and Limbaugh such great comedians: their bluntness mocks propaganda machines.

Re:OCA (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47243723)

Last I checked, poor people don't have monopolies on TV and Radio shows so so they can attempt to shape society. They don't influence tax code to give themselves more money and screw over those rich guys. They are not paying lobbyists to get favorable laws passed.

Does the ACLU have a minimum income requirement for membership? What about the NRA? The AARP? The Teamsters? The NEA? The Democrats & Republicans? I seem to recall that all of those groups, and many more, all try to influence the laws and regulations that are passed, how they are executed, and the political process in general. They are all made of up many ordinary people that volunteer time and money.

You aren't trying to claim that you have never heard of a law that was the result of a crusade by one ordinary but determined person, are you?

If you are rich and you steal billions you can be sentenced to jail for 150 years like Bernie Madoff, and if you smoke a joint you can walk like in Colorado and a growing number of places.

When did "the rich" develop a monopoly on TV and radio stations? Are you confusing "the rich" with corporations? Is there some group or segment of the population that you think doesn't have at least some radio stations catering to it? Given some of the marginal crank views I hear flipping through the dial that would seem to be some pretty rarified segment.

Who are the rich people that you are apparently claiming are "spending billions of dollars in foreign countries to start civil wars"?

Given the totality of the views that you have expressed, I'm not sure that I'm convinced you are against corruption as a general principle so much as you are against your own government.

Political ideologues aren't simply "always going to be around." Some of them are dangerous and need to be guarded against.

Re:OCA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243917)

Every time I read one of these posts I think to myself "Wow. This guy is so out of touch with reality....", finally glancing over the poster's username and letting out a sigh of relief, "oh, it's just cold fjord".

Re:OCA (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 4 months ago | (#47244067)

Feel free to point out the facts I get wrong, if any, or make an argument. Till then you aren't really proving your views are in touch with "reality," just that you have a supply of snark. That post you made is a waste.

Re:OCA (3, Interesting)

Sique (173459) | about 4 months ago | (#47244135)

The most successful ideology so far is that you shouldn't take money from the rich, because if everyone works hard, he will be rich once, and then his own money is taken, right? This mantra has allowed the wealthy 1% to have an electorate that mostly votes for the one-percent-interest, because everyone hopes to be in the 1% sometimes, and thus doesn't want to vote against his prospective future interests. Somehow lost in this is the fact that you will only belong to the 1%, if you get more than 99% of all others, which by definition is not possible for 99% of the population.

Re:OCA (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47244217)

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

John Steinbeck.

Re:OCA (2)

Sique (173459) | about 4 months ago | (#47244369)

That's why John Steinbeck got the Nobel Prize for Literature, and I didn't.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244433)

Well, if people vote against themselves they should be allowed to do so. Yes, I completely agree with the view that's it's bloody stupid to do so, but hey, people smoke, do drugs, drink alcohol, stay in abusive relationships and jump out of planes with nothing but some piece of silk tied to their backs. Maybe they think it's better to have dreams of becoming rich instead of having better healthcare, roads, public services and better chances to actually become rich or at least well off. Yuou can't cure stupid.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244475)

Now for a redacted version of that post:

XXX
Our XXX is being erected. It has become XXX than the last guys. It's not a democrat or a republican thing, it's a wealthy-and-powerful thing. The wealthy and powerful are using XXX new ways to XXX you, XXX.

If ever there was a time to XXX to be torn down, that time is now. XXX is being kept secret XXX, but to make it harder to expose XXX.

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243381)

It is the court's job to determine if the executive branch is right or wrong, and to reign it in if it's wrong. That's what the checks and balances are all about, as long as they actually follow the rule of law and proper procedure and discretion.

Re:OCA (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47243805)

And how many military divisions has the judicial branch? (apologies to Stalin) And the same question can be applied to the legislative branch.

Enforcement is assigned to the executive branch.

So yes, judicial can determine who has gone off the rails where, and it can find them in violation, but it can't send the police to arrest them.

Re:OCA (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about 4 months ago | (#47243543)

I believe that you are grossly and intentionally ignoring how and why documents have been classified historically by the US Government and its agencies. This is not something new, unfortunately the abuse goes back at least to the 1960s. COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird are just two examples where systems were abused for political gain and oppression. Those two are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but the easiest to find information about.

That said, this judge could agree with the Government that there is a secret to be kept. Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting. The judge may release portions of the documents they feel safe, or the whole, or none.

The false claim being made by government agencies and FISA courts is that they can't reveal _anything_ for security reasons. Even when discussing terrorist activity this can be easily displayed with redacted information. You are either falling for the gag, or trying to proliferate it. Either way, shame on you.

More and more people are waking up to the level of corruption we currently have in the USA. Quite frankly, not everyone in politics is on the side of the "insiders" trying to pull all the strings. Pressure is mounting for change and to clean up the corruption, citizens must keep this up until it's actually resolved.

Re:OCA (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47243821)

Your insinuation that a judge is not intelligent enough to make the distinction is both disturbing and disgusting.

It is not for anyone to be disgusted by the low regard in which the people hold ALL the branches of the government. It is for everyone to be disgusted at the actual problem, which is that the entire apparatus is riddled with corruption and arrgogant, contemptuous scheming and violation of the public interest.

Re:OCA (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243635)

Considering the level of corruption within the US administration, I dare say the damage by disclosing them cannot trump the damage done by keeping them secret.

Re:OCA (1)

meerling (1487879) | about 4 months ago | (#47243639)

Probably the only thing she's compromising is the DOJs sense of invulnerability and entitlement to do whatever they Fing want knowing full well that they can claim state secrets to hide anything.

Re:OCA (4, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#47243749)

As people are slowly understanding its a vast pool of people working on "classified" stuff. Much of it is now "classified" to just stop the press, courts, law reformers, other politically active groups from finding embracing details. From over priced failed projects, crimes and the use of contractors, hidden sites, staff- doctors, lawyers who worked at remote sites. The rapid advancement and political protection of people who faced no real background investigations to the use of dual citizens... to a vast illegal telco surveillance network and the tame brands that helped..
"A hidden world, growing beyond control (July 19, 2010) "
http://projects.washingtonpost... [washingtonpost.com]

Re:OCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244239)

I hope she understands what she'll compromise if she releases them, but I doubt it.

Save an apple, lose a tree. The problem is rather what is compromised by installing a secret court for oversight over secret happenings without oversight and then hiding away its reports that what is, in itself, supposed to be under its oversight does not actually bother listening.

What is compromised by releasing this kind of information to the public may not be non-zero but its peanuts against what those secret agents are doing in order to destroy the American Constitution, freedom, Bill of Rights and judicial system.

Hooray. (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 4 months ago | (#47243305)

Now what if the judge gets the documents and indeed agrees that they should remain secret?

Re:Hooray. (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47243347)

Then she returns then and doesn't disclose their contents.

Of course she can use her new found knowlege to make decisions pertaining to the case that will seem arbitrary to the rest of us. But i think the chances of that here are slim.

Re:Hooray. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243393)

So far, this judge has proven to be on the right side of the law, and so far, no sign of being inappropriately swayed by the defense or prosecution. I'd trust if this judge says it should remain secret, there's good reason for it.

In related news (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#47243307)

A Federal Judge was reported missing today.

In related news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243645)

So was Obama. He's probably playing golf on vacation again. At least that means he won't be taking away any more of your rights.

The republic is dead .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243313)

It's obvious the DOJ won't comply with the judge's order. The executive branch has been bingeing on power for way to long and they won't listen to a silly judge. What possible recourse does a judge have ? Hell, what recourse does congress have ? The executive branch has dirt on them all and won't bat an eye to destory them if need be. So yeah, the republic is dead.... -Tyranny for All.

Re:The republic is dead .... (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 4 months ago | (#47243357)

This is nothing new. Andrew Jackson one refused to scoffed at a Supreme Court decision, saying in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion because it had no power to enforce its edict).

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/suprem... [pbs.org]

The Supreme Court has ALWAYS had to rely on the cooperation of the the other branches of government because they have no constitutional mandate to enforce their decisions. It is a clear part of the limitation of the powers of one of the branches of government.

Congress on the other hand does hold the power to impeach the President if they can agree on such. However it has to rise beyond the petty partisanship we have today and get to the point where 2/3 of the Senate will vote for it. If it happened to occur in a partisan manner watch out because then the office of President will become a completely empty shell.

The real danger to the Republic is the factionalism we see today, which was written about by James Madison in the Federalist #10 long ago.

Re:The republic is dead .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243379)

Nixon did alot of schemey shit and got impeached. BIG WHOOP, nothing changed ! Impeachment won't fix the problem. Only a complete overhaul of the executive branch will. Considering how large the executive branch is and how they have the other two branches by the balls, it will take a tremendous sacrifice from congress to enact change (we all know that won't happen). Considering how well versed you are in American History, what recourse do the commoners have ?

Re:The republic is dead .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243389)

Nixon did alot of schemey shit and got impeached.

Nixon was not impeached.

Re:The republic is dead .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243589)

You can't fire me, I quit!

Re:The republic is dead .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243627)

...because then the office of President will become a completely empty shell.

Are you suggesting it isnt already?

Re:The republic is dead .... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47243361)

The judge can order the executive to do something... just like they did with FDR and he said make me while congress openly considered packing the supream court when it ruled against the new deal legislation. Of course the courts expanded the interstate commerce clause in order to head that off and make portion of the new deal appear constitutional.

So i guess we already have the road map for what happens if they ignore the court or congress.

Re:The republic is dead .... (2)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#47243831)

Think of it as a digital, legal Berlin wall 2.0. The US legal system will function in open court and a vast illegal domestic telco surveillance network will be examined.
The other option is legal Berlin wall 2.0 falls into place with color of law been used to stop open courts and protect a large amount of the domestic telco surveillance network and its deep gov connections.
The fun part is as cases move up to the highest courts - sooner or later within a generation some cases will have to be allowed or blocked.
The good news is thanks to whistleblowers and open US courts - further open legal work or a hasty color of law block will be very public.
The big fear is that the color of law efforts win and the legal system becomes optional for a vast section of bureaucrats, technocrats and their favored private sector contractors.
Welcome a legal system under a living document or within a banana republic.

Re:The republic is dead .... (1)

fnj (64210) | about 4 months ago | (#47243843)

What possible recourse does a judge have ? Hell, what recourse does congress have ?

It is true that enforcement does not take orders from judicial. They are constitutionally in executive's pocket.

Better to ask what recourse do The People have? Only the one which no power on earth can take away from them. That recourse which makes the blood run cold in government and people alike. The recourse of rebellion. If the grievances run deep enough, the scum will not succeed in defeating the rebellion when it finally comes.

Better for all if we can turn this around peacefully through grass roots upheaval in the political process.

Knock, Knock, Knock (1)

sasparillascott (1267058) | about 4 months ago | (#47243363)

I think we're getting someone's attention. (Hopefully the judge makes them public)

They will (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243489)

Just as soon as the U.S. Marshals get there to deputize someone, seize, and destroy everything.

the documents, including 1 opinion and 4 orders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243573)

also any documentation of embarrassing indiscretions by said judge that the current surveillance programs can drag up, and the location of a large stash of untraceable money.

She can release all or nothing.

Better summary: (5, Insightful)

MasseKid (1294554) | about 4 months ago | (#47243615)

Stalemate continued, EFF showed some promise, but the DoJ has to 1) actually comply with the order, 2) The judge actually agree on merits, 3) The DoJ not immediately file for an appeal due to matters of national saftey, 4) the DoJ actually give the information to the EFF.

Don't get me wrong, what happened today was good, however calling it a victory is a bit premature.

Re:Better summary: (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243629)

5) The DOJ gives half a shit about any court orders. Or the rest of the country for that matter.

Re:Better summary: (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 months ago | (#47244339)

I'd actually make that point 0).

Time for the next betting pool (3)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#47243623)

Why will the papers be unavailable? My 10 bucks are on "technical error and for some mysterious reasons they're nowhere to be found on backups".

Re:Time for the next betting pool (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 4 months ago | (#47243703)

Have we had State secrets yet? Retroactive immunity? Anything distracting under color of law
State secrets privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Rename the projects and methods, hand the databases over to the GCHQ and Canada.
Do an exhaustive, in depth search in the US and find nothing?
Anything distracting around the world?

Order 66? (0)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#47243687)

That is what I read it as a Star Wars fan/nerd/geek. ;)

In other news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47243721)

On a totally unrelated event, a california judge has been found dead in their chambers, apparent suicide due to angst about going over the DOJ's head.

Clearly a warning to any judges that would think to *gasp* overrule the executive^h^honer branch.

Good Luck With That (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244033)

You, a state judge, are challenging a Federal court?

Hang on, I lost my lungs about halfway through that sentence.

If you don't hand over evidence... (3, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 4 months ago | (#47244431)

... a court should and will assume that the information you didn't hand over would be speaking against you. That is common practice. So if the judge orders the DOJ to hand over documents, it doesn't really matter that much (in the court case) whether they do or don't. If a plaintiff says "they should hand over these documents because it will clearly show that X is true", and they don't hand them over, then the court will assume that X is indeed true.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47244453)

Are we so uncertain as to who the bad guys are? When Dubya was in office it was certainly much easier
to figure out. Now we have to go back to Jackson or FDR or Nixon to find the boogey man? You people
are completely fucked up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?